It's a different level of discourse--whataboutism and deflection--that tells the tale. Your comment too: it's glib and dismissive, refusing to engage seriously.
I wrote like 10 comments that engaged seriously in this discussion... and haven't really gotten much back except comments that allude to conspiracy.
There are people who start with "of course Amazon is evil and they just want to do evil things" and work backwards from there...
I tend to start from a different direction of "I get packages quickly, and it's huge value add to my life; lots of people have good paying jobs delivering these packages - and lots of new small businesses started up to do this last mile delivery - and that's good" ...... and if you start there, then I'm just more skeptical of random new laws to fix something where nobody has made a concrete case for actual, real life harm that exists today...
my view is that the burden is on the people making up new rules to show their rules are solving concrete actual harms... not just hand wave and say "well obviously Amazon's a [evil scare tone] TRILLION DOLLAR COMPANY" and let that be the end of the argument
If there is no real-life harm, then it should be net-neutral to roll these trucks back under the Amazon corporation directly, and no reason to push back on it.
If there’s no real life harm, and Amazon chose to organize their business in this way, it means they think it’s a cheaper/better/more efficient way of doing it. So we shouldn’t make laws preventing it or undoing it unless we have a good reason.
Burden of proof is on those who want to make new rules that compel others.
It's way cheaper and more efficient to set up shell companies that are compelled to push the legal boundaries of what's allowed, and to accept no blame when they inevitably push too far. I think we both agree on that. It's just unhealthy for society, and laws protect us all, not just Amazon.
