It's not that it's not believable, it's that the it's equally believable that a number of other vested parties could be doing it plausibly. You yourself just ar

It's not that it's not believable, it's that the it's equally believable that a number of other vested parties could be doing it plausibly. You yourself just argued how low the barrier-to-entry for a campaign like this is. In addition to Amazon itself, what if it's: 1. A huge investor in Amazon (like some hedge fund) who is doing it on amazon's behalf 2. A media outlet who wanted a scoop, so they manufactured one 3. A random 4chan troll looking for giggles 4. A foreign entity with some vested in sowing chaos into the discussion 5. A competitor of Amazon making them look bad through this easily debunked fake I really can't believe your comment contains both of these quotes: "What's not believable about that?" and "People are emotional enough on issues that they never vet a source or fact check something that validates their own world view already" Perhaps check yourself