Amazon cancels Louis Rossmann's account after Rossmann calls out Amazon on the so called "Racist [Ring] Doorbell"

[starsmine]

3 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

I think innocent until proven guilty is how things should work. 

 

Let the customer know they are under investigation. Then let them know the results. 

 

Can't just say someone is guilty based on hearsay alone. With my own employees I'm gonna hear both sides before I take action. 

 

You could just as easily have an employee who's straight up racist and trying to get innocent customers in trouble. 

 

No one's word is immediately believable.

Its not simply hearsay. 
Im not saying anyone's word is immediately believable. 
yes the customer should be notified that they are under investigation, and during that time period of said investigation, their Amazon services are halted, aka banned untill the investigation is concluded. 

What happens is that if the employee lies, the employee gets fired, and the customer gets their services reinstated, and although Amazon is not obligated to give the customer any refunds or payment of any kind, it would be appreciated for the inconvenience. But again, that step is a hypothetical as we never got that far. Its inconsequential to the first step, halting the services to a customer who has been accused, not suspected, ACCUSED.

Some of y'all really don't understand innocent until proven guilty. A, it's not a criminal offense, you are not being separated from society here, you are just banned from using Amazon services. B, for accused Felonies and some class 1 misdemeanors you still go straight to jail, and if deemed to not be a flight risk you get bail. You don't get to just walk around before a trial. That is why we have the right to a speedy trial. (except Guantanamo which we justify by saying they are not us citizens). Hell even for suspicion you can be held for a few hours, even when never accused. Of course, there are systemic issues with the system, but thats not the point you guys are making.

 

12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Defamation and false accusation is pretty much criminal......

Defamation requires Amazon to go out and publicly announcing a person is racist in a way that harms the person from receiving goods and services from other providers or harming their social standing. False accusation again requires them to go to the police to accuse a person of a crime, not just breaking the Terms of service. 

Neither of these has happened here.

Companies have, and have always had the right to not serve anyone for any reason OTHER than discrimination against a protected class. Their reasoning may not be sound or good or even true, but that is a different argument altogether, and if not true you can win a civil case against whomever spread the untrue reasoning (aka the defamation) 

[EAT ZE BUGS]

On 6/23/2023 at 6:18 AM, Mojo-Jojo said:

This is hardly related to "woke" and cancel culture. This is a multinational conglomerate abusing its partners and customers.

Wrong bud.  It's all part of the same machine:  The WEF (a corporate mafia).
..and if you claim I am wrong or insult me for saying that... you'll only be exposing yourself as daft and willfully ignorant.

[EAT ZE BUGS]

On 6/23/2023 at 9:59 PM, ravenshrike said:

Horsepucky. If the idea of free speech was central to the populace's thought and unpersoning people for their speech was anathema, the effect on their sales would be enough to get them to reverse course because the hit to their sales would be more than large enough for shareholders to notice.

LOL, sure bud.. you keep thinking your logic works on billionaire mafias.

[RasmusDC]

there is 2 sides to every story.. but also a lot of "tings" that amazon did that is wrong.

 

1. They should NEVER have closed the accounts before they did a investigation, but they could have informed the guy if he accepted the "claim" if "yes i did it" then have done if. this proactive just locking, seems extreme, however i also get that in SOME cases, like criminal, you do it, to limit people from being able to delete stuff.

 

2. the customer had evidence, and did not do what they said he did, they should have in public gone out, said sorry, but i think there is more to this, a public admittance of guilt, is something i don´t think that Amazon does not agree with, the problem is just in todays world, a admittance of guilt, might open up a shit load of other things, so you tend not too... even though it is easy

 

3. Is this really "CORPORATE" amazon, or maybe just a "area" it is a GIANT company, so a boss has an employee being upset, because of racial slurs, it is 2023, everything is OVERREACTING, so he get scared, that he can get in problems.. himselfs, so he reacts fast, and uses his power to lock the customer down, and to have a satisfied employee.

 

4. Louis Rossman, seems like a nice guy, and he seems to always TRY to do the right thing, he does has a lot of "i was wrong, videos" but that is the challenge of sticking your neck out, and being only partially informed. but i don´t know if they have any legitimacy in this, the timing seems "wierd"... but it can also be a coincidence...

 

I of course, would love that the world is not an intertwined account, subscription based nightmare, where the goal is just to get all your money, and you suddenly have an ability to be locked out of everything, if someone deems you "not worthy"... also the affiliate program is "main currency" for many youtubers, so  it also seems like a BIG hammer. 

 

i sit in a giant corporate monster, family owned, with a family, that invests GIANT sums in goodwill, employees and customers, to a degree i have never seen, we tend to be hit by stories, that are WAY out of proportions, i know that Amazon has close to zero credibility, both when you look at stuff like this, but also how they treat employees.. just that.. i still feel that every story has 2 sides.

[Mojo-Jojo]

On 7/2/2023 at 2:35 AM, EAT ZE BUGS said:

Wrong bud.  It's all part of the same machine:  The WEF (a corporate mafia).
..and if you claim I am wrong or insult me for saying that... you'll only be exposing yourself as daft and willfully ignorant.

"Agree with me or you're stupid"

Cool.

[Lomac]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:53 AM, Ydfhlx said:

It's corporations' modus operandi, cut off anyone who gives them bad press. Remember nvidia trying to ban Hardware Unboxed?

Eh. I review press cars for an audience close to Louis's size. First time I wrote a negative review I was super nervous about the blowback I might get from that automotive brand. Their only response was effectively, "Sorry to hear about your experience - here's what we hope to do in order to fix it. When would you like to book your next vehicle?"

 

Ferrari is really the only manufacturer in that field which will likely go out of their way to block further access if you're fully negative about a particular model of theirs when reviewed. Everyone else pretty much couldn't care less.

 

/Shrug

[Commodus]

7 minutes ago, Lomac said:

Eh. I review press cars for an audience close to Louis's size. First time I wrote a negative review I was super nervous about the blowback I might get from that automotive brand. Their only response was effectively, "Sorry to hear about your experience - here's what we hope to do in order to fix it. When would you like to book your next vehicle?"

 

Ferrari is really the only manufacturer in that field which will likely go out of their way to block further access if you're fully negative about a particular model of theirs when reviewed. Everyone else pretty much couldn't care less.

 

/Shrug

Yeah, there's a misconception that companies only offer review loans in return for good press. My understanding is that many companies, including the big ones, are fine with negative content. They just want to know that it's fair and rational. "This phone is slow and takes mediocre photos" they don't mind; "this phone sucks ass" probably won't get you another sample.