5 ms·

If I'm going to Walmart.com, giving my credit card information to Walmart, on a page with Walmart's logo prominently displayed, then it feels more like a busine

If I'm going to Walmart.com, giving my credit card information to Walmart, on a page with Walmart's logo prominently displayed, then it feels more like a business relation with Walmart that they subcontract out. Like if I buy a t-shirt from a dropseller, and it's defective, I can take it up with the dropseller and don't need to argue with the manufacturer. Granted, a similar argument could be made about eBay, so I think history plays a huge role. When Walmart puts up a marketplace for 3rd-parties without clearly disclaiming it as being from not-Walmart, Walmart's history and reputation as a direct seller customers lets a reasonable customer conclude that they are buying it directly from Walmart. eBay was never a seller themselves, and doesn't have Walmart's reputation, so products listed on eBay don't cause the same customer confusion.

mdasen 4y ago
I don't disagree, but Amazon and other sites are operating the same model. Walmart and Amazon provide similar prominence about whether a product is being sold by them or by a third party. I agree that eBay doesn't cause that confusion because they were never a first party seller. I think the issue is that we'd need a regulation and one that clearly stipulates what the situation is. For example, one could propose that when a retailer that sells goods as a first party also provides a marketplace for third party goods, 10% of the page's size above the fold must be the third party's branding and that branding must be larger than the branding of the retailer. That would make it very obvious. One of the issues that we're facing is that our regulations often don't specify enough of how something must be implemented. For example, sites must label their ads. Google used to make the ads have a different color background that made it easy to visually filter ads from organic results. Now they just write "Ad" in light grey (#aaadb2) against a gray background (#202124) with much less prominence and contrast than the title of the link. Twitter puts "Promoted" below the tweet rather than at the top of the tweet so that when you're scrolling you'll read the tweet before seeing that it's an ad (and it's rgb(113, 118, 123) (light gray) on black while the regular text is rgb(231, 233, 234) (nearly white) on black). The FTC does require that ads and sponsored content be clearly labeled, but doesn't really specify or enforce standards. I think if I labeled something as "Ad" as #aaadb2 on a #aaadb1 background, that clearly wouldn't pass muster. There'd be almost zero contrast. How much contrast is needed? How prominent should we require messages that clarify important things like this? As you note, you're going to Walmart.com and giving your information to Walmart on a page where Walmart's logo and branding is basically all that you see - except for a tiny "Sold by XYZ" note. I don't know what the solution is entirely, but it's going to take regulatory action if we want to deal with this. If Amazon is doing it, Walmart will do it. If Google is limiting the contrast on how it marks ads, Twitter will also limit the contrast.
- MereInterest 4y ago
  I definitely agree, this is an industry-wide issue. As much as it explains Walmart's actions, I don't think it absolves any of the actors. So many of our regulations and laws are designed under the assumption that time and attention are unlimited. Under such an assumption, misrepresenting the seller for 95% of the page is fine, because you'll notice the 5% that gives accurate information. Advertising designed to give false impressions are fine, because of course you'll notice that nothing was specifically claimed about a product. Terms of service and privacy policies are binding no matter how unnecessarily long they are, because you have unlimited time to sift through them. But those assumptions are all clearly and blatantly untrue.

mdasen 4y ago

I don't disagree, but Amazon and other sites are operating the same model. Walmart and Amazon provide similar prominence about whether a product is being sold by them or by a third party. I agree that eBay doesn't cause that confusion because they were never a first party seller. I think the issue is that we'd need a regulation and one that clearly stipulates what the situation is. For example, one could propose that when a retailer that sells goods as a first party also provides a marketplace for third party goods, 10% of the page's size above the fold must be the third party's branding and that branding must be larger than the branding of the retailer. That would make it very obvious. One of the issues that we're facing is that our regulations often don't specify enough of how something must be implemented. For example, sites must label their ads. Google used to make the ads have a different color background that made it easy to visually filter ads from organic results. Now they just write "Ad" in light grey (#aaadb2) against a gray background (#202124) with much less prominence and contrast than the title of the link. Twitter puts "Promoted" below the tweet rather than at the top of the tweet so that when you're scrolling you'll read the tweet before seeing that it's an ad (and it's rgb(113, 118, 123) (light gray) on black while the regular text is rgb(231, 233, 234) (nearly white) on black). The FTC does require that ads and sponsored content be clearly labeled, but doesn't really specify or enforce standards. I think if I labeled something as "Ad" as #aaadb2 on a #aaadb1 background, that clearly wouldn't pass muster. There'd be almost zero contrast. How much contrast is needed? How prominent should we require messages that clarify important things like this? As you note, you're going to Walmart.com and giving your information to Walmart on a page where Walmart's logo and branding is basically all that you see - except for a tiny "Sold by XYZ" note. I don't know what the solution is entirely, but it's going to take regulatory action if we want to deal with this. If Amazon is doing it, Walmart will do it. If Google is limiting the contrast on how it marks ads, Twitter will also limit the contrast.

MereInterest 4y ago
I definitely agree, this is an industry-wide issue. As much as it explains Walmart's actions, I don't think it absolves any of the actors. So many of our regulations and laws are designed under the assumption that time and attention are unlimited. Under such an assumption, misrepresenting the seller for 95% of the page is fine, because you'll notice the 5% that gives accurate information. Advertising designed to give false impressions are fine, because of course you'll notice that nothing was specifically claimed about a product. Terms of service and privacy policies are binding no matter how unnecessarily long they are, because you have unlimited time to sift through them. But those assumptions are all clearly and blatantly untrue.