> 'The system then uses "automated verbal alerts" to tell drivers if a violation has been detected.'

'Automated verbal alert' is the exact opposite of a real-live person.

The article further says:

> 'Amazon told Insider in February driver footage was not automatically available to Amazon and that the "live feed" was triggered only after the detection of a safety or policy violation.'

So where are you getting 'berated by a real-live person?'

The live feed being triggered allows Amazon to have access to the footage, yes. It may be something their manager may talk to them about. But there's absolutely no evidence that this system allows someone to remote in and yell: "No yawning on the job. Get back to work, serf."

And no one has defined berate here.

Let's imagine that the system allows real-time chatting between someone at Amazon HQ and the driver, despite no evidence of this. But we'll pretend.

If driver is breaking the speed limit, not wearing their seat-belt, or participating in other unsafe behavior, they're putting both the public and Amazon at risk. It's entirely reasonable for Amazon to detect a driver speeding in a residential neighborhood, and be able to communicate with that driver in real time to ensure they're driving at safe speeds for the area.

Where did it say "berated"?. Outside of the stance "I've already decided I distrust anything Amazon does", what facts do we have that this "live feed" is anything more then a welfare checkin to make sure the driver is OK, or something else non-malicious and sincerely focused on safety?

And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action?

They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon says. The cameras will be viewed by workers with mistrust and they will assume they are being watched constantly and the "safety" purpose is bs. Amazon probably knows this, even if they intend it to actually be used for safety. This is the same reason some convenience stores put up fake cameras.

They are a beurocratic organization with middle managers doing everything they can to squeeze productivity gains out everything and every one. There may be some good guys in there but those good guys don't have their careers grow. The managers without morals rise to the top while shit rolls down hill and the guys on the bottom get worse and worse treatment.

That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed.

This line of commentary is just-so narrative to uphold the position that everything Amazon does is evil. But it doesn't demonstrate that Amazon actually has the incentive to do said evil things.

It sounds like what you don't like is technocracy, which I can agree is harmful at times.

Put yourself in the shoes of each layer of a bureaucratic organization like Amazon. Most will be normal rational actors that are self interested. Most will want to make more money and advance their career. For those on the very bottom of society, working a warehouse job will mean a few more dollars more than minimum wage and it will be one of the best opportunities available to them. They will not enjoy it and it will be hard work but they will do it because making 25k a year at McDonald's will not put enough food on their families tables.

Then you have those slightly better off that are lucky enough to get a chance at an amazing ~20-25 dollars an hour as a driver. It will be hard work but again, they will grit their teeth and bare it because there is the height of what they can attain in life and it will put food on the table and a few gifts under the tree at Christmas.

Then you have the managers just above that first layer. They themselves are micromanaged and are glorified baby sitters whose job it is to get a whole bunch of unhappy people to be productive. They themselves want to provide better for their families and they will seek to improve their career. They are NOT solely evaluated on how quickly they can shuffle boxes around, else they would give raises to motivate their employees. They instead have to bend over backwards to produce results while keeping costs low. They have very few options to do well and are forced to do things that will make those on the bottom unhappy. They will do things like cut hours off employees so that they are no longer full time so that they don't have to pay health insurance. They will be lax on safety because it's worth the risk to them. The ones good at squeezing the bottom rung will get promoted and so on. It is a darwinian survival of the fittest with rational actors on every rung.

Should we tell those on the bottom tough shit, you should be thankful you're not working at McDonald's? Or do we all say you know what that incentive structure seems bad, that Amazon company has billions of dollars of cash laying around, it doesn't seem fair that our fellow citizens have to trudge through life miserably and that we should enact some laws to make their lives less bad? Why is a little bit softer version of capitalism so bad? We live in a shared society where those on the lower rung have it hard. We are all on the same team here and there is plenty of prosperity to share around. Meet and talk to people who are on that lower rung. Try to get to know them and understand their viewpoint, the struggles that they go through and what their lives look like.

My point was that the author isn't talking about the poor, they're talking about a problem with technocracy that seeks to define you by metrics. As a SRE you should be keenly aware of the shortcomings of such approaches.

The story you've told here is not far from the journey I had as a software engineer coming from the military in the Midwest and South, and even at similar hourly rates.

If you look at my other comment, we likely have the same views, but I'm not focused on how it's projected on different classes. I'm focused on the practice itself.

> Should we tell those on the bottom tough shit, you should be thankful you're not working at McDonald's? Or do we all say you know what that incentive structure seems bad, that Amazon company has billions of dollars of cash laying around, it doesn't seem fair that our fellow citizens have to trudge through life miserably and that we should enact some laws to make their lives less bad? Why is a little bit softer version of capitalism so bad? We live in a shared society where those on the lower rung have it hard. We are all on the same team here and there is plenty of prosperity to share around. Meet and talk to people who are on that lower rung. Try to get to know them and understand their viewpoint, the struggles that they go through and what their lives look like.

This is rich. You assumed I've always had money. You assumed my political allegiances. You assumed I've never existed on a "lower rung".

That's all narrative, so in a way, you made my point for me. You've now distracted from the debate entirely and have earned a second person who doesn't want to hear what you have to say.

You did assume things about me and that was wrong. You "and others" have to share this forum with a great many people, people who come from both prestigious backgrounds and people without. If you want to convince someone of something then you end up having to speak to them on their turf. You can't engage in moralizing language or act condescendingly, as you did me. It tunes people out and makes them perpetual enemies of not just you, but your cause.

This obsession with talk of power is very murky and non-descriptive. Even the class-warfare talk is murky. They're not points you're going to win with conservatives if that's the discussion you're thinking you're going to offer "different perspectives" on. When I talk to conservatives I talk to them about economics on their level. They have poor people too, Democrats spent years making fun of their "poor and uneducated". On Friday I had a manager tell me all about how "blue collar and uneducated" people in the South are a problem, simply because I'm from the South. It was astonishing rhetoric, but not uncommon from certain communities. Nobody will listen to garbage like that and I certainly wouldn't if I were them.

Instead, I talk to conservatives about how the education system misses the mark when it comes to portions of the population, which includes them and liberals, and how better education is a driving force in not only a better economy but their lower classes as well. Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response.

I think the class narrative is extremely pertinent to this discussion. The "meh, if you don't like it, don't work there" type of argument when applied to this article doesn't hold as much water when there aren't much better alternatives for drivers like this to make as much money.

> Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y.

This comment and others in this post that summarily dismisses an argument because it is part of a "narrative" kind of forces one to make assumptions. This shortly worded retort made me assume that you fell into the hyper capitalist/anti raising minimum wage type crowd. The only assumption I made about you was that you were currently more than likely a tech worker that was more well off than the majority of society. I argue against the tech savior complex where large tech companies can do no wrong whenever I can.

> Assuming people don't have empathy for the poor is where people get things twisted. Many people who present arguments that tow a hard-line on economics came from tough backgrounds as well. In their worldview, the world is a tough-to-survive place and that is just a fact of life to them. Upending that worldview can't be done with moralism, shame, or guilt. It must be addressed through understanding and empathy, none of which you would've communicated in your earlier response.

I disagree that my comments did not touch on empathy. My whole point was to describe the viewpoints from the various cogs in the machine with an eye towards establishing empathy for those cogs and the shitty position each of those cogs is in. I absolutely agree that high level conservative/progressive talking points that are shouted at the opposing side does nothing except to further tribalize the two opposing viewpoints. The political party abstractions used to justify policies abstract out the humans that are impacted by those policies and they make it easier for people to stay adamant that they are correct and the other side is wrong. "Moralism, shame, or guilt" have a lot of overlap with empathy. One does not have shame or guilt without empathy and if someone feels shame or guilt for a given topic, then to me that sounds like progress and compromise are attainable. The only route that I see to stopping this tribalism bullshit is with using empathy to humanize both sides in an attempt to help people realize that we are all on the same team (unless someone is some sociopath that is on their own team). I'm not sure I completely understand why my points were so offensive for you specifically. I honestly meant no offense and did not think that attempting to establish empathy would be a controversial argument path.

