5 ms·

I hate that every discussion of reigning in abusive companies has to come with 1000 comments about how other companies are also being abusive, which should appa

• fallingknife 3y ago
  It's a very strong argument to say that the practice currently being pursued by the FTC has been a long standing and generally accepted as legal practice in the retail industry. The fact that they are going after Amazon for this, but have not ever gone after anybody else who has been doing it for decades leads me to the conclusion that this is not about the actual trade practice it claims to be about, but rather a politically targeted attack on Amazon. And the FTC is very much capable of running multiple enforcement actions at once. Why are there no such charges against other companies doing the same thing. They don't have to be one at a time.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • sli 3y ago
    I checked, Amazon does indeed sell tiny violins. They are keychains that make sounds. Unless there's a claim here that the FTC is working directly for, say, Walmart, everyone else benefits from Amazon being brought down a handful of pegs. Sorry if it makes things hard for some AWS customers, but eggs, baskets, etc.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  "all the monopolies"
  • bdw5204 3y ago
    The precise term would be the oligopolies.
    • danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      There is no oligopoly in retail (online or brick and mortar). It's cut throat competition, razor thin margins, players coming and going.
• mycologos 3y ago
  In what sense is Costco an "abusive" company? They squeeze their suppliers, but their suppliers legitimately have other options. I'm not aware of any market what Costco is the only game in town.
  • marcod 3y ago
    I can see this both ways. Obviously, nobody is forced to sell to Costco, Amazon, or Walmart, but in a business with thin margins, like Retail, the only way to stay afloat is to sell high numbers. A quasi-monopoly does force vendors to comply in a way.
    • danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      Costco meets no reasonable person's definition of monopoly. Not quasi, not sort of, not anything. They do a couple hundred bill of sales in a multi-trillion dollar market. Sub 10% share.
• araes 3y ago
  It's obvious astroturfing. The top two posts with the most upvotes are "Ebay is just as bad" for the startoff line, and "Everybody's just as bad as Amazon. Why are you being so mean and cruel to Amazon?" Obvious astroturfing, just like the entire Amazon review ecosystem. Surprise? No. https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ Bezos' wealth relative to "normal" shown as 1-pixel comparisons. Be careful once you get to the $Trillion portion (you'll be scrolling for the rest of your life.)
  • bbor 3y ago
    I LOVE that link, but I think serious accusations like that need better justification/explanation. Are you saying that Amazon is buying upvotes for comments they like, or that that comment was written by a shill? The former is very possible but hard to prove either way, but the latter seems really unreasonable. In this example, it's a poster that's been here since 2017, talking about things like startup culture, Covid-19, and investment banking. They even say they're ex-AWS in their HN bio, which would be a very unconventional move for an Amazon-corporate-operated fake account.
    • danielmarkbruce 3y ago
      Almost every claim of astroturfing is from someone who doesn't understand the basic argument opposing their position.
      • marcod 3y ago
        Unless it's Amazon reviews, where almost every glowing 5 star review is paid for.
        • therealdrag0 3y ago
          Based on what? You’ve never given a 5 star review? I sure have and I’m sure many many other people have too.
  • cm2012 3y ago
• mardifoufs 3y ago
  Legal precedent exists for a reason. It's not waving the white flag, it's having actual standards and rules. I think Amazon is a shithole of a website and one of the worst examples of downward spirals into mediocrity, but there has to be some semblance of fairness. Targeting amazon for something Walmart or Target does, but without targeting them too is just wack. You can't just handwave that issue by saying that we can just start there! Because it's been decades, it's standard industry practices, and the law hasn't changed (I know that the FTC has a wide executive mandate, but conjuring a rule is still not great). Even if you want Amazon broken down, you don't want such a process to start on super shaky grounds like this. I don't know how to explain exactly what I mean here, but it just feels off!
  • bbor 3y ago
    The basic question is "does the FTC have the right to make rules about our society". I think you're answering "no, it should be the legislative only", which sounds great but I think is a serious status-quo bias. The FTC makes rules about our society all the time, both _de jure_ and _de facto_. There is no moral justification for "starting here", but there is a definite practical one. It would be quite hard for the FTC to open 3-5 different massive lawsuits at the same time, each of which would require tons of funding at a time when funding is seeming scarcer by the day.
    • mardifoufs 3y ago
      Actually, I think I agree with most of your points! I wasn't trying to advocate for the status quo or even a legislative only approach. I think what I would prefer is more of an "EPA" like approach of setting progressive timelines for compliance to a new standard or rule, then strict enforcement. Instead of grand and "bomb shell" one off attempts that sometimes feel just bizarre. Maybe the FTC does not have the power to implement something similar to the FTC , but it definitely would help more imo.