Amazon Deleting 1-Star Reviews Of Hillary Clinton's Book In Seemingly Unrecognized Irony - "It’s not our role to decide what a customer would view as helpful or unhelpful in making their decision."
In a surprisingly unbiased article, given the source, USA Today reported that Amazon was removing most 1-star reviews of what I'm sure is Hillary Clinton's magnum opus of blame-shifting^: "What Happened".
The hilarious part is Amazon's public response, which according to USA Today, seems to have been delivered with a straight face in a truly herculean task of cognitive dissonance.
"It’s not our role to decide what a customer would view as helpful or unhelpful in making their decision."
Remember, you have to read between the lines. They mean "unless by pushing an agenda we can either make more money or place our most thoroughly purchased politicians closer to legislation that will make us more money later."
I'm not sure which one of these is in effect here, or whether someone is simply calling in a favor or can't bear to turn on a losing team, but regardless of the motivation it's an odd choice at a time when Amazon is generally looking pretty clean compared to the likes of Google or Wal-Mart.
Despite these lame cover-ups reliably backfiring in the era of internet archiving, they continue to be attempted. At least pre-wide-internet adoption, maybe you could concoct some sort of amoral, game-theory argument for attempting a cover-up.
However, simply deleting reviews until the actual displayed ratings are completely incongruous with the actual reviews users will see on the product page...that's simply self defeating. Let's take a look at how this is going for Amazon, live, a few days after this story actually broke:
Those reviews don't even sound biased, they just sound bored and disappointed.
Honestly, it couldn't happen to a better totally-not-a-non-human than Hillary Clinton.
This author might humbly recommend that Mrs. Clinton takes solace in an open and honest community that will not only sympathize, but empathize, with the long struggles of her career.
Sources: USA Today, Amazon, South Park Archives
Copyright: South Park, Hillary Clinton (blergh), NY Mag, Reddit
^ - In her defense, this is likely the contents of almost every single politician's "post-election loss" book, and therefore quite standard.
Does she still think she is going to run again for something?
She needs to take her medicine and retire gracefully. If that is even possible.
I presume this is just a financial and face-saving venture. I think she'd probably come under a (justifiable) hail-storm of criticism if she tried again...even from her own party.
Hi @lexiconical, I just stopped back to let you know your post was one of my favourite reads and I included it in my Steemit Ramble. You can read what I wrote about your post here.
If you’d like to nominate someone’s post just visit the Steemit Ramble Discord
Thank you! I'm definitely going to check that out now.
Hoo boy! I have to judge Amazon by what it's Jeff Bezos wholly owned subsidiary, WaPo, does, and that is NOT an improvement over Wal-Mart, or even Gargle.
It's ok. Mebbe you din't know. Even if you did, alerting me to this participation in the Police State America Program (PSAP. The first 'P' is silent, of course) by Amazon is fully deserving of my completely overlooking your overgenerous estimation of Amazon, the Destroyer of Grocery.
BTW, I can't wait to shoot down my first Amazon delivery drone! I think there should be a bounty, a prediction market, etc... Anyone want in?
Thanks!
"I have to judge Amazon by what it's Jeff Bezos wholly owned subsidiary, WaPo"
While I am not saying you are incorrect to do this, I do not. I try to generally divide subsidiaries with different executive structures in cases such as these.
I realize that may be viewed as "naive", but it's done more as a practical matter than a philosophical one. No discussion on any large company would ever end if we went down the "subsidiary whataboutism" route.
" WaPo"
I worked for an affiliate of WaPo before they were sold. I don't think it was much better; in other words, I don't think Amazon made it any worse than the current trend already was.
"Amazon, the Destroyer of Grocery."
If buying the SJW's favorite grocery store, slashing the prices 40% to "de-virtue signal" shopping there, while also causing other grocers to consider dropping their prices is "destroying grocery", I'm ok with it.
It's not like Wal Mart hasn't already wiped out all the small businesses.
I like that Amazon has operated for a very long time at minimal profits.
Their customer support and treatment is vastly better than Google or Wal-Mart. Sometimes they refund things for me just because I complain, no return necessary.
I'm not saying they're great, but I don't think it's that close either.
Well, I certainly agree that Bezos didn't make WaPo any worse. I don't think it's better, though, and that has dragged Bezos down in my estimation, because he could have dragged it up, and seems to not have done that.
I am not hating on making grocery a more competitive industry with my tongue in cheek comment, but it's an industry with already thin margins, and Amazon's entry has indeed startled the sector.
Bringing prices down on organic food is good, IMHO.
Really, my point was... invalid. You're right. Amazon did play better with others than Gargel, et al., and I'll shut up now.
"Really, my point was... invalid. You're right. Amazon did play better with others than Gargel, et al., and I'll shut up now."
