And here I’d assumed he’d cath’d himself.

The rage machine requires fuel.

And how many of your network infrastructure experts, whose job it is to prevent this kinda thing, did you fire, Elon?

I’ve been seeing this headline all week, and didn’t think much of it, since I basically never buy from Amazon. But I’d forgotten they own Twitch. And boy, do I use a lot of Twitch. Unfortunately, in the way of money, it’s pretty much all subscriptions that are already paid for. None of those are coming up for renewal next week, that I could cancel. I could definitely just not watch anything next week, but the union that organized this says they’re looking for drops in sales. Not watching would only contribute to that if I would have been served ads. I’m wondering if I should instead try spread the word of the boycott, in the streams I watch.

I dunno, what do y’all think?

No, it is. The one that’s now satire is on lemmy.world

Nah, I definitely think it was a ruse, just not this one. What the fuck were they ever gonna DO with 3 million e-mails coming in within a week? Actually analyze them all to idendify each employee’s value? Nonsense.

A) It was a cheap way to bank an excuse to fire anyone who didn’t respond “for cause” at some later point when they identify people they want to fire, and are looking for cause.

B) They were planning to feed all the responses into an LLM or something similar. Maybe as a way to look for certain “woke” buzzwords and make a hitlist of people to target for firing.

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps an “English isn’t my first language” scenario?

Collusion among all the big players in an industry, in order to exclude other players from succeeding in that industry is indeed anti-competitive, and potentially illegal. There’s potential merit here in businesses coordinating with each other on who to blacklist withing the industry, which is why lawyers were willing to take on the case.

Ultimately, it’s a question for a judge whether they’re doing this for the purpose of suppressing competition, somehow, or whether they’re doing it for valid business reasons (like, say, avoiding a company with a history of not paying its bills, or avoiding a company with a history of sabotaging business relationships, or avoiding a company that their own customers actively hate, and would lose them business).

Of course, with the courts the way they are these days, I’m not holding my breath for the obviously-sensible ruling.

Who?

No, we want the money that we pay to benefit society, in ways that we couldn’t on our own, to be used to benefit society, in ways that we couldn’t on our own.