2 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 us

by 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.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable. Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. They could close any accounts that do as much, but they could do that for any reason they want already - making the term rather pointless. And the same is true here. eBay tried to shove in ridiculous anti-competitive rules in their terms. Amazon didn't care. So now they're adding just another chip on the mountain of lawsuits they're already involved in as a spiteful hail mary.
    - eiaoa 8y ago
      > You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. That hacking aside is a red herring. > Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable. Sites are owned by particular people and organizations, and they have a right to set the terms (withing reason). It's just a like a landlord who puts a term in their contract saying you can't exercise your right of free speech by yelling your opinions through the wall of your apartment at 3AM. > Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. That term is not meaningless, even if it's in bad taste, and I think that's the fundamental point of our disagreement.

by eiaoa 8y ago

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.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable. Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. They could close any accounts that do as much, but they could do that for any reason they want already - making the term rather pointless. And the same is true here. eBay tried to shove in ridiculous anti-competitive rules in their terms. Amazon didn't care. So now they're adding just another chip on the mountain of lawsuits they're already involved in as a spiteful hail mary.
  - eiaoa 8y ago
    > You're setting up quite the extreme straw man. Amazon was using the site in a 'normal' fashion to do something that eBay did not want. This has nothing to do with hacking or other sorts of nonsense. That hacking aside is a red herring. > Sites can put whatever they want in their terms of service. This does not make them law, and in many cases the clauses are in no way enforceable. Sites are owned by particular people and organizations, and they have a right to set the terms (withing reason). It's just a like a landlord who puts a term in their contract saying you can't exercise your right of free speech by yelling your opinions through the wall of your apartment at 3AM. > Amazon could add in their terms, 'You may not speak negatively of Jeff Bezos on our software.' and it's completely meaningless. That term is not meaningless, even if it's in bad taste, and I think that's the fundamental point of our disagreement.