Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#461

Post by hombre_fatal » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #440

rapind wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shit begets shit. If you're buying from a local mom and pop where the owners are part of your community it's far less likely you would take advantage of the situation. People still return wallets full of money. How are they morally bankrupt? Amazon is an example of unfettered capitalism, and are seen differently in the eyes of the consumer. Right or wrong, people just don't care about a megacorps well being (and I do…

What is unfettered capitalism? The "unfettered" part leads me to believe this is a pejorative. Wikipedia redirects to economic liberalism, which is just free markets in opposition to planned economies. Is there anyone even remotely serious who thinks planned economies are superior? Is there a planned economy in the world that isn't in tattered ruins, impoverishing its people in the most hideous and evil fashion, whil…

I keep seeing "capitalism" leveled at Amazon as a pejorative when people seem to mean "consumerism."

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#462

Post by la_barba » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

Verdex wrote: post #442

kartan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. Secondly, companies does not have morals. If you allow big corporations to change prices as they see fit because there is a "mistake". Companies will exploit that to their advantage with psychopathic precisi…

I agree with both you and parent. People are uncomfortably inconsistent. If a certain rule benefits them then they'll favor it ... right until the rule becomes a problem for them or favors their adversary. Normally, I see this when people talk about their politics. On the other hand, Amazon has an unbelievable amount of power. And I think things would be a lot better if we as a society applied the spider-man rule. Wi…

Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#463

Post by darkarmani » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #372

tripzilch wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is such an attempt of anthropomorphisation, when you say the company is "expected to be a good sport". You don't say a herd of cows ought to be a good sport. A crying baby ought to be a good sport. That tree is being mean, casting shade. The anthill ought to return my sugar. That is why there is no conflict. Because they are not the same morally and thus not expected to be treated the same.

This argument cuts both ways. If Amazon isn't a moral entity, then there's also no moral violation if they screw you over.

> This argument cuts both ways. If Amazon isn't a moral entity, then there's also no moral violation if they screw you over.

In that case, it's not a moral violation if they screw you over, but it's not a moral violation if you end them for screwing you over either. The mosquito isn't violating morals when it bites me, but I'd still have no problem eliminating them all from my backyard if i could do it in a reasonable manner. Not many people claim it is immoral for me to swat the mosquito.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#464

Post by danbruc » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

def_true_false wrote: post #419

danbruc wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you start going down this line of arguments, then you also have to take into account the abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most, and that sort of thing. Also Amazon could easily add - in case it does not already exist - a policy to its terms and conditions that explicitly states that…

> abuse of return policies, ordering and wearing clothes once before returning them, ordering several similar items while intending to only keep the one you like the most How is this considered abuse at all? The EU even mandates a 14 day return window for online shopping since you don't get to try stuff on or see the item like you would in a physical store.

I am totally in favor of this 14 day return policy, there are good reasons why it exists. But behind every law there is also an intention and the intention behind this law was certainly not to allow you to order an expensive suit or dress, wear it at one event, and then return it without ever having had the intention to keep it. At the very best this is an gray area and it certainly is abuse because it is against the intention of the law.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#465

Post by habosa » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

Leaving aside the question of right or wrong, I have always thought that the pride people take when they "beat" a large corporation is one of the most fundamentally American things there is.

How many times has someone given you a tip on what lie to tell to a customer service agent to get what you want? How many websites are there devoted to jumping on airline ticket pricing errors? How many times can you think of someone telling you their insurance paid out more than their loss was worth?

In some circles this even extends into taxes. People brag about how they minimize their tax burden even though that means the person you're bragging to will be the one receiving less govt. services. We have a president now who brags about not paying much in taxes, even though his current job would be meaningless without them!

I think in a purely capitalistic society, this is all rational behavior. But it's also the reason we have such antagonistic relationships with corporations. Both sides look to screw each other at the slightest hint of weakness.

This is the internet so I am sure I will be told which side is right, but that's really not what I am getting at. I just find the dynamic so interesting.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#466

Post by samstave » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #390

samstave wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I canceled my prime subscription, but they charged me anyway.. I called and got a refund, but I also told them I wanted a $25 'convenience fee' -- They paid it.

Now that sounds like a made up story

Completely true.

The issue was that the prime was a $99 charge and I just paid rent. Their $99 made my account go negative and I got an overdraft fee.

So I told Amazon I wanted a convenice fee for my time having to call them and to pay me the overdraft fee.

The guy put me on hold for a few minutes - then came back and agreed. and I got my $99 plus $25 that I asked for.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#467

Post by 99_00 » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

sagebird wrote: post #239

It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars instead of 5, they will let you undo it. On the other hand, if the matter is reversed, Amazon is expected to be a good sport and take the loss — even if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) I’m not going to en…

It's not about "moral expectations". When customers buy from a respected retailer they expect pricing mistakes in the customer's favour to be honoured because it is an industry norm among respected retailers.

If Amazon wants to market its self as a respected retailer they will act the way customers expect a respected retailer to act.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#468

Post by la_barba » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

sagebird wrote: post #239

It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars instead of 5, they will let you undo it. On the other hand, if the matter is reversed, Amazon is expected to be a good sport and take the loss — even if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) I’m not going to en…

I think you're giving people too much credit, I doubt the people were thinking about Amazons HR policies, or any moral or otherwise nuanced socio-economic arguments. That's not to say they're horrible people, well.. maybe just a little greedy and/or without any shame. I know a lot of people that are very religious (or non-religious but 'principled') who will still lie on their resume. Its just a human thing I guess..

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#469

Post by darkarmani » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #320

kartan wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. Secondly, companies does not have morals. If you allow big corporations to change prices as they see fit because there is a "mistake". Companies will exploit that to their advantage with psychopathic precisi…

> First, there is an asymmetry in power too. Amazon can afford to double check or triple check everything if it makes economic sense. There's an asymmetry because Amazon can "afford" to double check everything? How? They lists millions of items. You're only in the market for a few. They're good at inventory management, but the scale is crazy which is why this mispricing is happening. Besides, I don't see why them "be…

I agree with some of your sentiment, but this argument isn't cut-n-dried.

> It's ironic that many people still believe the narrative that corporations are evil and would screw over their customers at any chance...Amazon wouldn't do that not because of benevolence or legal reasons, but because its not in their interest

That is not a counter-argument for them not being evil -- that's could be more along the line of lawful evil (pragmatically evil). If it is in their interest to screw people over and they don't is more a counter-example of not being evil.

I don't think all corporation are evil. I think corporations should be judged on their behavior towards people. If they carry out evil actions they are evil (or at least part of them is). If they carry out good actions then they are probably not evil (maybe it's just that interests align with being good).

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#470

Post by miloignis » Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 4:27 PM UTC

la_barba wrote: post #462

Verdex wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with both you and parent. People are uncomfortably inconsistent. If a certain rule benefits them then they'll favor it ... right until the rule becomes a problem for them or favors their adversary. Normally, I see this when people talk about their politics. On the other hand, Amazon has an unbelievable amount of power. And I think things would be a lot better if we as a society applied the spider-man rule. Wi…

Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?

I would, and I imagine most people would. I don't steal, certainly, and would never unless absolutely forced to do so, but if I had to I would definitely chose to steal from someone for whom it would make less of a difference.