4 ms·

https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/02/online-amazon-shopping-informed-consumer-quality-control/673017/ https://archive.is/ht

https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/02/online-amazon-shopping-informed-consumer-quality-control/673017/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ar...

akira2501 4y ago
The fantastic irony of using archive.is to remove the paywall on an article about the supposed modern lack of consumer sophistication. Aside from that the article seems to completely fail to take notice of the fact that Amazon enjoys a rather extensive monopoly across most of it's operation. Of course the seller will always have more information than you, but if there's a large selection of sellers to choose from, then there's zero incentive for them to use that information _against_ me or to prevent me from having it. Consumers don't lack savvy, the marketplace lacks options.
- CognitiveLens 4y ago
  I might be misinterpreting the article, but the first two paragraphs specifically describe the over-abundance of marketplace sellers offering similar and sometimes identical products. They're using the same seller platform - Amazon - but that doesn't seem the same as lacking marketplace options as a consumer. Not sure if it's a perfect analogy, but if we compare the Amazon marketplace to a giant flea market, I think the claim that consumers need a reasonably high level of 'savvy' to operate effectively is pretty easy to defend. When there are lots of sellers, lots of noise, and difficulty verifying quality, the consumer will frequently lose out despite the surplus of marketplace options.
  - benj111 4y ago
    Well there's 'Amazon', the market it provides. But there's also Amazon itself. Amazon itself doesn't really have competition. Therefore there's no insentive for it to clean up it's listings, protect consumers from bad actors or generally help consumers in anyway. If Amazon had to actually compete to attract customers to its platform then it would improve the experience. Your own example proves the point. Flea markets might be cheap to run for the owner, but would people go there by choice if there were a superior alternative?
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  > Aside from that the article seems to completely fail to take notice of the fact that Amazon enjoys a rather extensive monopoly across most of it's operation. Well, it depends. Walmart's quarterly revenue is still higher, though they don't have quite as broad a selection of merchandise.

akira2501 4y ago

The fantastic irony of using archive.is to remove the paywall on an article about the supposed modern lack of consumer sophistication. Aside from that the article seems to completely fail to take notice of the fact that Amazon enjoys a rather extensive monopoly across most of it's operation. Of course the seller will always have more information than you, but if there's a large selection of sellers to choose from, then there's zero incentive for them to use that information _against_ me or to prevent me from having it. Consumers don't lack savvy, the marketplace lacks options.

CognitiveLens 4y ago
I might be misinterpreting the article, but the first two paragraphs specifically describe the over-abundance of marketplace sellers offering similar and sometimes identical products. They're using the same seller platform - Amazon - but that doesn't seem the same as lacking marketplace options as a consumer. Not sure if it's a perfect analogy, but if we compare the Amazon marketplace to a giant flea market, I think the claim that consumers need a reasonably high level of 'savvy' to operate effectively is pretty easy to defend. When there are lots of sellers, lots of noise, and difficulty verifying quality, the consumer will frequently lose out despite the surplus of marketplace options.
- benj111 4y ago
  Well there's 'Amazon', the market it provides. But there's also Amazon itself. Amazon itself doesn't really have competition. Therefore there's no insentive for it to clean up it's listings, protect consumers from bad actors or generally help consumers in anyway. If Amazon had to actually compete to attract customers to its platform then it would improve the experience. Your own example proves the point. Flea markets might be cheap to run for the owner, but would people go there by choice if there were a superior alternative?
Turing_Machine 4y ago
> Aside from that the article seems to completely fail to take notice of the fact that Amazon enjoys a rather extensive monopoly across most of it's operation. Well, it depends. Walmart's quarterly revenue is still higher, though they don't have quite as broad a selection of merchandise.