3 ms·

Thanks for clarifying, although I guess I'm still unclear why this isn't considered a "factual claim": > 1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their product

by kypro 3y ago

Thanks for clarifying, although I guess I'm still unclear why this isn't considered a "factual claim": > 1. Amazon doesn't allow sellers to price their products for less off-Amazon. > 2. If they do, Amazon hides their products. > 3. This keeps prices off-Amazon high, which is bad for consumers. This is being stated as a fact, not an opinion. He isn't saying, "I believe this is bad for consumers", he is claiming that Amazon is doing something that is bad for consumers. I also see the title has now changed to "subpoenaed" which would seem more accurate. I'm happy to assume Amazon is doing this in bad faith. What I wasn't happy to assume was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer.

stale2002 3y ago
> was the dubious claims being made in the Twitter thread about how Amazon's policies were bad for the consumer. This isn't a disproveable factual claim. Something being "bad" is an opinion. It is also a secondary interpretation. Someone being bad at economics is not defamation. Defamation would be more like, if someone claimed that Amazon was, I don't know, stealing money from your Amazon account. Because that's a factual action. Interpreting how amazons actions effect other people is an opinion, not a claim. And once again, Amazon agrees with me, not you, because they aren't suing anyone for defamation.