A new report suggests that Amazon might be at the heart of the recent uptick in Twitter accounts promoting the company's workplace practices. Several of these so-called "ambassador" accounts had been suspended by Twitter for violating its terms of service, though it was unclear whether they were "fake" or actually associated with Amazon. However, newly leaked documents point to the tech giant as the architect of this onslaught of social media supporters.
Amazon's Twitter antics began when its Amazon News account shot back at politicians, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Pocan regarding their criticism of the company's working conditions and alleged tax exemptions. It didn't end there, however, as accounts with the phrase "AmazonFC" in their handles sprouted up in defense of Amazon and in opposition of Amazon fulfillment center workers' ability to form unions. Twitter ultimately suspended an unspecified number of these accounts for infringing on the platform's rules on spam and platform manipulation.
According to documents obtained by The Intercept, these accounts were part of an Amazon social media campaign that operated under the name "Veritas." The goal, according to The Intercept, was to recruit select fulfillment center employees within the company and label them as "ambassadors" who were encouraged - and paid - to respond to critics of Amazon's workplace conditions on social media. The documents do explicitly advise against ambassadors spreading false information, but recommend they avoid posts about the "right to unionize" or requests by the media.
From a legal standpoint, it's probably unlikely that Amazon will face any issues from its now-uncovered social media program. At its core, it is simply a public relations effort designed to prop up the company's image. When looking at it from that perspective, it's no different from any other company or business trying to mold a positive image in the public's eye.
That said, it's entirely possible that Amazon will experience a great deal of social blowback from these practices. The company appears to have been deceptive in its employment of this strategy, with many of these ambassador accounts not publicly disclosing that they were representatives of the company. Instead, Amazon seemed to be attempting to position these accounts to appear as though they were regular warehouse workers who were speaking up on behalf of the company. In reality, even if these workers did have positive things to say about the company, they were being encouraged and paid by Amazon to do so. That not only damages each endorsement made by the accounts, but it paints Amazon in exactly the light it was hoping to avoid - a company needing to incentivize its workers to speak about positive working conditions.
Source: The Intercept
from ScreenRant - Feed https://ift.tt/3wiT5Gw
No comments: