4 ms·

I don't understand how some people are saying this would be an unethical action. This is competition, which is how better services end up being provided to user

I don't understand how some people are saying this would be an unethical action. This is competition, which is how better services end up being provided to users, and for better prices. It's not competing that's unethical, and is what leads to monopolies, price fixing, and other anti-competitive behavior. If they don't like Amazon "poaching" users of their site, then they should offer even more desirable terms to their users. That it's even possible to try to sue for something like this is a sad reflection of how much our laws have interfered in normal market operation, and enabled companies to try to create ways to legally sidestep competition. You can't inform our users you could offer them a better deal. It's against our terms and services! We sue!

jdmichal 8y ago
I don't think anyone would be saying anything had Amazon been calling or mailing these sellers. The fact that they were using the eBay platform and known to be working against the ToS could push it into unethical. "The Amazon employees acknowledged they were breaking eBay’s rules and actively tried to avoid detection, the lawsuit says." Would you consider it unethical to solicit in a neighborhood with no-solicitation signs? What about standing in a competitor's store and advertising your store to their customers?
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The thing you're ignoring here is that Amazon was working to the genuine benefit of the sellers, and eBay's behavior is something aiming to indirectly 'harm' their users insomuch as they aim to prevent information users would likely want to see from being given to them. The store example is fairly close, except that physical trespass would create a major disruption and interfere with the regular operation of the business. More appropriate would be a person standing outside on a public sidewalk handing out fliers advertising better prices at a nearby store than the ones inside the store customers were about to enter. And no, I don't think anybody would find that unethical.
  - jdmichal 8y ago
    You say more appropriate, but Amazon did "virtually enter" the eBay store to attract these customers. If they had put up billboards or web advertisements or hell even handed out fliers, there would be no basis of complaint or unethical behavior.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      I don't think this metaphor works, either legally or ethically. Legally 'virtually entering' a site is not illegal, regardless of whether the owner wants you there (though this can turn to things that are illegal). Ethically we get back to the same point as I think motivation is crucial. Amazon's motivation here is to provide information to sellers that these sellers would almost certainly want to see. eBay's motivation is to try to keep their seller's ignorant of more fruitful opportunities.
      - jdmichal 8y ago
        But they did not just load up eBay.com and start chatting. They logged into the site -- aka, entered a protected and authorized space. And it is illegal to enter a protected space if the owner does not want you there. This is why the no-solicitation example is relevant. In this case, eBay says, you are authorized to enter this store (authenticate into the site using your account and thereby gain access to tools like messaging) as long as you follow these rules (terms of service). You agree to follow these rules before entering the store (when you create your account), so eBay grants you access. You then proceed to knowingly break those rules. And the discussion is not about what Amazon did. Rather, it is about how they did it.
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal whether or not the owner wants you there, unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process. Similarly, breaking terms and conditions is also not inherently unlawful, again unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process of breaking those terms. They are not inherently protected. And this conversation about ethics. The law, let alone terms and services, do not define ethical behavior or the lack thereof. For that matter laws, and especially terms of service, can themselves be unethical - one might argue that in the latter they are quite often unethical.
eiaoa 8y ago
> I don't understand how some people are saying this would be an unethical action. This is competition, which is how better services end up being provided to users, and for better prices. It's not competing that's unethical, and is what leads to monopolies, price fixing, and other anti-competitive behavior. If they don't like Amazon "poaching" users of their site, then they should offer even more desirable terms to their users. This is a really weird perspective. Not all "competition" is the same; there are such things as fair competition and unfair competition. Having your employees seek work at a competing factory to sabotage its operations is definitely a kind of competition, it's just the unfair kind.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Providing basic information to people is about as fair a notion of competition as there is. I think the most reasonable real life metaphor for this scenario would be a for-sale bulletin board on private property where people put things up for sale, and the owner of the land where the bulletin is placed takes a cut of all sales. The owner of this property also wanted to try to protect their profits and so made people sign a piece of paper stating 'I won't inform other users about better deals'. Amazon signed it and then told the sellers about better deals anyhow. In my opinion the behavior that was both unfair and unethical was eBay trying to prevent fair competition for their users.
  - eiaoa 8y ago
    Let me put it simply and clearly: Amazon has no right to use Ebay's systems however it chooses and against Ebay's wishes, full stop. Ebay has every right to forbid that its systems be used for anything it dislikes, including as an advertising platform for its competitors. If you disagree, and still think that Amazon should be able to exploit Ebay's systems to give "basic information to people"; then you must agree that I should be able to hack your computer to play audio loops giving the people around you "basic information" about how your ideas are wrong. If Amazon wants to advertise, it needs to restrict itself to avenues that are legitimately available to it, such as Google adwords, etc. For competition to work, the competitors need to have something like "bodily integrity." One competitor shouldn't be able to "infect" another to weaken it. We want the competitors to focus on strengthening themselves, not weakening others.

