3 ms·

The implication is that Amazon was fully aware that this was happening and didn't care. That's what most people would think "let" meant here. Yes, equivocating

The implication is that Amazon was fully aware that this was happening and didn't care. That's what most people would think "let" meant here. Yes, equivocating over the meaning of "let", the headline is technically true. Like so, so many other technically true but misleading headlines.

seydor 3y ago
the implication would be that amazon is not responsible for the sale of bombs unless someone complains that they explode
ceejayoz 3y ago
Amazon's cavalier approach to verifying new sellers and their listings lets things like this get into their store.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
They didn't care, but clearly their checks and verifications failed, so they were probably not fully aware.
hobs 3y ago
It's their responsibility to know what is happening and to care what is happening on their store - just because they have completely vacated their responsibilities doesn't mean we should give them a break.
karaterobot 3y ago
I'm with you on that. If they removed the product once they learned what it was, I'm not sure how an you could say they "let" someone sell it, rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while. The name of the show is The Great Amazon Heist, which maybe tells you a little bit about what is going on. I agree with the article, and perhaps with the prankster, that Amazon didn't do enough due diligence on the products they sell, but "let" implies they would continue selling it even after knowing what it was.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Amazon is fully capable of doing due dilligence on new and changed listings. They could even charge a small listing fee to cover the costs of having some minimum wage peon look at it for 30 seconds and hitting the "yep, this is OK" button. They choose not to implement sufficient checks. They bear some responsibility for what's being sold under their name on their website.
- cogman10 3y ago
  > rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while Can you think of any other retailer where this is or could be happening? Could you imagine Walmart selling cocaine? Yet somehow it's ok if Amazon does it because "we stopped after we discovered what we were doing was illegal"?

seydor 3y ago

the implication would be that amazon is not responsible for the sale of bombs unless someone complains that they explode

ceejayoz 3y ago

Amazon's cavalier approach to verifying new sellers and their listings lets things like this get into their store.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

They didn't care, but clearly their checks and verifications failed, so they were probably not fully aware.

hobs 3y ago

It's their responsibility to know what is happening and to care what is happening on their store - just because they have completely vacated their responsibilities doesn't mean we should give them a break.

karaterobot 3y ago

I'm with you on that. If they removed the product once they learned what it was, I'm not sure how an you could say they "let" someone sell it, rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while. The name of the show is The Great Amazon Heist, which maybe tells you a little bit about what is going on. I agree with the article, and perhaps with the prankster, that Amazon didn't do enough due diligence on the products they sell, but "let" implies they would continue selling it even after knowing what it was.

ceejayoz 3y ago
Amazon is fully capable of doing due dilligence on new and changed listings. They could even charge a small listing fee to cover the costs of having some minimum wage peon look at it for 30 seconds and hitting the "yep, this is OK" button. They choose not to implement sufficient checks. They bear some responsibility for what's being sold under their name on their website.
cogman10 3y ago
> rather than that they were tricked into selling it for a while Can you think of any other retailer where this is or could be happening? Could you imagine Walmart selling cocaine? Yet somehow it's ok if Amazon does it because "we stopped after we discovered what we were doing was illegal"?