3 ms·

What despairs me is, if it becomes well-known among the general public, Amazon can just say “Ok, we’ll stop comingling now, we’ve identified this as the cause,

What despairs me is, if it becomes well-known among the general public, Amazon can just say “Ok, we’ll stop comingling now, we’ve identified this as the cause, it will get rid of the problems” and they’ll get another 10 years of us having to prove that they have other problems (the slew of Chinese vendors who can dodge responsibility). But the press won’t even take issue with Amazon’s comingling. I wonder why. The press always seems to cry on the working conditions, without ever mentioning how dangerous the products are to consumers too. I bet our governments have ties with Jeff Bezos…

darepublic 4y ago
There is no big voting bloc of stiffed authors
nl 4y ago
The NY Times had a great investigation into the practices that was linked from here yesterday.
bambax 4y ago
I don't think the specific issue here has anything to do with commingling. Commingling means putting all inventory of the same item from different vendors in the same basket, and taking items at random from that basket at the time of fulfillment, without a clear way to know the originating vendor of the fulfilled item. Here, the problem isn't that items are put together in the same basket, it's that they are counterfeit: no seller should have any "new" inventory of the book, at all; new inventory should only come from the publisher. As the publisher isn't an Amazon seller, Amazon itself needs to buy the book from the publisher, and carry it in their own inventory. Not commingling, ie carrying a separate inventory for each vendor, doesn't change the problem at all: all inventory not coming directly from the publisher is counterfeit. In theory, it could be possible for other vendors to buy from the publisher and then sell on Amazon; in practice this is highly unlikely. But Amazon doesn't care and doesn't do any basic check. They are probably hiding behind the fact that the sellers are doing the counterfeiting, not them. IANAL, but since they obviously benefit from it, it should be possible to sue, not just in civil court, but in criminal court as well.
- gbin 4y ago
  Commingling the reviews are also an issue. Reviews are basically the only way to fight back for consumers as Amazon isn't doing anything. Now if you intentionally mix reviews knowing some bad actors are in the set it, it should IMHO make Amazon either complicit or commiting a concealment.
- satyrnein 4y ago
  Why does Amazon have multiple sellers for any item in new condition, in that case? By your logic, there should only be Amazon or the direct manufacturer. What am I missing?
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Different products have different standards. Since two vendors control like 90% of book distribution, there isn’t as a robust a distribution network as there once was. Since Amazon is the dominant retailer, they know that it’s not possible for anyone to make money selling new books on their platform. For other products, that’s isn’t so. For say a laptop memory card, there’s a dozen authorized distributors that supply various resellers. The whole issue is Amazon saying “Fuck you, we’re Amazon” to the market.

darepublic 4y ago

There is no big voting bloc of stiffed authors

nl 4y ago

The NY Times had a great investigation into the practices that was linked from here yesterday.

bambax 4y ago

I don't think the specific issue here has anything to do with commingling. Commingling means putting all inventory of the same item from different vendors in the same basket, and taking items at random from that basket at the time of fulfillment, without a clear way to know the originating vendor of the fulfilled item. Here, the problem isn't that items are put together in the same basket, it's that they are counterfeit: no seller should have any "new" inventory of the book, at all; new inventory should only come from the publisher. As the publisher isn't an Amazon seller, Amazon itself needs to buy the book from the publisher, and carry it in their own inventory. Not commingling, ie carrying a separate inventory for each vendor, doesn't change the problem at all: all inventory not coming directly from the publisher is counterfeit. In theory, it could be possible for other vendors to buy from the publisher and then sell on Amazon; in practice this is highly unlikely. But Amazon doesn't care and doesn't do any basic check. They are probably hiding behind the fact that the sellers are doing the counterfeiting, not them. IANAL, but since they obviously benefit from it, it should be possible to sue, not just in civil court, but in criminal court as well.

gbin 4y ago
Commingling the reviews are also an issue. Reviews are basically the only way to fight back for consumers as Amazon isn't doing anything. Now if you intentionally mix reviews knowing some bad actors are in the set it, it should IMHO make Amazon either complicit or commiting a concealment.
satyrnein 4y ago
Why does Amazon have multiple sellers for any item in new condition, in that case? By your logic, there should only be Amazon or the direct manufacturer. What am I missing?
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Different products have different standards. Since two vendors control like 90% of book distribution, there isn’t as a robust a distribution network as there once was. Since Amazon is the dominant retailer, they know that it’s not possible for anyone to make money selling new books on their platform. For other products, that’s isn’t so. For say a laptop memory card, there’s a dozen authorized distributors that supply various resellers. The whole issue is Amazon saying “Fuck you, we’re Amazon” to the market.