6 ms·

remember that time that amazon was bleeding like 5 million a day just to make sure they can destroy diapers.com? by selling diapers at a loss, which was numbers

remember that time that amazon was bleeding like 5 million a day just to make sure they can destroy diapers.com? by selling diapers at a loss, which was numbers that diapers.com couldn't compete with given that they didn't have another business to rely on, then forced diapers.com to sell to amazon because they had no other option? And this came out last time they were doing monopolistic inquiries against amazon. Yet... So I'd love to see something positive come out of it, but I have my doubts.

loldk 3y ago
That's what these discussions are for: to discover solutions and obstacles. Have you ever heard of the monkeys and ladder metaphor? Things need to change. It's great to be skeptical, but not if you're not also optimistic at the same time. Monopolies are bad for many reasons, not just because arbitrary "rules" or whatever you think is easily dismissed, but because of the opportunity costs that even the owner of the profits incurs. We're not talking about money or status or power, but actual meaningful change of the total composition of their culture & society and the world. They are literally preventing themselves from experiencing a world that gives them everything they can't have now and clamor and hurt themselves chasing after. It's the ultimate irony. So yes, you should have hope. There is NOT a "good" reason for being a greedy parasite. People have just forgotten and/or been manipulated into believing in fake power. This false faith (fear) is literally what enables these fake leaders like Jeff Bozos the clown to succeed. Please next time contribute more to the conversation than just whine.
yomlica8 3y ago
Apparently product dumping isn't illegal if you do it on the internet. This wasn't even a fuzzy digital goods or services example either.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Product dumping is not illegal if you have a national newspaper that can be used to target any politician and if you make sure to contribute millions and make sure your employees do the same for the political party in power.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Do you have evidence of the Washington Post doing that? I know evidence the contrary: The Post is clearly on the Democrat side, and it's Democrats that seek more regulation and who are suing Amazon.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - afavour 3y ago
    If Bezos were using this Washington Post for this purpose a member of the newsroom would immediately leak it. It would be a career defining story for that journalist. The fact that we’ve heard nothing strongly suggests it isn’t happening.
    - sadhorse 3y ago
      Career defining? Nobody wants to hire rats that you can't trust.
      - afavour 3y ago
        Bezos might consider that person a rat, I’m quite sure fellow journalists would not.
      - root_axis 3y ago
        One person's rat is another's whistleblower. For a journalist, it'd absolutely be a career defining story.
    - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
      I've heard this "if it were happening someone would leak it" argument throughout my life, even though I've lost count of all the counterexamples that disprove this mentality. Before Snowden PRISM was considered impossible (even though previous people had leaked it but never got picked up by the media cycle), before Epstein it was impossible that billionaires were trafficking children for sex, before 2008 it was impossible that wall street was colluding to rig the market - the consistent thread in all of these is that the "impossible" was happening for several years before it was ever exposed. I understand the incentive to leak it exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't a stronger incentive to keep it a secret.
duped 3y ago
The current FTC chair wrote the ~~book~~ essay on Amazon's monopolistic business practices (1) and has spoken so much about it that the only reason we'd see the government take their foot off the gas here is if Amazon's lawyers can claim that her previous advocacy biases the case against them. (1) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
- Justsignedup 3y ago
  I can only but hope that she can do this, if anyone can I think she can.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Apparently there are calls for her recusal on the grounds that she held a critical stance before her current appointment. Which is an odd thing to ask for in my opinion, but I guess it's worth trying if you're on the losing end of this.
  - duped 3y ago
    They want to muddy the waters by arguing the FTC is impartial towards Amazon. But the problem with that argument is that it's not the job of the FTC to be impartial. Their mandate is to protect competition and consumers, which is naturally impartial to individual companies.
    - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
      I think you meant the opposite of impartial towards, i.e. biased against.
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    It's like the GOP currently trying to impeach a newly-elected judge in Wisconsin because she previously described the state's maps as gerrymandered, ergo she will not be able to rule fairly on the matter when it comes before the court. Obviously both examples are cynical and disingenuous, since the implication is that the only person qualified to do a job "fairly" is someone who has never thought about the relevant subject matter at any point in time.
btmoore 3y ago
I do. I also remember when they were selling books at a loss, and the FTC went after Apple's book store instead

