I don't care who wins the election next month, Lina Khan needs to be kept as FTC chair. The FTC has been on a roll the past while.
[deleted]
US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
21–30 of 236 posts
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#22[dead]
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#23Ruling at the below link, because apparently every US news reporter is allergic to actually providing source docs in court cases . . . https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.32...
It's in violation of the sacred law of the attention economy: Never link outside your garden.
For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#24Competition is the core tenant that makes capitalism beneficial to broader society.
Consolidation over the past few decades has limited the capacity for firms to compete in many sectors.
So I appreciate the sentiment of what the FTC is trying to do, but they really come across as amateurs bringing far too many lawsuits and often with weak legal reasoning/argumentation.
In many of the cases they've brought there exists alternative, yet stronger arguments that could have been made.
I'd support congress legislating towards more competition (e.g. forcing open standards for things like APIs/chat clients/smart watches etc), or a more active FTC.
But the current approach is far too disorganized and weak.
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#25[flagged]
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#26I hope they include Amazon's practice of taking popular products on their storefront, making generic "Amazon Basics" versions, and selling them to undercut the popular options. Simultaneously owning a marketplace, approving who can and can't sell products on it, and then putting your own products on it to undercut other sellers is so scummy and muck rake-y. I hope they also include Amazon allowing thousands of Chines…
I don't think it's part of an antitrust case, but I am tired of seeing every item being sold from 200 chinese companies with randomly generated names and fake/bought reviews. Walmart has started to do something similar with their online store. I'll use their words. > It's easy to sell online with Walmart.com. Partner with the largest multi-channel retailer and put your products in front of millions of Walmart shopper…
> you're essentially being dropshipped hazardous unregulated products.
How did we end up here? Like why the hell can I buy things on Amazon that can't legally be sold on shelves in the US? Why aren't retailers suing?
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every one can afford the name brand. - Sincerely a kid raised on everything store brand.
I dont think anyone's arguing against generic alternatives of name brand items. The issue here is Amazon using up-and-coming and popular products as fodder for them to generic-ize and push to the top of results, essentially knee capping the original seller.
Is there a business with a "house brand" that doesn't do this?
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's part of an antitrust case, but I am tired of seeing every item being sold from 200 chinese companies with randomly generated names and fake/bought reviews. Walmart has started to do something similar with their online store. I'll use their words. > It's easy to sell online with Walmart.com. Partner with the largest multi-channel retailer and put your products in front of millions of Walmart shopper…
> you're essentially being dropshipped hazardous unregulated products. How did we end up here? Like why the hell can I buy things on Amazon that can't legally be sold on shelves in the US? Why aren't retailers suing?
> Why aren't retailers suing?
Because Amazons wiped a lot of them out, and the ones that remain are either doing the same thing, or stand zero chance of comign out of it anything less than bankrupt.
Amazon for all its convenience has decimated likely close to if not more than a million businesses at this point across the world.
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in violation of the sacred law of the attention economy: Never link outside your garden.
For some weird reason, outlinks are to be avoided, because it's seen as "leaving your site". In a store front, I can see that making sense. In a site to provide information... not so much.
News sites aren't just providing information: they're trading reporting for ad impressions.
Re: US antitrust case against Amazon to move forward
#30Ruling at the below link, because apparently every US news reporter is allergic to actually providing source docs in court cases . . . https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.32...
I find this to be the case with most primary sources, not just for court cases. A couple days ago, an American WWII bomb exploded at a Japanese airport and the article linked on HN didn't even show or link the video.
Legacy media really sucks.