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

Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

inthesetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#141

Post by shawnz »

mattkrause wrote: post #139
serioussecurity wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because ad click through rates are so low and the signal is so incredibly sparse. It's all measured against a test set which the researchers rarely look at directly (because the data set is so large). So if something lifts ad vlicks by 1% and that's from 100 in 10k to 101 in 10k, they don't really care if 9k of the ads get appreciably dumber.

> they don't really care if 9k of the ads get appreciably dumber. But maybe they should. The recipients of those 9,000 ads are being trained to ignore the recommendations because they’re so useless, and may continue to ignore its suggestions even after it improves. Likewise, a few clueless recommendations can “spoil” good ones shown at the same time. None of this shows up in the test set, of course, but people tend t…

> The recipients of those 9,000 ads are being trained to ignore the recommendations ... Likewise, a few clueless recommendations can “spoil” good ones shown at the same time.

How can you be sure that "random" untargeted ads don't have just as bad of an effect? Ultimately Amazon can see the numbers and we can't, and they made their decision based on that. It's pointless to argue over theories without data.

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#142

Post by [deleted] »

lvs wrote: post #119
dang wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed on Hacker News. Please make your points without stooping to that. In this case, the nasty bits at the beginning of the comment could be replaced with a factual explanation about the issue at hand. Since you say it's clear, that ought to be easy to do, and it would make your comment into a good one rather than a bad one for HN. https://news.ycombinator.co…

No, a personal attack would be to suggest the moderators at HN are defending Amazon employees from criticism using intellectually dishonest tactics. That would be a personal attack. Nothing I said was about the poster as a person, but rather the poster represented him/herself as a representative of a company at issue. If you're on here representing your company for good press, expect criticism. If you're moderating t…

[deleted]

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#143

Post by Normal_gaussian »

dhimes wrote: post #135
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its funny you should use that example. I recently bought a rice cooker, and then bought another a few weeks later. I've done similar things a lot, in this case it was because the first cooker had too large a minimum cooking amount. I'm currently looking at buying my mother google WiFi - which I bought a few weeks ago. And a few months back I rebought a tool I had just purchased because I lost it. I currently work for…

There's a whole lot about advertising I don't know, but the question that sticks in my mind is, did you need that ad to know which rice cooker to buy the second time? Did it change your decision? Did you see an ad for a different rice cooker and act on that? It seems like an effective ad would be this: Say you bought a rice cooker on Amazon for $75. Now Walmart shows you an ad for the same rice cooker for $60. That w…

Yes. Without the ads I wouldn't have bought the second cooker - it was a pain point for my partner not for me, so she complained once then a week or two later I saw the ad and purchased another.

With the Google wifi I had forgotten, and it caused me tk reconsider and write it on my whiteboard.

The tool I wpuld purchase anyway.

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#144

Post by brobdingnagians »

steventhedev wrote: post #110
brobdingnagians wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, there was a science fiction story where a supercomputer that humanity used for efficient logistics took over the world simply by changing the orders and sending things to the appropriate places. Can't remember the book, but might have been by Heinlein or Clarke... Seems like the Amazon AWS servers could do that quite nicely if they were sentient... or just had enough data.

Asimov wrote one like this[0], but the theme is pretty common and shows up in many science fiction stories. I only call out Asimov's version because it also has the Machine screwing up orders on purpose to remove otherwise competent people from power who don't trust it. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict

Yep! That's the one

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#145

Post by munk-a »

imglorp wrote: post #132
munk-a wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These all[1], along with the general concept of a loss leader, are instances where a company is leveraging patent or protected data laws in an unintended manner to set up a moat against competition - as this is anti-competitive all these examples should be examined to see to what extent are preventing free enterprise - printer toner is a particularly egregious example of using device lock down to prevent a legitimate…

Okay, poor examples? How about quickie marts selling underpriced drinks in the back... but you usually end up buying other things on your way to the drinks that have the big margins. The drinks are probably undercutting other stores.

I have less of an issue with this sort of an arrangement as the low saturation point for selling drinks means that the locality of the quickie mart already gives it a huge competitive advantage, under-pricing their drinks isn't likely to effect competitors - just spur on more sales as a sort of advertising.

