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

41–50 of 151 posts

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

#41

Post by azzthrooww »

bogomipz wrote: post #38
azzthrooww wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your quote listed two different distinct groups of people that are both customers of Amazon: consumers and sellers. And there's a third group that isn't listed: the ad companies which are also customers of Amazon. And what's best for one of those groups isn't necessarily what is best for the other group.

So no, it's not very clear.

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

#42

Post by colechristensen »

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.

In this case the FTC is concerned with Amazon abusing its dominant market position to take advantage of third party sellers who buy ads.

They aren’t protecting consumers, they’re protecting sellers.

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

#43

Post by tobyjsullivan »

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…

Imagine what the exact same FTC would be saying if Amazon exerted control over which ads were displayed based on what converted to more product sales (and thus revenue for Amazon).

Advocating for a less equal ads marketplace seems like such a strange position for the FTC to take.

Are they simply throwing out every possible accusation and seeing what sticks?

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

#45

Post by WalterBright »

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…

The case against Microsoft was based on Microsoft giving away a free browser. That never made any antitrust sense - no consumer harm was ever demonstrated.

Ironically, today every platform includes a free browser.

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

#46

Post by bogomipz »

azzthrooww wrote: post #41
bogomipz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

Your quote listed two different distinct groups of people that are both customers of Amazon: consumers and sellers. And there's a third group that isn't listed: the ad companies which are also customers of Amazon. And what's best for one of those groups isn't necessarily what is best for the other group. So no, it's not very clear.

Honestly it sounds like you've drunk the kool-aid.

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

#47

Post by Groxx »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #40
metabagel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I largely agree: "knowingly made things worse for consumers and suffered no consequences" does seem like meaningful (but far from sufficient) evidence of excessive control over a marketplace. If things were healthy, you'd expect competition to capitalize on that enshittification.

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

#48

Post by azzthrooww »

bogomipz wrote: post #46
azzthrooww wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote listed two different distinct groups of people that are both customers of Amazon: consumers and sellers. And there's a third group that isn't listed: the ad companies which are also customers of Amazon. And what's best for one of those groups isn't necessarily what is best for the other group. So no, it's not very clear.

Honestly it sounds like you've drunk the kool-aid.

And while I gave insight as to what it's actually like working with teams at Amazon, you've spouted speculation based on no experience or knowledge and now it sounds like you have nothing valuable to add to this discussion. /shrug

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

#49

Post by metabagel »

WalterBright wrote: post #45
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…

The case against Microsoft was based on Microsoft giving away a free browser. That never made any antitrust sense - no consumer harm was ever demonstrated. Ironically, today every platform includes a free browser.

Consumer harm wasn’t originally a requirement for antitrust enforcement. It was added by conservative jurists mostly to make it difficult to successfully bring antitrust cases. And hey, it worked!
Post reply on HN