591–600 of 653 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-st... They also allegedly hired someone to stalk and harass a couple who posted negative reviews of them online.
That was supposedly rogue execs. Not taking their side, but I don’t think it was company policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-ebay-employees-st... They also allegedly hired someone to stalk and harass a couple who posted negative reviews of them online.
That was supposedly rogue execs. Not taking their side, but I don’t think it was company policy.
rogue employees is not company policy. rogue exec? maybe that isn't company policy. rogue execs!? that IS company policy.
This is getting silly on the same level like the EU demanding Netflix to pay a certain percentage to local movie funds or enforcing certain rules to platforms owned by Meta to protect "user interests" about which no user really cares about. Amazon is not a self-evident service run submissive on behalf of the citizens. It's a private company. Nobody forces to do business with amazon nor is one forced to buy anything f…
You seem to have implied a business’ right to exist, and operate at the expense of others free from regulation. As demonstrated, the earlier part of your comment was rather light on factually correct information, but could you cite the jurisprudence backing this idea of yours?
This strategy has been adopted by eBay as well and artificially drives up prices. Let me elaborate. Recently, eBay has made it so that only the products with paid ads are shown in places where customers click. This drives up the cost of everything by more than 10% which is eBay's ad fee. I refused to buy a paid ad to sell my MacBook. It sat on the site for a month, which is highly unusual for an in-demand and rightly…
We gotta get the eyeballs back on craigslist
This strategy has been adopted by eBay as well and artificially drives up prices. Let me elaborate. Recently, eBay has made it so that only the products with paid ads are shown in places where customers click. This drives up the cost of everything by more than 10% which is eBay's ad fee. I refused to buy a paid ad to sell my MacBook. It sat on the site for a month, which is highly unusual for an in-demand and rightly…
I lost trust in selling on eBay due to buyers that have tried to scam me in the past. Not sure if it's still that way on the sell side for individuals but I felt like, for a while, eBay was favoring high volume users vs being fair. I sold some SFPs that were way under market value about 6 years ago and had serial numbers of each unit in the auctiom. A guy bought them to resell in his shop a couple states away and he claimed they were defective when he received them. I told him to prove it in a switch showing the serial numbers and the error condition he claimed. He wouldn't do it so I told him to ship them back. He shipped me units with way different serial numbers but eBay still gave him his money back and charged me. That's the last time I sold on eBay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now imagine a legal entity represented and managed by several officials. One of them heads into town, hires a bouncer to break a guys leg using the legal entities money, letterhead, and declares that this is work on behalf of the legal entity. What should happen to the legal entity wrt acts commisioned in its name?
They denounce the official and sue to recover the money he spent without authorization? What happens if someone with no affiliation of any kind with the company hires a bouncer to break a guy's leg using company letterhead and a sworn declaration that the work is commissioned on behalf of the company?
A lone wolf acting alone and falsifying documents is entirely different to a direct representative who is authorised to act on behalf of a company acting in bad faith.
Otherwise company officials are free to do henious crimes in the name of and on behalf of a company with no blowback on the company when those actions go pear shaped and get exposed.
Commanders are responsible for the actions of their men, companies are responsible for the actions of their principals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not orthogonal, consolidation of media is only important if it keeps people’s messages from getting distributed broadly. Is that really a problem in 2023? The “media” - ie ways to reach people is less consolidated now than any time in history.
I can invent a new protocol and app right now thats 100x easier to publish on and access. No one is using yet, is the harm of propaganda stories in corporate media lessened in any way by the fact of that tools availability? No
In fact, you don’t have to do that. You’re getting your views across right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do exactly how do you plan to beak them up? How would you divide them up?
Governments' and companies incentives are highly different. I live in Turkey where not every service is corporate like it is in the US. I can see in practice that a competitor service offered by government happens to be that real competition which drags the prices down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This statement is very meaningful in our current society, but one I wish sounded as insane as it is. I hope more people will think about the basic dogma of corporatism in the coming years...
Well, what if we translate this into a very different society? You live in a big mansion. Your live-in cook heads into town one night and ends up getting into a fight in a bar. He breaks the other guy's leg. What should happen to you?
In that metaphor, I see it like this: you live in a big estate that operates as some sort of business (wine, tourism, B&B, w/e), and your live-in cook breaks a guy’s leg while working for the estate (say, in a case of kitchen negligence, or just plain-old kitchen assault). I come along and propose that maybe you and your other owners should be forced to sell the estate or seriously rework things, since the assault was so bad.
In this world, do you share my intuition that at some level the estate itself should be made to answer for the actions of its employees on the job?
Beyond just fining corporations for damages, I feel there’s an unaccounted for intuitive sense that corporations should forfeit their autonomy and very existence in light of serious or repeated malfeasance, even if it wasn’t voted on by every member of the board before being enacted.
Ok maybe I did have time for a metaphor dance lol. Hope all this was somewhat clear!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate that every discussion of reigning in abusive companies has to come with 1000 comments about how other companies are also being abusive, which should apparently make us just wave the white flag. Nah, let's deal with all the monopolies, and Amazon is a good place to start since like you said, they are just incredibly blatant.
It's obvious astroturfing. The top two posts with the most upvotes are "Ebay is just as bad" for the startoff line, and "Everybody's just as bad as Amazon. Why are you being so mean and cruel to Amazon?" Obvious astroturfing, just like the entire Amazon review ecosystem. Surprise? No. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ Bezos' wealth relative to "normal" shown as 1-pixel comparisons. Be careful once you get…
If Amazon can't sell an "Amazon Brand" that competes with other sellers on it's site, the Trader Joe's should not be able to sell wine that competes with the other branded wine in it's own stores. Nor should Target be able to see it's Good Stuff brand (or whatever it is) that directly competes with other things it stocks.
Similarly, if Amazon is going to be barred from having people pay to be the top of search results than Safeway should be barred from having companies pay to have their items placed on the end shelves.
This shouldn't be about just Amazon.