Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

blog.kevmod.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 499 posts

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#471

Post by rebuilder »

hunter2_ wrote: post #392
rebuilder wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selectively removing negative reviews is so sleazy, one wonders if it is actually even legal. Surely there's some truth-in-advertising legislation this falls under?

Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.

I was thinking more along the lines of what counts as advertising vs. user feedback. Not a lawyer, so maybe it doesn't even matter. Still, I'd argue that if you are selectively removing negative reviews in order to give a better impression of a product, while giving the customer the impression that the reviews are representative of people who bought the product, you're no longer just publishing reviews. You are now engaged in promoting the product, and you're doing so through dishonest means.

Now is that illegal? I sure don't know. Is it provable? That could be tough, too. But if someone asked me if it's legal to doctor reviews of products, I'd tell them to consult a very good lawyer or two.

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#472

Post by Natanael_L »

tinus_hn wrote: post #425
hunter2_ wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.

There’s plenty of exceptions like the DMCA forcing a host to restore access to something if a counterclaim is filed. Or being required to communicate the surgeons general warning on tobacco products.

DMCA counter claims do not force a restore, it just permits the host to restore without personal liability for infringement (as the uploader takes on the full legal liability for the material, and often need to identify themselves in the process).

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#473

Post by Natanael_L »

hunter2_ wrote: post #392
rebuilder wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selectively removing negative reviews is so sleazy, one wonders if it is actually even legal. Surely there's some truth-in-advertising legislation this falls under?

Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.

While they probably can't be forced to publish negative reviews, I think it could be viable to use false advertising laws against misrepresenting the product / service through manipulating reviews.

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#474

Post by Natanael_L »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #351
Mistletoe wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every single item on Amazon and everywhere else is 4.5 stars. No matter how terrible. I can see one star after one star helpful review but it will still be 4.5 stars for items that just fall apart and are obviously defective. The sellers just game the reviews until they get to that magic 4.5. Goodhart's Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Luckily Amazon will take back anythi…

The most frustrating thing now is seeing a product >4.5 stars, but going to the reviews and all the most recent ones are 1/2.

Steam has done something smart here by displaying both the total score and a recent trend score, so you can see if recent changes has made the game better or worse.

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#475

Post by Natanael_L »

mjevans wrote: post #401
runawaybottle wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1 star review that loves the product but hated the way it was shipped. Someone needs to write a textbook on the pathology of those people.

Shipping is part of the purchase process. If the product is good, but the shipping is not, buyers deserve to be informed. If there are separate reviews for the product and the shipping of a product (still tied to that product, but also the shipping carrier that was used for that order) then a split review (one for each) is legitimate. Otherwise if there's only one review spot, EVERYTHING is on the table.

One of the problems here is when Amazon has one shared item listing for multiple sellers.

A bad review for the product due to one seller's shipping hurts all the other sellers too.

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#476

Post by dragonwriter »

hunter2_ wrote: post #392
rebuilder wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selectively removing negative reviews is so sleazy, one wonders if it is actually even legal. Surely there's some truth-in-advertising legislation this falls under?

Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.

> I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything.

Laws in the US can, and often do, require disclosure of certain factual information when publishing other information; this is particularly common in the context of commercial (and political) advertising.

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#477

Post by dragonwriter »

tinus_hn wrote: post #425
hunter2_ wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer but I think in the US, you have the right to remain silent. I don't think a law can compel anyone to publish anything. Might be the first amendment.

There’s plenty of exceptions like the DMCA forcing a host to restore access to something if a counterclaim is filed. Or being required to communicate the surgeons general warning on tobacco products.

> There’s plenty of exceptions like the DMCA forcing a host to restore access to something if a counterclaim is filed.

The DMCA doesn't do that.

The DMCA allows a host to do that without liability for infringement, and continues to provide the host immunity to liability for any claims the user would otherwise have for the original takedown so long as they do that (the second half is the closest thing to force, but it usually is immaterial because hosts usually structure their contracts with users so that they would have no liability to them to immunize against, which is also why hosts are much more likely to provide reliable notice-takedown than counternotice-restorartion.)

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#478

Post by bigbubba »

dfxm12 wrote: post #311
bigbubba wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The customer paid not only for the product but also for the service of having that product delivered to them. Asking them to restrict their review to only one aspect of what they paid for does not seem reasonable.

It's about giving proper weight to each aspect. Giving a 1 star review to an otherwise 4 star experience is dishonest if you only have some issue with the shipping (or marketing tactics), just as an example.

"Proper weight" is subjective. Disagreeing with dfxm12 doesn't constitute dishonesty.

Re: Amazon disallows pointing out paid reviews

#479

Post by mitchdoogle »

jjeaff wrote: post #335
radlad wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're implying the review is about the product. If the review is about the company (e.g. a restaurant), then a 1-star review is warranted, if you feel that a company which games reviews is a 1-star company. I certainly do.

Reviews about the company or service rather than the product are a pet peeve of mine for food. I want to know if it is good food first and foremost. I could care less if the waitress gave you a dirty look when you asked that your steak be cooked well done.

Service is part of the experience when dining out, so I think it makes sense to include that as a factor for restaurant reviews. Of course, the platform should separate out food from service
Post reply on HN