Heh, I knew you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I still felt compelled to point-by point!
Remember most of Amazon's life has given it an unfair advantage that we see playing out today. They didn't have to build out physical stores and employ the capital this required and they didn't have to charge taxes until relatively recently. This gave them are remarkable cost advantage. I presume when 1/2 the physical retail stores are completely wiped out, that Amazon will simply move on to to eat another industry and destroy more jobs. Now I'm not saying retails jobs are good ones, but what happens when they take over drugstores, auto parts, etc. Not only are jobs destroyed, but companies go bankrupt and they are no longer on the shrinking stock market and investible for all the 401K money needing a place to earn a return.
I would argue that not building retail locations is simply smart, not an unfair advantage.
The tax one is a better point. However, technically speaking, the burden of paying the tax falls onto the buyer. You are supposed to file any tax savings you get from not paying sales tax and forward it to the state.
Technically speaking, Amazon has done nothing illegal. It's customers have.
As for job loss, yeah, that's a whole other problem.
Thanks for your points.
Fucking global elite don't give a FUCK about anybody but them selfs and their empire.
Just more proof right here. Pathetic.
At least this example is a little funny. I get to work in robot jokes and some South Park, which (sadly?), is the finest satirical production of our times.
It is not only one of the finest satirical productions of our times but one of the most brilliant pieces of tv ever made. It really is quite something.
Couldn't agree more.
I suspect her book rating and sales figures are a closer gauge to the real vote count than what the media portayed during the election.
I can't believe I'm going to say this (I am really addicted to devil's advocating):
But in her defense, she is probably at or near an all-time low in popularity. I suspect if the election was tonight, she might pull far fewer votes.
Good onya for sticking up for the underdog ..kinda-ish :)
Takes strong character traites to take on the role of advocate for the devil.
"Takes strong character traites to take on the role of advocate for the devil."
That's what I keep telling myself (and everyone that knows me!).
Thank you, sorry for the late reply.
Yeah, that would be a good assumption. The warmonger in a pantsuit has lost touch with reality.
Its a pity, here in NZ we have a had a few ladies run the country and they have done wonderful things (eg. Helen Clark). The US still needs better leadership than her style could provide, maybe next election.
Fingers crossed
Absolutely, her 30 years of corruption are what cost her the election not all the other frivilous stuff she wants people to believe:
-Her fraudulent Clinton Foundation Charity that was supposed to help the people of Haiti but didn't
-Having Gaddafi killed (on live TV she gleefully says.. "we came, we saw, he died hahahhaha".
-Benghazi
-Supporting the opposition in the Syrian crisis who were anything but "moderate" rebels.
-The "assisted suicide" list of people who were at one point close to her and knew too much who found themselves dead all committing "suicide" conveniently enough... but most believe they were actually killed, silenced so they wouldn't out Ms. Clinton.
These are just some of the bloody stains on her career.
Comment of the thread right here, wish it wasn't a sub-comment so I could vote it to the top.
Honestly, during the election, the idea that she could even be considered for anything except a long stay at the penitentiary was, I will admit, sometimes triggering to me.
Cut off friends, coworkers, and others for allying themselves to that filth.
Aww thank you. I'll keep that in mind for future comments :-)
Some have argued she isn't even Human, an alien shape changing lizard no less :D
Her apparent lack of humanity doesn help quash this otherwise hilarious yarn.
Thing is though, I can totally believe it's actually fair to give it one star from the excerpts I've read, it's awful and it's not just people trolling her.
Frankly, it seems like a topic very likely to be whiny and boring. I wouldn't want to read such a book even from a candidate I might somewhat like, such as Ron Paul, let alone the "Hildebeest".
I would actually read a Ron Paul book though, love that guy. :)
I hadn't heard about this prior to reading this article, but I'm not surprised. Political Correctness seems to have morphed into a process where any and all difference of opinion is eliminated. Now, even indifference cannot be tolerated.
The complete homogenization of any and all opinions is truly frightening. It does very much resemble something like 1984, which in and of itself is beginning to become a cliche.
This. ^
What is not prohibited is mandatory.
Totally off topic. Want to eventually get you on the show. Hit me up on Discord: Geechi Dan #8657
Sounds good. Which channels are you in? I'm usually in PAL (minnow support group):
https://discordapp.com/channels/319885228464406528/319885228464406528
I have PAL also. CircleofFriends, PokerLeague lucksacks.com, SteemSpeak.
OK well feel free to send me a DM in PAL. I'm in there unless my power's out, but usually afk. I do keep track of my messages though.
Poor Hillary. Even when she is not campaigning she needs support from other people to better her image haha
"Rejiggering".
LMAO!!
I think that term was officially brought into the lexicon thanks to Doc Brown from "Back To The Future."
I could be off on that though.