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

51–60 of 151 posts

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

#51

Post by Groxx »

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.

If the head of the fish is violating it, especially consistently, it's not a "culture". It's a tool to mislead people. The "use available tools to mislead people" is the culture.

(I'm not at all claiming this is unique to Amazon. But it uh. Does seem to be the case there. Like most large companies.)

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

#52

Post by dylan604 »

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…

If you knowingly participate in scams, hawking junk , defrauding customers, or any other thing, then yes, that's some shady shit. Does it break any laws? Not a lawyer, but it damn sure breaks the spirit of law (intentionally leaving out "the").

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

#54

Post by taeric »

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.

The case against Microsoft was that they used revenue from other markets to offer a browser for free so that they could prevent a competition in the browser space...

There is an argument that the browser is a feature, not a product. But that is not the case for back then.

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

#55

Post by transcriptase »

RecycledEle wrote: post #9

I remember when DealExtreme (DX.com) was popular. I complained that their search was broken and returned to many unrelated results. Their reply was that that boosted sales. That was when I started trying to avoid them. Not the are gone.

Unrelated but their drop shipping service was great, complete with practically free custom branding on anything customer facing.

Before it became the insane high-volume low-profit fraud ridden race to the bottom it is now, I made spending money in university selling Wii accessories on both eBay and a simple online shop.

I was always up front about authenticity, long shipping times, and tested products myself first.

Then Amazon and Aliexpress came along (to the mainstream) so it’s no surprise they couldn’t remain viable.

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

#56

Post by metabagel »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #43
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?

I don’t follow your reasoning. Amazon stands acccused of “pay to play” market behavior. If you want to participate as a seller in the Amazon monopsony marketplace, you have to pay. That’s the behavior of a monopolist.

Edit: changed “monopoly” to “monopsony”

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

#57

Post by mynameisash »

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

I don't know what has happened to YouTube ads in the last year or so, but now that YT is cracking down on adblockers, I'm seeing a lot of them. One thing I'm noticing is that most ads are absolutely garbage.

It was one thing to see the 'professional' ads for T-Mobile internet and makeup and whatnot, but I'm seeing a ton of clickbait-style ads for things that are very clearly get-rich-quick and/or straight-up scams. "This one new method of heating your house is taking America by storm!" "This new device that cleans your house in five minutes is being called revolutionary by experts."

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

#59

Post by taeric »

karaterobot wrote: post #34
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 formin…

I complained on the first round of this that it is rosy glasses of a good internet in the past. Search and ads suck. Period. Always have.

I also find it odd that, on the merits of the case, Amazon is getting worse. Is there some corrective action that will reverse that?

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

#60

Post by WalterBright »

metabagel wrote: post #49
WalterBright wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> It was added by conservative jurists mostly to make it difficult to successfully bring antitrust cases.

Other than harm to consumers, what do you say is the harm from a trust? After all, aren't high prices an indicator of a monopoly?

> And hey, it worked!

And maybe it should. Imagine the hellfire and damnation stemming from having a free browser!

I suppose I'll be damned forever for providing a free implementation of D.

Post reply on HN