loldk 3y ago

That's what these discussions are for: to discover solutions and obstacles. Have you ever heard of the monkeys and ladder metaphor? Things need to change. It's great to be skeptical, but not if you're not also optimistic at the same time. Monopolies are bad for many reasons, not just because arbitrary "rules" or whatever you think is easily dismissed, but because of the opportunity costs that even the owner of the profits incurs. We're not talking about money or status or power, but actual meaningful change of the total composition of their culture & society and the world. They are literally preventing themselves from experiencing a world that gives them everything they can't have now and clamor and hurt themselves chasing after. It's the ultimate irony. So yes, you should have hope. There is NOT a "good" reason for being a greedy parasite. People have just forgotten and/or been manipulated into believing in fake power. This false faith (fear) is literally what enables these fake leaders like Jeff Bozos the clown to succeed. Please next time contribute more to the conversation than just whine.

yomlica8 3y ago

Apparently product dumping isn't illegal if you do it on the internet. This wasn't even a fuzzy digital goods or services example either.

elzbardico 3y ago
Product dumping is not illegal if you have a national newspaper that can be used to target any politician and if you make sure to contribute millions and make sure your employees do the same for the political party in power.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Do you have evidence of the Washington Post doing that? I know evidence the contrary: The Post is clearly on the Democrat side, and it's Democrats that seek more regulation and who are suing Amazon.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- afavour 3y ago
  If Bezos were using this Washington Post for this purpose a member of the newsroom would immediately leak it. It would be a career defining story for that journalist. The fact that we’ve heard nothing strongly suggests it isn’t happening.
  - sadhorse 3y ago
    Career defining? Nobody wants to hire rats that you can't trust.
    - afavour 3y ago
      Bezos might consider that person a rat, I’m quite sure fellow journalists would not.
    - root_axis 3y ago
      One person's rat is another's whistleblower. For a journalist, it'd absolutely be a career defining story.
  - OnlineGladiator 3y ago
    I've heard this "if it were happening someone would leak it" argument throughout my life, even though I've lost count of all the counterexamples that disprove this mentality. Before Snowden PRISM was considered impossible (even though previous people had leaked it but never got picked up by the media cycle), before Epstein it was impossible that billionaires were trafficking children for sex, before 2008 it was impossible that wall street was colluding to rig the market - the consistent thread in all of these is that the "impossible" was happening for several years before it was ever exposed. I understand the incentive to leak it exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't a stronger incentive to keep it a secret.

duped 3y ago

The current FTC chair wrote the ~~book~~ essay on Amazon's monopolistic business practices (1) and has spoken so much about it that the only reason we'd see the government take their foot off the gas here is if Amazon's lawyers can claim that her previous advocacy biases the case against them. (1) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...

Justsignedup 3y ago
I can only but hope that she can do this, if anyone can I think she can.
nerdponx 3y ago
Apparently there are calls for her recusal on the grounds that she held a critical stance before her current appointment. Which is an odd thing to ask for in my opinion, but I guess it's worth trying if you're on the losing end of this.
- duped 3y ago
  They want to muddy the waters by arguing the FTC is impartial towards Amazon. But the problem with that argument is that it's not the job of the FTC to be impartial. Their mandate is to protect competition and consumers, which is naturally impartial to individual companies.
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    I think you meant the opposite of impartial towards, i.e. biased against.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  It's like the GOP currently trying to impeach a newly-elected judge in Wisconsin because she previously described the state's maps as gerrymandered, ergo she will not be able to rule fairly on the matter when it comes before the court. Obviously both examples are cynical and disingenuous, since the implication is that the only person qualified to do a job "fairly" is someone who has never thought about the relevant subject matter at any point in time.

btmoore 3y ago

I do. I also remember when they were selling books at a loss, and the FTC went after Apple's book store instead