Titular "employees" were informed that they were in violation of media policy by making comments to the media both as a named representative of Amazon and critical of Amazon without prior approval.
Neither of those elements strikes me as shocking. 1) Companies are sensitive—including for legal reasons—to employees clearly noting that "their opinions are their own" and may not reflect the corporate entity. And, 2) media perception, particularly in a negative light.
Maren Costa is quoted as saying, “Any policy that says I can’t talk about something that is a threat to my children – all children – is a problem for me.”
Which, uuh, is not what the policy says. It says "don't bring Amazon into your personal views unless we say it's OK" and "hey, probably don't be openly critical of your employer". Talk about climate change all you want!
Victoria Liang is quoted as saying, “Amazon’s newly updated communications policy is having a chilling effect on workers who have the backbone to speak out and challenge Amazon to do better. This policy is aimed at silencing discussion around publicly available information. It has nothing to do with protecting confidential data, which is covered by a completely different set of policies.”
Which... yep. The entire point is media and PR relations, not confidentiality agreements. To limit one's own employees from making you a pariah in the media.
So none of this is shocking to me.
Note also that this is different from a thesis of, "Workers should be protected for criticizing their employers in the media" or "Amazon should be doing more for climate change."