A company offering online services has its headquarters in Country A but most of the users of these services are actually in Country B.
The profits of this company are created through user activity in Country B, but are taxed in Country A because that is where the company’s headquarters are.
Sometimes, companies will install their headquarters in Country A on purpose if the tax rate is lower in that country - even if they don’t have many users there.
“America was founded to provide people the wherewithal to protect ourselves from enslavement,” said Barry Lynn of the open-markets program at the New America Foundation. Perhaps nobody in the New Brandeis movement has done more than Lynn to revive the Progressive-era conception of monopoly as a danger to American liberty. “Anti-monopoly, from the Boston Tea Party onward, was one of the key tools that we the people used to keep ourselves free,” he said. .... The New Brandeisians took a broad look at how the failure to stop monopolization has harmed America. John Kwoka of Northeastern University crunched the data to find that current enforcement techniques aren’t even working to protect people from price increases, let alone monopoly’s other effects. Lina Khan, a Yale Law student and the author of “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” which described how Amazon uses its wealth of customer data collected from companies operating on its platform to compete against them, counseled against the learned helplessness that current laws cannot be fashioned to deal with modern tech firms. Sabeel Rahman of Brooklyn Law School explained how monopoly “warps the structure of opportunity of our economy.” Jonathan Kanter, formerly of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, warned that the fear in the antitrust agencies of overreaching has become a paralysis that fails to serve the public. Zephyr Teachout of Fordham Law (and a former congressional candidate) made the case for political antitrust, that big companies undermine democracy through their collected influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies Removal of competitors' products On October 1, 2015, Amazon announced that Apple TV and Google Chromecast products were banned from sale on Amazon.com by all merchants, with no new listings allowed effective immediately, and all existing listings removed effective October 29, 2015. Amazon argued that this was to prevent "customer confusion", as these devices do not support the Amazon Video ecosystem. This move was criticized, as commentators believed that it was meant primarily to suppress the sale of products deemed as competition to Amazon Fire TV products, given that Amazon itself had deliberately refused to offer software for its own streaming services on these devices, and the action contradicted the implication that Amazon.com was a general online retailer.[25][26][27]
In May 2017, it was reported that Apple and Amazon were nearing an agreement to offer Amazon Video on Apple TV, and allow the product to return to the retailer.[28] Amazon Video launched on Apple TV December 6, 2017.[29]
Amazon has since suppressed other Google products, including Google Home (which competes with Amazon Echo), Pixel phones, and recent products of Google subsidiary Nest Labs (despite the Nest Learning Thermostat having Alexa support). In retaliation, Google announced on December 6, 2017 that it would block YouTube from the Amazon Echo Show and Amazon Fire TV products.[30][31][32][33] In December 2017, Amazon stated that it intended to start offering Chromecast again, but as of March 2018, it has not actually done so. Meanwhile, Nest stated that it would no longer offer any of its future stock to Amazon until it commits to offering its entire product line.[34] 0195名刺は切らしておりまして2018/07/06(金) 04:29:01.84ID:QGcYt0qlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies#Removal_of_competitors'_products Tax avoidance in the UK It was reported in The Guardian, April 4, 2012, that Amazon generated more than £3.3bn of sales in the UK but paid no corporation tax at all on the profits, and that it was under investigation by the UK tax authorities.[41] Amazon's tax affairs are also being investigated in China, Germany, France, Japan and Luxembourg.[citation needed]
In 2017, Amazon removed an inordinate number of 1-star reviews from the listing of former Presidential candidate Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's newest book, What Happened. The book carried a 4.9 out of 5 rating as of Friday, September 15, 2017.[75] 👀 Rock54: Caution(BBR-MD5:1341adc37120578f18dba9451e6c8c3b) 0196名刺は切らしておりまして2018/07/06(金) 04:29:55.27ID:QGcYt0ql>>1
Allegations have been made that Amazon has selectively deleted negative reviews of Scientology-related items despite compliance with comments guidelines.[71][72]
コーネル大学によると85%の好評を博する商品レビューは対価を得ている
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies#Removal_of_competitors'_products A study at Cornell University in that year[69] asserted that 85% of Amazon’s high-status consumer reviewers “had received free products from publishers, agents, authors and manufacturers.” By June 2011, Amazon itself had moved into the publishing business and begun to solicit positive reviews from established authors in exchange for increased promotion of their own books and upcoming projects.[70] 0198名刺は切らしておりまして2018/07/06(金) 04:30:36.82ID:QGcYt0ql>>1
Pedophile guide On November 10, 2010, a controversy arose over the sale by Amazon of an e-book by Phillip R. Greaves entitled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct.[82]
Readers threatened to boycott Amazon over its selling of the book, which was described by critics as a "pedophile guide". Amazon initially defended the sale of the book, saying that the site "believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable"[83] and that the site "supported the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions". However, the site later removed the book.[84] The San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Amazon "defended the book, then removed it, then reinstated it, and then removed it again".[83] 0199名刺は切らしておりまして2018/07/06(金) 04:30:55.49ID:QGcYt0ql 犯罪者を擁護していたアマゾン
Greaves was arrested on December 20, 2010 at his Pueblo, Colorado home on a felony warrant issued by the Polk County Sheriff's Office in Lakeland, Florida. Detectives from the county's Internet Crimes Division ordered a signed hard copy version of Greaves' book and had it shipped to the agency's jurisdiction, where it violated state obscenity laws. According to Sheriff Grady Judd, upon receipt of the book, Greaves violated local laws prohibiting the distribution of "obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct," a third degree felony.[87] Greaves pleaded no contest to the charges and was later released under probation with his previous jail time counting as time served.[88] 0200名刺は切らしておりまして2018/07/06(金) 04:31:11.03ID:QGcYt0ql Amazon Vine 先取りプログラム 165品目(会員限定) https://mevius.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/affiliate/1525148972/
972 名前:クリックで救われる名無しさんがいる[sage] 投稿日:2018/04/30(月) 05:30:22.83 ID:snY3NugF0 [2/2] SR こと Green ttps://www.mercari.com/jp/u/313023947/
Warehouse conditions In September 2011, Allentown, Pennsylvania's Morning Call interviewed 20 past and present employees at Amazon's Breinigsville warehouse, all but one of whom criticized the company's warehouse conditions and employment practice. Specific investigatory concerns were: heat so extreme it required the regular posting of ambulances to take away workers who passed out,[95] strenuous workloads in that heat, and first-person reports of summary terminations for health conditions such as breast cancer.[96] The Morning Call also published, verbatim, Amazon.com's direct response to a query by OSHA,[97] where amazon.com detailed its response when heat conditions reach as high as 114 °F (46 °C), including water and ice treatment, electrolyte drinks, nutrition advice, and extended breaks in air conditioned rooms.[98] Five days after the Morning Call article was published, Amazon stated that it had spent $2.4 million "urgently installing" air conditioning at four warehouses including the Breinigsville facility.[99] However, the original investigator states that when he checked back with current employees for his September 23 follow-up story, "they told him nothing had changed since his original story ran."[100]