• MrVilliam@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      Not defending it, but probably because Amazon isn’t media or social media. Well, Prime video is media, but it’s not a behemoth like Washington Post or CNN, so it’s not really relevant in the same way. I think the intent is to point out that almost every information outlet the average person learns about the world from is owned by a group of people small enough to get a table at a restaurant without having to call ahead. Fallout and The Boys being bundled in with your online shopping aren’t really influencing people in the same way.

      • normalentrance@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        Amazon serves up a vast amount of the Internet, has live video feeds of almost every neighborhood, is a big player in the AI space, is a retail giant, a movie studio, a streaming platform, and a logistics juggernaut.

        It isn’t strictly media/influence, but also so much more. Scary stuff.

  • elbiter@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    Of course it is. And is also about oligarchs giving orders to the media they control to not call them by that name.

  • Tempus Fugit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    Yes, now realize every establishment Democrat is also paid off by these demons too. Grassroots progressives or RIP the system, I have no other choice.

    • Leon@pawb.socialEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      If you’re playing a game by the rules your opponent not only writes, but also actively breaks, and cheats, you’re going to lose.

    • freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      Y’all, who do you think owned the news media before this latest batch of billionaires owned it? Who do you think it owner it before them?

      Hint: the rich have owned the news media in Western countries since before the fucking Opium Wars. It’s been this way since China was a peasant country and Russia was a Tsarist feudal society.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    The US has been an Oligarchy for quite a while now.

    Amongst other things that’s why Bernie’s campaign to be the Democrat candidate was torpedoed directly by the DNC so that Hillary “I got a cool half a million to give a speech to Goldman Sach’s traders” Clinton got the nomination and then proceeded to lose to none other than old-money multi-millionaire Donald Trump.

    I mean, it’s pretty obvious even before since Reagan the Hierarchy Of Power in the US has in many all things had Money as a higher power than Democratically Elected Administration - or in other words, the inverse of the order that it should be in Democracy - and that has extended to pretty much all things since.

    The US (and several other so-called “Democratic” nations) hasn’t had Democracy for many years.

    • 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.itEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      No one is going to lend me money with a paltry $0.65 on my bank account and the prospect of a week of going to be bed on an empty stomach for dinner as collateral, though

  • lechekaflan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    7 months ago

    It’s been a problem ever since the Industrial Revolution, which oligarchs supplanted the aristocracy while class conflict remained. There were attempts at changing the status quo, or overthrowing it and replacing with a different system, there’s so much discussion and debate, but actual success of the masses – if we must have inclusion of those oppressed regardless of race, creed or faith – has yet to be seen.

    One thing is for certain: this time peaceful and legal options are starting to be exhausted of their energy, as the moneyed enemy isn’t going to yield easily.

    • danski@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      Because he’s stating the companies they own that control the narrative. Push the views they want and downplay ones that are critical. Twitch is more relevant than Amazon for that.

      • Peacock@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        7 months ago

        Thank you that makes sense. I figured he led with The Washington Post for that exact reason but didn’t really see Twitch in the same light at first.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
      0·
      7 months ago

      Amazon is not really owned by any singular person. Yes, Bezos owns 8% of it, but he’s neither CEO, nor a president of the company.

      He’s founder of Amazon, not owner of it.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pubEnglish
          0·
          7 months ago

          Board members, who have to vote. He cannot unilaterally control the company.

          Institutional investors like Vanguard and BlackRock own over 65% of Amazon.

          • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            7 months ago

            Institutional investors vote with the board as a matter of policy.

            What that 65% actually is, is money from average Americans’ retirement accounts that has been aggregated into index funds instead of individual stocks. That means those individual investors are disenfranchised from voting their shares.

            That 65% doesn’t dilute Bezos’ power; it inflates it at the expense of the “little people.” You’re making the opposite of the point you think you’re making.

            “Pass through” voting for stocks held through mutual funds is yet another reform that we need but aren’t getting because of oligarchy.