3 ms·

I feel like at some point we should be holding Amazon responsible for deliberately creating a situation where it obfuscates culpability as much as possible for

I feel like at some point we should be holding Amazon responsible for deliberately creating a situation where it obfuscates culpability as much as possible for the fake quality of its products. We crossed that line a while ago in my mind, when Amazon glibly allowed the Chinese junk product market, which it sends ambassadors to instruct on how to best ~~exploit its product, users~~ utilize it services to send dangerous products in the past. "But it's impossible to police every product that's listed on the storefront!" - Yeah, it's almost like this was a bad idea from the outset and shouldn't have been allowed to get this far in the first place.

perihelions 3y ago
- "should be holding Amazon responsible for deliberately creating a situation where it obfuscates culpability" I'll be the unpopular downvoted guy and propose that it's actually a *dumb idea* to regulate the buying and selling of books, and to invent new forms of liability like "the bookstore didn't "vet" the books they were selling and therefore they're legally liable for the various consequences of people reading their wares". I think that's reactionary, illiberal, and destructive: and I think it will misfire. I don't want bookstores to empty their shelves of anything remotely "is this maybe theoretically dangerous in any context some rich person might sue us". I don't want a world of empty bookshelves; I don't want a censored, bowdlerized world where books are "banned by default" until they're proven "safe". I rather a vibrant, fearless marketplace of unregulated books, many of which *are* shit—but that's always how it was. This new, temporary emergency is neither. We live, and we should live, in a culture that's fearless to speak and write and publish and bookmonger, and it's really dangerous to attack that foundation of liberal society which we depend on, just to go after one bad guy that's the villain of the moment. ("And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?")
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  In most circumstances, I would agree with "that's reactionary, illiberal, and destructive". And also, "I think it will misfire", I agree with this, too, the more I think about it. However. Amazon has deliberately manipulated this situation specifically to hide its own culpability behind the fear of such a thing backfiring. Amazon knowingly provides access to business tools to entities Amazon has a wealth of available information to indicate are not trustworthy. Amazon educates these untrustworthy individuals on how to apply for bogus/weird patent and copyright names so they can continue to shovel their dangerous products to unsuspecting consumers (Yes, an AI-generated mushroom harvesting guide is a dangerous, life-threatening product, there is no argument otherwise considering the state of AI information integrity). Amazon knowingly provides these tools to individuals who have already had products taken down previously for them being dangerous to consumers. It's even WORSE for the e-publishing side of things right now. Perhaps my initial response was reactionary, but I can't help but feel Amazon should suffer for arranging this in some way.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I feel like at some point we should be holding Amazon responsible for deliberately creating a situation where it obfuscates culpability as much as possible for the fake quality of its products. You mean, like traditional chain-of-commerce liability for defective products? AFAIK, despite trying repeatedly, in different jurisdictions, to use the “we’re just a marketplace where buyers meet sellers, not a real retailer” defense, they’ve pretty consistently been subjected to exactly that kind of liability when the issue has arisen, at least in US jurisdictions.

perihelions 3y ago

- "should be holding Amazon responsible for deliberately creating a situation where it obfuscates culpability" I'll be the unpopular downvoted guy and propose that it's actually a *dumb idea* to regulate the buying and selling of books, and to invent new forms of liability like "the bookstore didn't "vet" the books they were selling and therefore they're legally liable for the various consequences of people reading their wares". I think that's reactionary, illiberal, and destructive: and I think it will misfire. I don't want bookstores to empty their shelves of anything remotely "is this maybe theoretically dangerous in any context some rich person might sue us". I don't want a world of empty bookshelves; I don't want a censored, bowdlerized world where books are "banned by default" until they're proven "safe". I rather a vibrant, fearless marketplace of unregulated books, many of which *are* shit—but that's always how it was. This new, temporary emergency is neither. We live, and we should live, in a culture that's fearless to speak and write and publish and bookmonger, and it's really dangerous to attack that foundation of liberal society which we depend on, just to go after one bad guy that's the villain of the moment. ("And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?")

thefurdrake 3y ago
In most circumstances, I would agree with "that's reactionary, illiberal, and destructive". And also, "I think it will misfire", I agree with this, too, the more I think about it. However. Amazon has deliberately manipulated this situation specifically to hide its own culpability behind the fear of such a thing backfiring. Amazon knowingly provides access to business tools to entities Amazon has a wealth of available information to indicate are not trustworthy. Amazon educates these untrustworthy individuals on how to apply for bogus/weird patent and copyright names so they can continue to shovel their dangerous products to unsuspecting consumers (Yes, an AI-generated mushroom harvesting guide is a dangerous, life-threatening product, there is no argument otherwise considering the state of AI information integrity). Amazon knowingly provides these tools to individuals who have already had products taken down previously for them being dangerous to consumers. It's even WORSE for the e-publishing side of things right now. Perhaps my initial response was reactionary, but I can't help but feel Amazon should suffer for arranging this in some way.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I feel like at some point we should be holding Amazon responsible for deliberately creating a situation where it obfuscates culpability as much as possible for the fake quality of its products. You mean, like traditional chain-of-commerce liability for defective products? AFAIK, despite trying repeatedly, in different jurisdictions, to use the “we’re just a marketplace where buyers meet sellers, not a real retailer” defense, they’ve pretty consistently been subjected to exactly that kind of liability when the issue has arisen, at least in US jurisdictions.