That said if a drink stand (maybe a food-cart) was unable to match the prices offered by a quickie mart because they were selling at a loss - then I think we've returned to a situation where loss leading is creating a barrier to market entry.

The quickie mart is a really good example (I also like toy stores that sell cheap diapers to try and leverage free eyeballs as they pass through the store) where the market has a very low natural level of competition and there aren't as many specialized sellers - I think in these cases a loss-leader could be permitted on a small scale, but still be held subject to legal action if the disparity started suppressing the local market.

(Also, sorry, I didn't mean to criticize the bank toaster example, I was actually quite amused by it, I've never heard that described as a loss-leader but it totally is)

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#146

Post by Nasrudith »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #130
goliatone wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A slightly more grey area arises where, with no human involvement or instruction, a price-setting AI algorithm teaches itself to coordinate with competitors – otherwise referred to as tacit algorithmic collusion. While it is unclear the extent to which current AI technology allows for this tacit coordination, a 2018 University of Bologna study found that if two competitors both employ pricing algorithms, and each gi…

> no human involvement How does it come about that that is that a concept? Does the thought go something like: "We neglected to instruct the algorithm not to collude, and failed to monitor outcomes for collusion, therefore we're not responsible?" > and each gives its software total autonomy to set prices Ah, yep.

I think it is a matter of intention as the ultimate ass-covering. They never /intended/ anything other than a legal aim.

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#147

Post by dang »

lvs wrote: post #119
dang wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment crosses into personal attack, which is not allowed on Hacker News. Please make your points without stooping to that. In this case, the nasty bits at the beginning of the comment could be replaced with a factual explanation about the issue at hand. Since you say it's clear, that ought to be easy to do, and it would make your comment into a good one rather than a bad one for HN. https://news.ycombinator.co…

No, a personal attack would be to suggest the moderators at HN are defending Amazon employees from criticism using intellectually dishonest tactics. That would be a personal attack. Nothing I said was about the poster as a person, but rather the poster represented him/herself as a representative of a company at issue. If you're on here representing your company for good press, expect criticism. If you're moderating t…

No, of course. But I'm defending HN, not Amazon. Had your comment been pro-Amazon the moderation would be the same.

You broke the site guidelines by accusing the commenter of posting in bad faith and by making a serious allegation in a snarky, drive-by way. If you're going to address that sort of issue on HN, your comment needs to lose those qualities and contain more information. That's true regardless of how correct your view is.

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#148

Post by dang »

lvs wrote: post #121
_4vew wrote: post #18

(Disclaimer: I work for Amazon, but not in the retail, legal, or finance departments, and I have no inside information about what the company is doing with respect to its pricing. Opinions are my own and not of the company.) Yet another sensationalist headline that is unsubstantiated by the article. "This law student" has a theory . He does not have evidence -- and, in fact, much ink in the article is spilled on the…

You're clearly engineering on how to evade antitrust law. But the better argument is simply that if antitrust law doesn't sufficiently cover Amazon's business, then it needs to be changed to ensure that it does.

Reposting a flagkilled comment like this is obviously an abuse of the site. Please don't do it again.

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#149

Post by lvs »

dang wrote: post #148
lvs wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're clearly engineering on how to evade antitrust law. But the better argument is simply that if antitrust law doesn't sufficiently cover Amazon's business, then it needs to be changed to ensure that it does.

Reposting a flagkilled comment like this is obviously an abuse of the site. Please don't do it again.

No, it was a perfectly legitimate comment that you censored wrongly.

Re: Is Amazon Violating U.S. Antitrust Laws?

#150

Post by lvs »

dang wrote: post #147
lvs wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a personal attack would be to suggest the moderators at HN are defending Amazon employees from criticism using intellectually dishonest tactics. That would be a personal attack. Nothing I said was about the poster as a person, but rather the poster represented him/herself as a representative of a company at issue. If you're on here representing your company for good press, expect criticism. If you're moderating t…

No, of course. But I'm defending HN, not Amazon. Had your comment been pro-Amazon the moderation would be the same. You broke the site guidelines by accusing the commenter of posting in bad faith and by making a serious allegation in a snarky, drive-by way. If you're going to address that sort of issue on HN, your comment needs to lose those qualities and contain more information. That's true regardless of how correc…

Sounds like you're putting a lot of words in my mouth. Delete this account please.
Post reply on HN