709
Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI
(futurism.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
709 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
87315 readers
3550 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The article is evidence that the books were sold under false pretense.
I read the article and don't see what you're seeing. Can you point out the "false pretenses". It seems the order was placed via a site that intentionally allows anonymous purchases.
As a sidebar:
Emphasis mine.
That seems sketchy to me. I'm not confident it's illegal, but I'm guessing a website that intentionally allows anonymous purchases isn't going to take kindly to a vendor putting a tracking device in an order.
Oh no. Won't somebody think of the billionaire whose monopoly that got exposed by some independent journalists who couldn't be bought or bribed. How tragic.
If Amazon is behaving ethically, they don't need to hide what they're doing.
Hindsight makes people come to very foolish conclusions.
Hint: what if it didn't turn out to be Amazon?
404 media was already thorough in its previous research before actually tracking a book order. Despite your insinuation, there was no foolishness.
But if we follow your billionaire defense to its logical conclusion, they should not have bothered verifying their leads, and left the space billionaire alone.
The foolishness was yours. "The ends (in hindsight) justify the means" is not a particularly wise stance.
Like I said, what if it wasn't Amazon that was ordering the books; would it then be okay?
I understand the dislike of billionaires, but don't let it stop you from thinking.
You don't need to stoop to insults.
Then the responsible journalists wouldn't publish the story. I don't know why you have so much disdain for this independent group.
I'd hate to hear your takes when Ed Snowden "illegally" leaked files to journalists.
I'm thinking about how your concern (which is borderline concern trolling) leaves no way to hold billionaires and their unethical companies accountable.
Like you said:
Just imagine if we applied this to the AI weirdos.
My concern isn't the story, it's the "hiding a tracking device in an order with an anonymous party". That's an invasion of privacy no matter who it's done to. You're presumably only okay with it because you dislike who it was done to, which is why I'm asking you to consider it without hindsight. What if it were done to someone other than Amazon? Do you still support that invasion of privacy? Why or why not?
Amazon isn't a person, no corporation is. They should be subject to far more exposure.
They didn't know it was Amazon when they hid a tracking device in someone's order. They suspected, only.
What if it had been a small bookstore, or just some collector? Do you approve of those people being tracked?
Are you really not seeing this, or are you pretending to not get it?
What if journalists learned the names of innocent people in the Epstein files? Do the ends justify the means??? Oh no!
The answer to your question is "then the article wouldn't exist".
Your "concern" reads like concern trolling because the only way to satiate it is to shut down the free press, apparently to defend the space billionaire/pedophile billionaire class.