579
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 😢😢😢."
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.
If you join a company where you have no voice, then you're going to have a bad time and you may compromise your own morality to get that paycheck.
You can say that there are no other jobs to be had out there, but the current employment rate says you are wrong.
You don't have to let the business people make you into an amoral cog in a machine.
I have a voice in my role, but I'm not going to pretend I'm the only person at the company.
I'm more making the point that your single voice will not be sufficient to affect direction regarding cloud provider choice in a big enough company, that dice was probably already rolled a decade ago. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything, but you're gonna need to come up with an incredible business case for throwing away years of hundreds of engineers' work building on top of platform A for a costly switch to platform B all for no customer benefit.
I mean, vendor lock-in and lack of resiliency to a vendor-specific outage, maybe caused by some piece of their stack you have never nor will ever touch, or maybe the platform CEO decides your kind of company isn't expedient for their business anymore, are among the reasons why a company should never have ended up in that situation in the first place.
You can continue along that road of least resistance while ignoring all of the risks. That is up to you. You'll probably be fine. (Not joking, you'll be fine. But don't pretend like this is all necessary.)
It can be done, but generally people are too cowardly -- like Bezos.
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 🗿
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.
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
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.
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
579 points (100.0% liked)
News
31329 readers
2450 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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