5 ms·

Sadly, no it isn't. Them calling out that they are not going after Amazon because they are too big, but because they did thing X is very problematic for the cl

by taeric 3y ago

Sadly, no it isn't. Them calling out that they are not going after Amazon because they are too big, but because they did thing X is very problematic for the clear definitions. That is, as well defined as some concerns are, this complaint actually throws out a ton of that and makes it even less clear.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
fortunately, it was, hence the existence of the complaint if the FTC didn't know whether their rules applied, they wouldn't have been able to draft a complaint explaining how they do penalizing suppliers for offering lower prices elsewhere, for example, is pretty clearly anticompetitive
- taeric 3y ago
  Don't confuse criticism of the FTC with praise for Amazon here. The FTC seems to be continuing weak cases, and at least some of us view that as very problematic. If we are going to rebuild some of the surrounding rules such that these practices are illegal, I'm all for it. If it turns out that I'm wrong and they do manage to make the market healthier with a suit against Amazon, great. This doesn't look strong in that direction, though. This reeks of populist appeal from folks that know it is a politically savvy move to bash Amazon.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    there's no need, as the practices are already illegal, and the rules are already built, and the FTC is already filing strong cases like this one the criticism of this latest case, however, reeks of corporate worship from folks that know that Amazon is in the wrong (as the complaint documents)
    - taeric 3y ago
      This is not a strong case, is what a lot of us are asserting. You can disagree there, but realize our disagreement here isn't that Amazon is a good company. It is on the strength of this case. It really feels like one that is being brought more for optics than otherwise. I say this as someone that thought they should have had a strong case against Microsoft buying Activision. And yet, just look how that went. Maybe I'm wrong. Shouldn't take too long for us to find out, all told. I remember the stories of what Walmart did and still does in retail, though. It is obscene to see how that has played out in time.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I understand you are asserting that, and what a lot of us are asserting after reading all the allegations is that it is a strong case You can disagree, and that's fine, I'm not saying your personal disagreement specifically is support for Amazon, it's just that's the optics of the individuals disagreeing with the case the FTC presented here, for a lot of us, seem to be corporate/capitalism worship and/or personal disagreement with the existing rules and laws against anticompetitive behavior that Amazon clearly violated here (as detailed in the complaint)
        taeric 3y ago
        I'd love to see a longer take regarding what makes you think these claims are strong. Especially with the backdrop of losses the FTC has been having, though, these feel weak. It sucks that the only real commentary out right now is the expected appeals online. So, we'll see. Hopefully quickly.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Seems to me, the case is so strong, the complaint speaks for itself. It's convinced me. I'd love to see a longer take, though, addressing the specific points in the complaint, and what makes you think each one is weak. It sucks that most of the opposition I've seen is along the lines of "if Amazon isn't allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior, the FTC is coming for your mom and pop shop next"/"where's the line???" and similar FUD (with a fair measure of "they don't own 100% of the market so it's not a monopoly so it's not anticompetitive" thrown in, too)
        taeric 3y ago
        You feel in bad faith here. But sure, lets start looking at the points: Paragraph 1, almost literally: "the early days of the internet were great for competition..." I, uh, don't know what to tell you here. Isn't even really a point. Paragraph 2: Amazon is big. Paragraph 3: Amazon is a monopolist. 4: Amazon's fees can be upwards of half the costs of sellers. This point, finally, could be something. The examples that have been made public, though, are for sellers that are basically drop ship sellers. I'd love to see better evidence here. 5: Amazon also sucks. I mean, this is kinda the core of my main counter point. Amazon is losing on its own terms. And if it doesn't get its shit together, it will lose soon. That said, I do think this point muddies my view by discussing the old "relevant, organic searches." All of search has gotten bad. And Amazon's was never good. 6: Amazon sucks, but is getting away with it. Ok... 7: Amazon doesn't enter agreements where people can undercut them directly in costs... Or something? Sadly, I've run out of steam rather quickly on this. The claim here seems to be that Amazon enters all of the same agreements that other retailers do. With similarly bad results happening. I'd be delighted to find that general ruleset changed. I fail to see how this is even pretending to move in that direction. 8: We want to be clear it isn't just that Amazon is big. It is the practices they use. This is the real kicker in all of this. The main practices they keep calling out are not unique to anyone in retail. Please make them illegal, but don't pretend going after Big Tech isn't an optics thing. Skimming the rest: I'm now officially out of steam. What paragraph do you feel is actually strong? There is some neat analysis of the buy box... but it isn't that neat, all told. Amazon was silly proud of their 1-click nonsense for a long time. And it is probably a safe wager that, sure, most people don't make it to page 2 of searches; but also most searches don't result in a sale. I'd almost be willing to take the price harm to consumers as a strong point, but Amazon has NEVER been price competitive for basically anything. It has always been cheaper to buy something somewhere else. This hasn't been a secret for anyone for a long time. It just wasn't egregiously more expensive for Amazon, and their pro consumer return policies made for a loyal customer base. Again, don't take my criticism of FTC here as praise for Amazon. I don't vilify them as much as many do, but I do think they have been doing some hilariously non-forced screwups lately. This is still a pretty shit case.

