593
It would hurt this sociopath Bezos a lot more if people also canceled Amazon services en mass
Oh, if only. AWS is fucking huge and dominates.
AWS is pretty far from dominating these days. Ms in particular has eaten up a lot of the cloud marketshare. It is huge but definitely not the overwhelming share that they used to have.
There are alternatives with better APIs. Or, you know, don't buy into the bullshit and rack up a few servers yourself.
Tired of this "oh, but I can't 😢😢😢."
Most people using AWS literally can't switch because most people work for someone else...I don't think corporate really gives a shit if I don't like the cloud platform we use
The "business" people in charge. Aka the people who don't contribute and mostly fuck shit up.
It's on us engineers to fix their shit thinking. You know they won't.
It does not have to be this way. Stop pretending it does so that you don't have to worry about it.
That mentality only works in the "adopting cloud" stage. Vendor lock-in is real, and AWS was doing what it does long before there even were competitors, let alone ones with feature parity.
If you start a job somewhere of any reasonable size with incumbent AWS infrastructure, switching to another provider will be an uphill struggle in the best possible circumstance and in most cases it will be a Sisyphean exercise that'll probably end up with you out of a job before the AWS bill goes down
This is one of the reasons I recommend using any provider that provides you with OpenStack when moving to the cloud.
And go where, Azure? GCP? They're still run by the same club.
The OpenStack website has a list of cloud providers who use OpenStack for their clouds. https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/
Leave the cloud.
He’s no longer the CEO. By your statement, I’m guessing he still has a controlling stake?
He makes the full valuation of the WSJ every few weeks via Amazon stock. It could be assumed, then, that he cares about Amazon’s stock price
The Post could lose all its subscribers and Bezos could still easily cover costs. He isn’t in the newspaper business for the money. He bought it for exactly moments like these. 8% is how much he just paid to hedge his bets
No point covering costs if no one is reading.
Yeah I was being hyperbolic for effect, but the point is that he owns the WaPo so that he can use it for his own personal social and political gain, not to make money off of it. I doubt the WaPo readership will substantially drop from this. And I have many questions about the people who still read his rag
Cancel Prime.
Cancel Prime.
Cancel Prime.
So, uhh, I got prime when the pricing is glitched and it only cost me less than 2 dollars. If I sub to a twitch streamer Amazon is actually losing money 🗿
The subscription costs then a fraction. They still make money off you
I mean, Bezos doesn't run that either. Might as well just stop using every stock in his portfolio by that logic.
Get Amazon employees to unionize and take back the ship is the answer there. Amazon is annoyingly too big to be affected by even a large grassroots protest.
That does little if people keep buying fom amazon store, and they will
If only there was reasonable competition, or basically anywhere else I could get certain things without paying a crap load for shipping small things. Even in large cities there just aren't stores that sell certain things like electronics parts, high quality brand tools, etc. The big box stores just don't carry a lot of stuff. Not to mention soaps that I use for sensitive skin which places like Walmart doesn't carry, but the drug stores all got bought out and closed down and the few left now have mostly empty shelves, too. Without Amazon, I just can't get a lot of things I need or want without traveling hundreds or thousands of miles, and I live in a major city.
I can't believe they have this many subs tbh
This is a huge number too. Apparently the NYT leadership was crowing about gaining 4000 subscriptions over a few months recently.
If gaining 4000 is considered a lot in the industry, losing 200,000 and growing is a roaring statement of disapproval.
As of 2023 they had like 2.5 million subscribers, so it's like almost 10% That's pretty huge.
Decimated!
(it's rare that I get to use this term accurately, let me have this)
Serious question, but what stops the editors and writers who feel differently from just telling him no and printing what they want?
I understand he owns them and could fire them, but I think that would be more telling and a much bigger story internationally if he just fired or shut down WaPo for not doing his bidding rather than this subscriber loss being what we see. Journalists used to do real reporting and expose huge things (some still do), so if they actually feel this way about the candidate then they should’ve just printed what they wanted anyway.
I mean, that's kind of what they did. The Post was absolutely flooded with opinion columns calling out the paper and Bezos for their cowardice, and most of their editorial board has resigned at this point.
Not much considering that's what the entire editorial staff did anyway.
But they don't get to control the headline at the top of the front page.
As I’m not in journalism, why couldn’t the most senior editor control the top headline and push out the views of the also believe the same?
I'm sure he could. But I'm guessing he's a corporate bootlicker.
Ugh. I cancelled my subscription about 2 years ago after being a subscriber for almost a decade. Frankly, the quality of their reporting had taken a sharp nosedive. There was more and more opinion pieces and less actual facts. Which is a shame, because the WaPo used to be a really reliable source.
Although in this case, it allowed pretty much every opinion columnist to endorse Harris after Bezos blocked it.
Who tf was subscribed to that rag and was somehow not aware it was Bezos' propaganda factory? Or were they aware of it and just now decided to draw the line?
The paradox: if, instead, 200,000 newcomers were to subscribe, the WaPo might be economically viable and then it could fire its owner.
The WaPo is currently losing tens of millions of USD a year. That is not so much its fault as our fault. We are the ones who prefer to pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime than for quality journalism.
fire its owner
Ummm, pardon? How does that work?
Most old media are loss-makers. The owners are fine with that because owning a newspaper allows you to influence public perceptions.
That's not how it works
Why would I pay for news controlled by a billionaire? My tax money already goes towards CBC who are... probably better than WaPo.
Well sure, if you're Canadian then none of this is your problem.
For now. But the whole world consumes US media which is allowing fascism to spread like a malignant cancer
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
593 points (98.5% liked)
News
35754 readers
885 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS