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

Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#31

Post by kibwen »

thrill wrote: post #11

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.

The reason that we, as members of a society, allow corporations to exist is out of the belief that they can improve society. If your company doesn't improve society as a side effect of increasing your profits, then we have no obligation to tolerate the existence of your company.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#32

Post by metabagel »

vivekd wrote: post #21

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is…

It proves they are a monopoly and harming consumers. Consumer harm is a keystone of antitrust enforcement.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#33

Post by makeitdouble »

eschneider wrote: post #2

I'm sure that if making the site less shitty would boost profit, Amazon would have done that.

I think the main issue is that Amazon doesn't have to boost the sales of actual goods if they can make it up in ad fees.

And that situation is only stable if for some reason the vendors have to be on your site and keep advertising anyway, which is the hallmark of a monopoly adjacent situation.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#34

Post by karaterobot »

vivekd wrote: post #21

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is…

Yeah, this was my reaction too. They run shitty ads and serve shitty search results: fair enough, take your business elsewhere. I'm not sure what the story is. I feel I must be missing something, because it's the FTC raising a stink and not just Vice. Whether it has merit or not, the FTC presumably is not just trying to get clicks. I'll wait until another (better) news source provides additional context before forming an opinion.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#35

Post by metabagel »

thrill wrote: post #11

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.

You don’t understand. This is antitrust enforcement.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#36

Post by vivekd »

wlesieutre wrote: post #30
vivekd wrote: post #21

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is…

“Made site shittier to boost profit” describes nearly 100% of online advertising

Exactly! I would go further it applies to almost 100% of all advertising from TV to radio to billboards, poster ads ...

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#37

Post by gotoeleven »

kibwen wrote: post #31
thrill wrote: post #11

WTF happened to recognition that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit. A company website that would make people weep to return to MySpace and makes money from it is still a valid company and business process. The more I read of the FTC's complaints the less I respect their argument.

The reason that we, as members of a society, allow corporations to exist is out of the belief that they can improve society. If your company doesn't improve society as a side effect of increasing your profits, then we have no obligation to tolerate the existence of your company.

false!

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#38

Post by bogomipz »

azzthrooww wrote: post #28
bogomipz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is in interesting because Amazon's "Leadership Principles" a are well-known and well-publicized part of Amazon's culture. Number 1 on that list is of course "Customer Obsession", which states: >"Customer Obsession: Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers."[1] It's probably…

It really isn't a meme. It's taken pretty seriously at the company, often gets cited in meetings as a reason to do (or not do) something, and is almost always referenced in large strategic projects/planning docs. It's even sometimes included in criteria for determining performance/promotions. The problem lies in the fact that there's no one single definition of who "the customer" is, and no one single definition of w…

>"The problem lies in the fact that there's no one single definition of who "the customer" is ..."

From the post that we are commenting on here:

>"... show that company executives, including former CEO Jeff Bezos, knowingly made changes to the e-commerce platform that boosted profits while harming consumers and sellers, and making the site less usable."

It's pretty clear who the customer were here. It's literally all the parties that were not Amazon.

Something that "gets cited in meetings" yet not applied in practice pretty much supports it being little more than meme status.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#39

Post by Arainach »

hamstrunghuman9 wrote: post #27
frankfrank13 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you equating banning extremists on social media to being an e-commerce monopoly cause thats a tough line to draw

[flagged]

No one has banned 50% of the country. Source, please.

Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit

#40

Post by WillPostForFood »

metabagel wrote: post #32
vivekd wrote: post #21

Am I reading this right? Amazon accepted advertisers hawking junk ads which made ad prices more expensive and gave less relevant ads to their customers. This can't be a violation of any law or ethical rules... Does anyone seriously think serving only good and relevant ads is an ethical obligation. Can't retailers accept ads from anyone without vetting for quality control. The only thing I can think of here is FTC is…

It proves they are a monopoly and harming consumers. Consumer harm is a keystone of antitrust enforcement.

It proves they are a monopoly

It might show harm, but in no way does prove monopoly.

Post reply on HN