jdmichal 8y ago

I don't think anyone would be saying anything had Amazon been calling or mailing these sellers. The fact that they were using the eBay platform and known to be working against the ToS could push it into unethical. "The Amazon employees acknowledged they were breaking eBay’s rules and actively tried to avoid detection, the lawsuit says." Would you consider it unethical to solicit in a neighborhood with no-solicitation signs? What about standing in a competitor's store and advertising your store to their customers?

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The thing you're ignoring here is that Amazon was working to the genuine benefit of the sellers, and eBay's behavior is something aiming to indirectly 'harm' their users insomuch as they aim to prevent information users would likely want to see from being given to them. The store example is fairly close, except that physical trespass would create a major disruption and interfere with the regular operation of the business. More appropriate would be a person standing outside on a public sidewalk handing out fliers advertising better prices at a nearby store than the ones inside the store customers were about to enter. And no, I don't think anybody would find that unethical.
- jdmichal 8y ago
  You say more appropriate, but Amazon did "virtually enter" the eBay store to attract these customers. If they had put up billboards or web advertisements or hell even handed out fliers, there would be no basis of complaint or unethical behavior.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I don't think this metaphor works, either legally or ethically. Legally 'virtually entering' a site is not illegal, regardless of whether the owner wants you there (though this can turn to things that are illegal). Ethically we get back to the same point as I think motivation is crucial. Amazon's motivation here is to provide information to sellers that these sellers would almost certainly want to see. eBay's motivation is to try to keep their seller's ignorant of more fruitful opportunities.
    - jdmichal 8y ago
      But they did not just load up eBay.com and start chatting. They logged into the site -- aka, entered a protected and authorized space. And it is illegal to enter a protected space if the owner does not want you there. This is why the no-solicitation example is relevant. In this case, eBay says, you are authorized to enter this store (authenticate into the site using your account and thereby gain access to tools like messaging) as long as you follow these rules (terms of service). You agree to follow these rules before entering the store (when you create your account), so eBay grants you access. You then proceed to knowingly break those rules. And the discussion is not about what Amazon did. Rather, it is about how they did it.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal whether or not the owner wants you there, unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process. Similarly, breaking terms and conditions is also not inherently unlawful, again unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process of breaking those terms. They are not inherently protected. And this conversation about ethics. The law, let alone terms and services, do not define ethical behavior or the lack thereof. For that matter laws, and especially terms of service, can themselves be unethical - one might argue that in the latter they are quite often unethical.

eiaoa 8y ago

> I don't understand how some people are saying this would be an unethical action. This is competition, which is how better services end up being provided to users, and for better prices. It's not competing that's unethical, and is what leads to monopolies, price fixing, and other anti-competitive behavior. If they don't like Amazon "poaching" users of their site, then they should offer even more desirable terms to their users. This is a really weird perspective. Not all "competition" is the same; there are such things as fair competition and unfair competition. Having your employees seek work at a competing factory to sabotage its operations is definitely a kind of competition, it's just the unfair kind.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Providing basic information to people is about as fair a notion of competition as there is. I think the most reasonable real life metaphor for this scenario would be a for-sale bulletin board on private property where people put things up for sale, and the owner of the land where the bulletin is placed takes a cut of all sales. The owner of this property also wanted to try to protect their profits and so made people sign a piece of paper stating 'I won't inform other users about better deals'. Amazon signed it and then told the sellers about better deals anyhow. In my opinion the behavior that was both unfair and unethical was eBay trying to prevent fair competition for their users.
- eiaoa 8y ago
  Let me put it simply and clearly: Amazon has no right to use Ebay's systems however it chooses and against Ebay's wishes, full stop. Ebay has every right to forbid that its systems be used for anything it dislikes, including as an advertising platform for its competitors. If you disagree, and still think that Amazon should be able to exploit Ebay's systems to give "basic information to people"; then you must agree that I should be able to hack your computer to play audio loops giving the people around you "basic information" about how your ideas are wrong. If Amazon wants to advertise, it needs to restrict itself to avenues that are legitimately available to it, such as Google adwords, etc. For competition to work, the competitors need to have something like "bodily integrity." One competitor shouldn't be able to "infect" another to weaken it. We want the competitors to focus on strengthening themselves, not weakening others.