This idea of “any change is good” is dangerous because it ignores opportunity cost. An example is that it can actually be bad to raise awareness for a rare disease if it takes away donations from a common disease. It can cost lives and do harm because dollars become less effective.
Focusing on the wrong thing can be worse than apathy and it seems really weird that people can form opinions without data and facts. Especially in a world where PR bullshit can form such emotional reactions.
But I may be rare in my inability to understand people’s needs without any data. I don’t know much about warehouse workers. I need much more information than an astroturf ad on Instagram/new outlet tells me.
If Amazon is a singularly bad warehouse employer, punishing them in some way (boycotts, etc) might be appropriate.
If Amazon is a singularly good warehouse employer, rewarding them with more business and good PR might be appropriate. It could incentivize the competition to follow suit and Amazon to raise its standards even further to stay ahead.
If Amazon is a typical warehouse employer, then I would find it counter productive to single out Amazon for punishment or reward, rather than the actual good/bad outliers among warehouse operators.
Context matters.
