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

Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 526 posts

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#481

Post by inimino »

tomcam wrote: post #128
guelo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my ethical framework it is more than fine to take advantage of a mistake by one of the largest companies in the world. They'll take advantage of you if given the chance.

At what size company would your ethics require you to reverse course and treat them the way you would like to be treated if you had made the mistake?

I'll take this one. At the point where the loss would create a cash crunch that would materially affect any of the company's employees (e.g. layoffs, company goes out of business, etc.)

If the company is Amazon-sized you are taking profits away from Amazon shareholders due to a mistake in the algorithms that drive Amazon's profits, which is nothing if not fair.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#482

Post by Kye »

gingabriska wrote: post #169
Kye wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "But you have to admit it is unethical." No, I don't. Buying something for the listed price is perfectly ethical. Your ethics are different. That's okay. People have different perspectives. My ethics don't require me to pay more than the asking price. I'll tip people who undercharge to the point that it's harmful to them (like albums on Bandcamp), but Amazon will be fine. >> "People justify stealing $16 million fr…

> No, I don't. Buying something for the listed price is perfectly ethical. Till you don't know the price listed was an error on their part, but now you know so it's unethical.

Has Amazon released a statement? We don't know that it was an error until they do. It's not unusual for a company like Amazon to sell things far below cost to conquer a market. This level of discount is out of the ordinary, but you don't really know until they say or someone says Amazon cancelled the order or asked for it back.

Maybe that sounds like rationalization to you. Let's go back to the article...

>> "Other members spoke to Amazon customer service about their order and were told that the order would indeed ship."

That doesn't sound like a company that made a mistake. And even if it is...

>> "While many Slickdeals members remarked that the orders would almost certainly be canceled by Amazon, the retail giant does have a history of honoring some pricing errors — even those that are significant."

Where's the lack of ethics? Amazon could stop it if they wanted to. Taking a deal Amazon offered and hasn't rescinded is about as pristine as it gets, mistake or not.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#483

Post by inimino »

tomcam wrote: post #128
guelo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my ethical framework it is more than fine to take advantage of a mistake by one of the largest companies in the world. They'll take advantage of you if given the chance.

At what size company would your ethics require you to reverse course and treat them the way you would like to be treated if you had made the mistake?

It's also worth digging into "the mistake" here, because it's very likely that no human made this mistake (and can be punished for it internally). Rather the larger system (machine or beast) that is Amazon created a pricing system that created this price. You can either take advantage of it or not. So the real question of applying the principle of reciprocity here is ... what is the entity making the mistake and being exploited?

Would you like to live in a world where Amazon creates systems that exploit the market but individual consumers feel moral responsibility to turn a blind eye to the opportunities created by the mistakes that that system makes because they project their own humanity onto the system and apply the golden rule?

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#484

Post by hellllllllooo »

sagebird wrote: post #239

It’s kind of interesting- the asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement. If you accidentally purchased a bag of M&Ms from Amazon for 500 dollars instead of 5, they will let you undo it. On the other hand, if the matter is reversed, Amazon is expected to be a good sport and take the loss — even if the purchase was made in bad faith (ie- knowing Amazon mis-priced it but purchasing it anyways.) I’m not going to en…

I don't see any moral issue until Amazon indicates it made a mistake and is actually asking for the return of the goods or for more money. I haven't seen them do that. Maybe their intention was to provide a great deal to their customers.

Even if it was unintentional the relative cost to Amazon is tiny and but the relative cost to any individual customer could be quite large. What you can afford to pay is not absolute so damage caused is not equivalent between an individual and a billion dollar corporation.

In life and money there are no moral absolutes and treating all corporations and individuals the same is not necessary. For me, immoral actions are those with the potential to cause harm, and I don't see equivalent harm in your two examples.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#485

Post by c22 »

ajhurliman wrote: post #478
Verdex wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't really thought about it in those terms. But YES it turns out I do make a distinction. The only reason I called the police on the guy who robbed me at gunpoint was because I was concerned that he might also steal from someone who couldn't stand to lose their money AND because he was using lethal force to steal money. I didn't really enjoy the few weeks of stress that I got from being mugged. But I otherwise…

I think if you had actually experienced both situations you would be less shaken by the robbery from a rich person because you might have had less confidence that they would actually shoot you. This doesn't change the post hoc moral reasoning, but it night have incurred less impact on you.

