Unsurprisingly, Jeff Bezos of Amazon and the Washington Post still uses Twitter:
He used his Twitter account to post this yesterday:
The deluded mindset of the billionaire is revealed.
Amazon is not a free marketeer. It has created a monopoly.
It uses its considerable market power and the full force of law only available to the wealthy and their companies to create barriers to entry around its market space.
It has used tax havens, which only exist to undermine the operation of free markets by creating unfair and unnatural competitive advantages, to facilitate its operations and support its profitability.
Its platforms have been widely used to facilitate tax abuse by others, for example, with regard to abuse of VAT on imports into the UK, which is well documented. This activity has undermined free markets.
Its view of liberty is that it has the freedom to do as it wishes but wishes to deny that freedom to others.
In this sense, Bezos and Amazon take the libertarian view of freedom, which is you might do as you wish as long as you have the means to ensure others cannot challenge you when doing so. That others might not have those means is not your concern by this definition. It is the fault of those without such means that they cannot afford to assert their rights. That they might be systemically prevented from doing so is not considered a possibility.
And the fact that Bezos has said this the day after Trump announced restrictions on access to the White House, only allowing the opportunity to question at Presidential events to those who agree with his positions, cannot be a coincidence.
Staggeringly, Bezos is proud of the fact that he is withdrawing from impartiality and that his paper will no longer seek to offer alternative views. His claim is that the web provides the alternative view. The disparity of resources between his organisation and those challenging his opinion must be known to him, but again, he does not care.
Let me , however, note that he says the web must deliver the alternative view, and so I will. Around fifty per cent of my YouTube traffic is in the USA. It is lower for this blog, at around fifteen per cent. That is not surprising, given I come from a European perspective. But what it does make clear is how important some of the commentary in places like Substack really is now. That is where free expression might be found. It is not where Bezos wants to be, which is precisely why I wonder for how long such platforms might be allowed their freedom to publish? When will Trump come for them? Is it just time?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Scumbags like Bezos are always obsessed with the “freedom to” and never concern themselves with “freedom from”, which is what’s important to most people.
Right from the start in that country, where the Puritans of Plymouth Rock fame were not so much seeking freedom from persecution in Europe, but the freedom to persecute others in a new world.
One of the signs of fascism is control of the mass media.
I think that telling them what to write is consistent with that.
[…] Alongside the above assumptions, BP has also assumed it has the right to make such a decision without consulting the rest of us on planet Earth. Only the opinion of aggressive hedge fund and private equity managers who have demanded this course of action apparently matters to it. This is the definition of liberty and freedom to which Jeff Bezos also shows he subscribes this morning. […]
I grew up in DC in the ’60s-’70s. We read the Post…. ” … one of the world’s great newspapers.” Katharine Graham will be rolling in her grave. It is personal. My dad US Navy 1952-1965-ish then Foreign Service to 1989-ish. I grew up with USAID families. We were loyal Democrats, delivered leaflets and told polls. Got attacked for being the n-loving son of n-lovers. The post was a beacon of hope. (Oh yes, corrupted by advertising and wealth and the complexity of the US, but absolutely committed to press freedom.
Unsubscribe. Very sad day
Thanks
I have unsubscribed too. It’s all we can do, but it’s better than nothing.
Consumers can do to Amazon what EV drivers are doing to Tesla.
Amazon is vulnerable to consumer pressure.
The tech for oligarch control of the internet has been in place for a couple of decades, waiting for the oligarchs to get political power.
DPI tap on transatlantic cables at Bude.
DPI taps operated by major ISPs (to “prevent crime”).
Back doors to encryption mandated by increasing number of governments.
Censorship (sometimes financial – you can still broadcast but can’t monetise) by major platforms like YouTube, Meta, X (eg against Palestinian opinion).
Amazon Web Services (AWS) in a dominant web hosting position.
Payment services like Paypal, Google, Visa Mastercard already in control of who can send money where (personal experience) and using their power.
Microsoft Windows dominates the worlds PC operating systems (have you switched to Linux and Free Open Source Software FOSS) yet?
All we are waiting for is the politicians to impose the control they already are capable of – and that process is well under way in many countries.
Sorry, but the technological and privacy battle was lost about 10 years ago. I was one of the soldiers on the losing side.
The battle now is political.
My eldest son, while in the RAF Regiment, was in the security ambit and subject to vetting at the highest level (Cameron’s body guard for several months). We differ politically, to say the least, and while vetting was on he gave me a list of media to avoid posting lefty content on, including over the telephone (earthline and electronic) including ALL UK based e2e supposedly encrypted. He recommended Proton to me BTW. We are totally compromised!
I have assumed I am monitored for two decades.
At least WAPO asked me why I cancelled, and offered this option:
Concerns about Washington Post content
Maybe if enough cancel they might get the message
It’s one I do not subscribe to.
I think that it’s worth offering some respect to David Shipley. A big gesture from him and a small gesture in the gathering fight against fascism.
As Tim Snyder has pointed out in his latest book (‘On Freedom’) we live in a time where freedom is defined by very rich people and the rest of us are just expected to show observance.
That’s it.
What I like about this is the pure unconscious, unabashed way in which a rich dude has purchased a media outlet and does not see a problem with controlling its opinions – indeed, openly stating the intention of telling one side of the story only!
The Washington Post is now a crime scene. I hope some day that Bezos is charged based on his evidence.
One of the U.S. more venerable institutions is now nothing but a Soviet style Pravda publication for Neo-liberalism. Abby Innes is proven right – yet again.
Ironic that BBC4 is screening All the President’s Men tonight (Thursday) about the days when the Washington Post WAS a newspaper.
Indeed…..
It’s ok for you to manage this blog primarily focussing on one side of the argument and ignoring / censoring dissenting view, but it’s not ok for someone else to do the same?
Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
Anyone can disagree with me here, so long as they follow moderation policies. Nothing says disagreeing his not allowed.
Bollocks Richard.
You block pretty much anyone that doesn’t agree with you and who knows more about a topic than you do, which risks your ignorance/hypocrisy/inconsistency etc being revealed.
It’s well known – remind us h ow many people you’ve blocked on twitter?
Not sure why you’d choose to deny it, rather than justify your approach on your own blog?
You got on
And it’s not well known, because it’s not true. I had 250,000 followers on Twitter and blocked maybe 100 or so people.
Here, over 19 years it is well under 1,000.
And I only do so for time wasting or abuse. I have posted your disagreement.