3 ms·

The kind of experiences that the post and I am talking about are where the platform user or the customer end are dissatisfied by the platform's conduct. The qu

The kind of experiences that the post and I am talking about are where the platform user or the customer end are dissatisfied by the platform's conduct. The question of the company itself being defrauded by some number of customers and having to defend against that as it becomes increasing larger is definitely valid and difficult to tackle at scale. However, I think it is a totally separate one. I do not think it is a necessity for the company to compromise the ability to make any one dissatisfied customer whole just because they are being targeted by a whole lot of fraudsters all at once. The company might have to increased their costs on their products to pay for things like additional training, tamper-evident packaging, improving supply chain management, and so on.

CityOfThrowaway 3y ago
They aren't separate questions, and there is a trade-off between protecting themselves and attempting to do right by good-faith customers. The correct amount of fraud the platforms tolerate against themselves is definitely >0%, and it's for the reason you're identifying. It seems that you're assuming it's obvious to identify good-faith consumers and do right by them. In some cases that's true. If you're a loyal, repeat customer of Amazon's they will basically just do whatever you ask them (within reason). But there are many cases where the act of discriminating between fraudster and Good Samaritan is in fact the whole of the challenge. Indeed, one of the most common exploits is to hack the account of good customers and abuse merchants that way. There's a dark, dark underbelly of crime out there. And the cost of that is borne by all of us in occasionally-less-than-good customer experiences.