I'm not sure which point you're trying to make, but I would feel extremely uncomfortable being robbed at gunpoint by a person I knew to be "rich". A rich person has much better odds of getting away with it, or receiving reduced punishment. Also, the rich person has no material need to threaten me at gunpoint, so they have clearly become unhinged and are past the point of rational decision making. A poor person who robs you at gun point just wants your money, they're not actually hoping to shoot people.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#486

Post by what_ever »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #195
what_ever wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, no one is going to stop using Amazon if Amazon didn't honor 2k camera for $94.

Eh, no one is going to stop using Amazon if Amazon didn't honor 2k camera for $94. Probably, but people might be disinclined to pay attention to prime day next year. It's definitely lost a lot of its luster now that Amazon mostly hawks their own cheap crap that nobody's that interested in. Me? I could see this easily being an accident that someone decided to let ride. Maybe they cancel a few orders, but I doubt they'…

Well most of the people found these deals are the ones who will understand it.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#487

Post by la_barba »

Verdex wrote: post #475
la_barba wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?

I haven't really thought about it in those terms. But YES it turns out I do make a distinction. The only reason I called the police on the guy who robbed me at gunpoint was because I was concerned that he might also steal from someone who couldn't stand to lose their money AND because he was using lethal force to steal money. I didn't really enjoy the few weeks of stress that I got from being mugged. But I otherwise…

Hmm, I was mugged once in Philly, it was nighttime and I was returning back from uni. It wasn't particularly traumatic since it happened so quickly. I went to report it and as I was waiting, there were other people in line with gunshot injuries and people in knife fights and one lady whose boyfriend had stabbed her little dog and other crazy stuff and I was like.. you guys need the police's resources way way more than I do, so I just left w/o reporting.

But I guess the point I was making was that if stealing or taking advantage or someones misfortune is morally wrong in one context, then I don't quite see a principled way out of it, other than layering an assumption-ridden argument about Amazon being bad and therefore deserving of this. As is typical in most corporate environments some engineer/pm/sales dude is probably going to end up being the fall guy. IMHO the only way to "stick it" to Amazon and come out on the moral high-ground is to stop using them. There is a time for civil disobedience, but it is possible for most consumers to avoid shopping with them.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#488

Post by gamblor956 »

shawnz wrote: post #445
gamblor956 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is true. Corporations are not fiduciaries for their shareholders and they do not have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or even to protect their shareholders' investments. The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.

> The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it. Right. So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.

No, that's exactly wrong. They don't have a duty to minimize waste, otherwise they would have a duty to not award golden parachutes or large executive compensation packages or even to pay themselves more than a few hundred bucks a year.

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#489

Post by showdead »

shawnz wrote: post #445
gamblor956 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is true. Corporations are not fiduciaries for their shareholders and they do not have a fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or even to protect their shareholders' investments. The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it.

> The board of a corporation is tasked with protecting the shareholders' investments by overseeing the selection of a CEO and corporate structural issues. And that's it. Right. So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.

> So they have a duty to select a CEO who doesn't enable the unnecessary waste of corporate money on optional taxes.

Waste is one of a very short list of categories that are considered something no one wants: https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...

Re: Amazon Accidentally Sold $13k Camera Gear for $100 on Prime Day

#490

Post by jjeaff »

la_barba wrote: post #462
Verdex wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with both you and parent. People are uncomfortably inconsistent. If a certain rule benefits them then they'll favor it ... right until the rule becomes a problem for them or favors their adversary. Normally, I see this when people talk about their politics. On the other hand, Amazon has an unbelievable amount of power. And I think things would be a lot better if we as a society applied the spider-man rule. Wi…

Do you make a distinction between stealing from a rich person versus a poor person?

Do you make a distinction between stealing a pack of gum and stealing a car?
Post reply on HN