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

eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

valueaddedresource.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 363 posts

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#331

Post by Dylan16807 »

gond wrote: post #328
Dylan16807 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not having zero sun fallacy. Please read what I said again. I said the exact price is zero sum within the bounds of the deal happening. The wealth creation is caused by the deal happening at all. > if one quadrillionaire in a city owns all the money That's a valid risk factor but on a random eBay purchase I think it's fair to say we have no idea if the purchaser or the seller gets more utility out of each dollar…

Then we actually agree on parts? Well, excuse me if I interpreted you wrong. >we have no idea if the purchaser or the seller gets more utility out of each dollar. Assumption: the seller opened the auction with his actual hard lower limit, he should be happy with what he gets as soon as that limit gets hit. The original poster said that he essentially altered the bid in favour of the seller. However, the exchange of s…

I agree with everything you said there.

My argument is that this distortion in favor of the seller isn't really good or bad in a meaningful way. It's just rude.

The seller is happy as long as their limit is hit, the buyer is happy as long as their limit isn't hit. How should the surplus happiness get split? I dunno. So the earlier poster sticking their finger in and shifting the surplus around isn't a particularly moral issue.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#332

Post by geocar »

guywithahat wrote: post #319
geocar wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it is also ebay's right to decide whether or not its computer will allow requests from your computer. That is dangerous thinking right there: Ebay does not have rights. Of course ebay may do it anyway, and it may take time for justice to correct things, but it is not Right, nor their right, to violate law even to protect themselves.

Yes they do, as they should. Ebay is in an extremely competitive market and you have lots of other options, if you're abusing their service they need to be allowed to ban you. Imagine if Amazon wasn't allowed to ban scammers, or if they couldn't refuse a login portal to a user, allowing infinite attempts. It's important they get to decide whether to deliver a page to you, let alone keep you as a user. If we were talk…

> > Ebay does not have the right ... to violate law even to protect themselves.

> Yes they do, as they should.

No they should not, and I cannot believe you could say any such thing in good faith.

> if you're abusing their service they need to be allowed to ban you

Who said anything about "abusing their service"?

> Imagine if Amazon wasn't allowed to ban scammers

Nobody is talking about banning scammers.

Don't do this: Don't argue in bad faith. You can still disagree and think companies have the right to commit crimes, but you don't have to act like I'm saying something that I'm clearly not!

> but a private online store can ban users

Actually they can't, because we're now talking about users instead of scammers and abusers: There's something called the Americans for Disability Act, and it protects access to storefronts and no a private online store CANNOT ban users who need an accessibility tool.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#333

Post by geocar »

terminalshort wrote: post #325
geocar wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it is also ebay's right to decide whether or not its computer will allow requests from your computer. That is dangerous thinking right there: Ebay does not have rights. Of course ebay may do it anyway, and it may take time for justice to correct things, but it is not Right, nor their right, to violate law even to protect themselves.

> Ebay does not have rights No, that is the actual dangerous thinking. Ebay enjoys the same freedom of association that you do. Their right to not do business with you is exactly the same as your right to not do business with them. It's the very same right you exercise every time you use an add blocker.

> Their right to not do business with you is exactly the same as your right to not do business with them.

You are incorrect about that. They are subject to the ADA. I am not.

As a publicly listed company they have a tremendous number of other laws that apply to them and not to me.

> It's the very same right you exercise every time you use an add blocker.

Exactly: As an accessibility tool, it is illegal for a company to deny service in the US (and Ebay is a US corporation, despite their Canadian roots) for the use of the tool.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#334

Post by terminalshort »

geocar wrote: post #333
terminalshort wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ebay does not have rights No, that is the actual dangerous thinking. Ebay enjoys the same freedom of association that you do. Their right to not do business with you is exactly the same as your right to not do business with them. It's the very same right you exercise every time you use an add blocker.

> Their right to not do business with you is exactly the same as your right to not do business with them. You are incorrect about that. They are subject to the ADA. I am not. As a publicly listed company they have a tremendous number of other laws that apply to them and not to me. > It's the very same right you exercise every time you use an add blocker. Exactly: As an accessibility tool, it is illegal for a company…

Is ebay denying you service because you have a disability? If not, the ADA is completely irrelevant.

> it is illegal for a company to deny service in the US

No it isn't. If you want to claim this, cite statute.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#335

Post by direwolf20 »

NickC25 wrote: post #302
direwolf20 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Is fraud.

it is? I mean, it's deliberately misleading, but it's not fraud. If it says "box only", it means box only.

The judge and jury aren't stupid. A legitimate auction for a box would be very upfront about the box and would not start the description identically to one for a laptop.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#336

Post by direwolf20 »

mminer237 wrote: post #220
direwolf20 wrote: post #142

You don't have to obey user agreements.

Is so far as you don't have to use the site, that's true, but they are legally enforceable, and you could absolutely be sued for breaking them if you upset eBay enough.

Then most websites can sue OpenAI and Anthropic, but in reality, they can't.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#337

Post by geocar »

terminalshort wrote: post #334
geocar wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their right to not do business with you is exactly the same as your right to not do business with them. You are incorrect about that. They are subject to the ADA. I am not. As a publicly listed company they have a tremendous number of other laws that apply to them and not to me. > It's the very same right you exercise every time you use an add blocker. Exactly: As an accessibility tool, it is illegal for a company…

Is ebay denying you service because you have a disability? If not, the ADA is completely irrelevant. > it is illegal for a company to deny service in the US No it isn't. If you want to claim this, cite statute.

> No it isn't. If you want to claim this, cite statute.

Robles v. Domino’s Pizza

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#338

Post by hattmall »

tracker1 wrote: post #277

I'm not at a point that I trust an AI agent to buy something for me on a place like eBay... ex: "...parts only", "foo for bar", ... How likely am I to get the wrong product entirely or something that I can't actually use.

Who cares? eBay has free returns with postage paid by the seller for any item, so it really doesn't matter if you get the wrong thing etc.

Of course this is why they ban it because the odds of you getting something wrong is too high and sellers + eBay would lose out.

Re: eBay explicitly bans AI "buy for me" agents in user agreement update

#339

Post by hattmall »

g947o wrote: post #148
observationist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hey, ChatGPT/Grok/GeneriBot4000, please watch for a great deal on a 1982 stratocaster guitar - must be in good or better condition, $600 or less, and if you see it, go ahead and buy it without confirmation" Ongoing tasks, arbitrage for mispriced postings in ways that aren't currently exploited that LLMs make feasible - by banning auto-buy, maybe they're attempting to delineate between human seeming behavior and auto…

I have decent tech company salary but I don't even buy $10 books without checking everything. This week I almost bought a wrong book (manually) because how similar the title is. Automating stuff with AI is interesting, but I don't want the hassle of getting surprised and handling returns, if the item can be returned at all, especially on eBay.

eBay has free postage paid returns for any item, at least in the US.
Post reply on HN