by taeric 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

fortunately, it was, hence the existence of the complaint if the FTC didn't know whether their rules applied, they wouldn't have been able to draft a complaint explaining how they do penalizing suppliers for offering lower prices elsewhere, for example, is pretty clearly anticompetitive

taeric 3y ago
Don't confuse criticism of the FTC with praise for Amazon here. The FTC seems to be continuing weak cases, and at least some of us view that as very problematic. If we are going to rebuild some of the surrounding rules such that these practices are illegal, I'm all for it. If it turns out that I'm wrong and they do manage to make the market healthier with a suit against Amazon, great. This doesn't look strong in that direction, though. This reeks of populist appeal from folks that know it is a politically savvy move to bash Amazon.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  there's no need, as the practices are already illegal, and the rules are already built, and the FTC is already filing strong cases like this one the criticism of this latest case, however, reeks of corporate worship from folks that know that Amazon is in the wrong (as the complaint documents)
  - taeric 3y ago
    This is not a strong case, is what a lot of us are asserting. You can disagree there, but realize our disagreement here isn't that Amazon is a good company. It is on the strength of this case. It really feels like one that is being brought more for optics than otherwise. I say this as someone that thought they should have had a strong case against Microsoft buying Activision. And yet, just look how that went. Maybe I'm wrong. Shouldn't take too long for us to find out, all told. I remember the stories of what Walmart did and still does in retail, though. It is obscene to see how that has played out in time.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      I understand you are asserting that, and what a lot of us are asserting after reading all the allegations is that it is a strong case You can disagree, and that's fine, I'm not saying your personal disagreement specifically is support for Amazon, it's just that's the optics of the individuals disagreeing with the case the FTC presented here, for a lot of us, seem to be corporate/capitalism worship and/or personal disagreement with the existing rules and laws against anticompetitive behavior that Amazon clearly violated here (as detailed in the complaint)
      - taeric 3y ago
        I'd love to see a longer take regarding what makes you think these claims are strong. Especially with the backdrop of losses the FTC has been having, though, these feel weak. It sucks that the only real commentary out right now is the expected appeals online. So, we'll see. Hopefully quickly.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Seems to me, the case is so strong, the complaint speaks for itself. It's convinced me. I'd love to see a longer take, though, addressing the specific points in the complaint, and what makes you think each one is weak. It sucks that most of the opposition I've seen is along the lines of "if Amazon isn't allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior, the FTC is coming for your mom and pop shop next"/"where's the line???" and similar FUD (with a fair measure of "they don't own 100% of the market so it's not a monopoly so it's not anticompetitive" thrown in, too)
        taeric 3y ago
        You feel in bad faith here. But sure, lets start looking at the points: Paragraph 1, almost literally: "the early days of the internet were great for competition..." I, uh, don't know what to tell you here. Isn't even really a point. Paragraph 2: Amazon is big. Paragraph 3: Amazon is a monopolist. 4: Amazon's fees can be upwards of half the costs of sellers. This point, finally, could be something. The examples that have been made public, though, are for sellers that are basically drop ship sellers. I'd love to see better evidence here. 5: Amazon also sucks. I mean, this is kinda the core of my main counter point. Amazon is losing on its own terms. And if it doesn't get its shit together, it will lose soon. That said, I do think this point muddies my view by discussing the old "relevant, organic searches." All of search has gotten bad. And Amazon's was never good. 6: Amazon sucks, but is getting away with it. Ok... 7: Amazon doesn't enter agreements where people can undercut them directly in costs... Or something? Sadly, I've run out of steam rather quickly on this. The claim here seems to be that Amazon enters all of the same agreements that other retailers do. With similarly bad results happening. I'd be delighted to find that general ruleset changed. I fail to see how this is even pretending to move in that direction. 8: We want to be clear it isn't just that Amazon is big. It is the practices they use. This is the real kicker in all of this. The main practices they keep calling out are not unique to anyone in retail. Please make them illegal, but don't pretend going after Big Tech isn't an optics thing. Skimming the rest: I'm now officially out of steam. What paragraph do you feel is actually strong? There is some neat analysis of the buy box... but it isn't that neat, all told. Amazon was silly proud of their 1-click nonsense for a long time. And it is probably a safe wager that, sure, most people don't make it to page 2 of searches; but also most searches don't result in a sale. I'd almost be willing to take the price harm to consumers as a strong point, but Amazon has NEVER been price competitive for basically anything. It has always been cheaper to buy something somewhere else. This hasn't been a secret for anyone for a long time. It just wasn't egregiously more expensive for Amazon, and their pro consumer return policies made for a loyal customer base. Again, don't take my criticism of FTC here as praise for Amazon. I don't vilify them as much as many do, but I do think they have been doing some hilariously non-forced screwups lately. This is still a pretty shit case.