There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US (I'm not from the US but I'm not that stupid), and even if not, at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment.

This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion.

I'm bouncing out for some sleep, thanks.

Government-mandated conditions are on paper only, are often abused and the boundaries are always stretched out to the breaking point.

> at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment.

You're underestimating the amount of rampant poverty and unemployment without benefits in the US. You're un

> This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion.

Why don't you engage in a discussion to try to see the other side's opinion. Shouting "It's a narrative" and plugging your ears is not some trump card that automatically wins an argument.

Others and myself are not some socialist cabal secretly trying to take down capitalism. I get paid way too much for stuff that doesn't feel like a real job. I love capitalism but don't see why we can't have a softer flavor of it. It is tough on the bottom rung of society and companies like Amazon have the resources to make lots of people happy and content with their jobs.

I've been engaging in discussion with the other side for over 20 hours and have written over a dozen comments, in a good faith effort to fully understand every other commenter's position. Hardly plugging my ears.

> I get paid way too much for stuff that doesn't feel like a real job. I love capitalism

For what it's worth, neither of those statements apply to me.

I've never earned huge amounts of money, I work long and stressful hours for the income I make, and I'm deeply curious about different economic and social systems that can make life better for people, particularly those at the very bottom.

The reason I engage in a discussion like this is to better understand what the real underlying issues are and what solutions are available.

I get dispirited when the arguments come down to simplistic takes to the effect that it's all simply a matter of evil giant corporations paying too little and treating workers badly, and if they just paid people more and treated people more nicely everything would be better. That's what I mean by "narrative". It's a nice-sounding just-so story, but overlooks a whole lot of really important detail.

After a 25+ year period in which I've studied business/economics at tertiary level, read/examined/contemplated economic and social issues very deeply for that entire time, been a business operator, an employee, a contractor and a volunteer in all kinds of different organisations at all levels and taken a deep interest in the issues for the most needy in society, I've come to understand there's a bit more to it than that.

Please don't assume that if someone is asking questions and making points that challenge the explanation you've settled on, it has to be because they care less than you do about those who are not well off.

> If anything it sounds like it makes it even less economically viable to leave the dystopian environment they are in.

Economically viable for the large corporation but not for those on the bottom. Why does the maximization of shareholder value deserve to be the only consideration? Amazon skirts tax laws to save billions while taking advantage of selling within the United States. Why shouldn't we as a society say that those on the bottom deserve a slightly less bad life?

Those at the bottom deserve a better life by: 1) being able to afford all necessities (housing, healthcare, etc.) 2) not being subject to psychological torture at jobs they can't leave

Modest increases in compensation don't seem to address (1) effectively and do not address (2) at all which is my concern.

> The reference to AI in the article makes it sound dystopian, but isn't this potentially better, if it just means that computation is used to detect any issues rather than having humans watching their fellow workers?

> [..] what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this

What Amazon (and others doing similar stuff) does is create something of a Panopticon [0] to enforce proper behavior:

> Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates' cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that they are motivated to act as though they are being watched at all times. Thus, the inmates are effectively compelled to regulate their own behaviour.

> In 1965 the conservative historian Shirley Robin [..] argued that Bentham's pet gadget, the panopticon prison, was a device of such monstrous efficiency that it left no room for humanity.

> Recent Libertarian thinkers began to regard Bentham's entire philosophy as having paved the way for totalitarian states.

In this regard, as with the Panopticon, it doesn't even matter if the camera's work or there's AI involved.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

I would never work for someone that has to watch me on camera, unless of course being on camera was my job.