Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not at all the kind of enshittification Amazon was doing.
It's not too far off
How is changing up site UX at all the same as changing the content but staying with the same UX?
Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
121–130 of 151 posts
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#122WTF 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.
> corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to increase profit
"modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so"
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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”
Grocery stores sell shelf space, particularly prime positioning, and that’s a practice that predates the internet. Add to that the fact that most websites sell ad space as a primary or secondary revenue generator. Yes, Amazon is a middleman and they take as big a cut as they can. Is that abusing a monopoly or simply the nature of being the most successful marketplace? That’s for the courts to decide, I guess. (Or not…
It’s exercising monopoly power.
Amazon is not only charging sellers for placement, but they deliberately threw a bunch of fake and shitty products up on their marketplace to force sellers to cough up more money.
They also require sellers not to sell their product cheaper anywhere else, which I’ve never understood how they can get away with.
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me. If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to…
Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment. Small companies are the future big companies. A healthy economy needs both. Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. > If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient I did not say that. Small companies become big companies by being more efficient than existing big…
> Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive.
Nice straw man you got there! The point is to ensure a competitive marketplace where small companies can survive.
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#125I 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.
Their discoverability was awful. What about how AliExpress' search works? The first few listings will be prior viewed items, typically wildly unrelated to the current search-- just remarketing ads based on products visited. Then the things labeled as ads are even more outlandish and inappropriate (serums, pills, pseudo-scams)-- but I guess the ROI is there, else they wouldn't be running them. Similar to the old days…
What about youtube search ? The first five results are related and then you get some npc garbage that "you may like".
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#126Intentionally making sites shit to boost profit is pretty routine. And not just internet rags that bury a tiny slither of content under dozens of ads and popups. The classic one is insurance sites. It's an open secret that they make the claims process as difficult as possible. The ideal insurance claim platform for an insurer is basically to register all zeros on Lighthouse, with a session timeout 50% less than the o…
I'm not sure government websites related to welfare and services have been noticeably worse than those for paying my tax.
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
It amazes me how much advertising is literally fraud. Aren’t there authorities that are meant to police this kind of thing?
It's a multibillion business and helps other businesses grow. And it even pays (some) taxes. Why would any authority even think about killing it?
Consumers have a limited wallet anyway, and you know how most people are: they will spend most of their income anyway. So the ad business is more about shifting where the money goes, than about conferring any extra value.
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s wrong with Vice? The website loads fast and I don’t see any paywalls
I dislike Vice's journalism style, IMO psyops, and rather obtrusive ads. To me, the FTC announcement, beyond being the original source, is to the point and respects my time.
> IMO psyops
I'm curious, care to elaborate?
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me. If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to…
Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment. Small companies are the future big companies. A healthy economy needs both. Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. > If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient I did not say that. Small companies become big companies by being more efficient than existing big…
> Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment
The German Mittelstand[0] companies very much disagree with your assessment.
Re: Amazon execs intentionally made site shittier to rake in more profit – Lawsuit
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency. Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me. If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to…
Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment. Small companies are the future big companies. A healthy economy needs both. Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive. > If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient I did not say that. Small companies become big companies by being more efficient than existing big…
> Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment
there are enough economies where productivity is driven by small companies.
For example: about 56% of employment and 43% of revenue of germany comes from small companies. It was even higher in the past.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Unter...