6 ms·

Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. I bought some tools on Amazon, sent them back because of quality issues, and left a 1 star review (they don't a

Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. I bought some tools on Amazon, sent them back because of quality issues, and left a 1 star review (they don't allow zero star reviews but that's another issue). Sure enough I get an email offering to send me a replacement, asking me to remove my review, I reported it and who knows what happens from there. Now, I have had very similar things happen on a website like HomeDepot.com, the manufacturer reached out, sent me a different tool as a replacement, and said I did not have to remove my review but they would appreciate if I did. Just as bad, IMO. The whole point of reviews is to let other consumers know your experience with the product.

teddyh 2y ago
> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  Yes and no. Once (if) the government cracks on the retailer, the retailer cracks down on sellers who use their platform. Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    > Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar. And my grandmother could get some wheels and become a bicycle.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      That transcends laughably unlikely and is instead impossible. At least it’s possible for ethics to come without law and it’s worth recognizing that.
    - NilMostChill 2y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc
  - yndoendo 2y ago
    Worked for a company that made a machine used for automated. Built with USA government specifics and it could remove limbs. Over 1600 Newton force, equivalent to an adult panda. Model A. It was risk assessed and needed a complete redesign for the EU market. Model B is so safe it cannot even take off a finger. Now model A is no longer built and model B is sold in the USA and EU. It was not the goodness of the company that re-engineered safety into the product. It was EU laws and regulations that demand safety be built into the product. The cost savings of manufacturing only model B is why A is no longer sold in the USA. Economic side effects of multinational trade is what gave USA a better and safer product. Proper regulation works. It saves limbs and lives. USA is one of the countries with the lowest standards. USA companies and law makers care about money, not your safety or not consumer protection. And if they do they are the GREAT minority. EU has better quality of food standards. USA allows for designing food to be addictive. Just look at the difference in sugar in bread standards. USA consumes sugar loafs. Japan has their food packaging to resemble what is actually inside. USA will edit mold riddled images to look fresh and a dream of what is actually being sold versus the real thing. Learned that from a family member that delivered food product to a marketing company. Norway requires advertising photos to be labeled if they are modified and unnatural. USA helps promote unrealistic body standards which amplifies emotional, mental, and physical harm. Something I have been trying to help a family member with for over a year. Anorexia and suicidal behavior of go hand in hand. USA standards are more harmful than other 1st world countries. USA companies and lawmakers actively harm their citizens for profit.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The problem is they're both doing it wrong. The way you protect consumers is with a competitive market and a low rate of fraud. So the government is primarily responsible for preventing market consolidation and prosecuting fraud. The problem in the US is that they don't do either of those things well and then you get consolidated markets that are insulated from competition or competitive markets where fraud is rampant, and the latter tend to become the former because a high rate of fraud causes people to turn to major brands to protect themselves until the market consolidates. The problem in Europe is that they not only don't prevent market consolidation, they pass rules that make it worse. You don't need to micromanage how stuff is made or how people interact with each other as long as you have competitive markets and informed consumers, because then people just don't patronize abusive businesses because they both have alternatives and know about them. But if you do micromanage everything then compliance costs go up, which are fixed costs that increase barriers to entry into the market, which reduces competition and then you're screwed again. The best case there is cost disease where everything costs an order of magnitude more than it should because everyone is paying for an army of bureaucrats to check boxes, but even more common is that you get that and abusive cartels that take advantage of consumers in every way that hasn't already been regulated. Which becomes a vicious cycle where more abuses lead to more regulations which lead to higher costs and even more market consolidation.
- ajb 2y ago
  The UK now has an offence of "failure to prevent fraud", but it seems to me that it doesn't include this case (it includes things like fraud by employees and associates who "act on behalf of" the organisation). Amusingly the same legislation also mandates that "A company must not be registered under [the companies act] by a name that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, consists of or includes computer code.” So no more "drop tables" company names.
- reaperducer 2y ago
  Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government. Amazon and eBay should crack down on it so the government doesn't. History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation.
  - rjmorris 2y ago
    > History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation. Citing a couple would help your argument.
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      Everyone but Apple going for mini-USB, micro-USB and finally USB-C is probably the most well known example. Another decently well known example was the early stages of social media moderation. The "business model" of the EU is to check if something is going wrong or could be changed to make the life of European citizens better, to then show that to the industry with "hey, we noticed X - you got a chance to clean up shop on your own, or we will force you by passing laws".
    - reaperducer 2y ago
      Citing a couple would help your argument. I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact that is well-known if you follow business at all. In the United States, it is common for: 1. Politician to complain about situation. 2. Congressional committee holds hearing about situation. 3. Congressmen threaten to pass laws about situation. 4. Industry involved in situation makes changes so that laws are unnecessary. The airline industry is full of examples. This is basic knowledge. Google is your friend.
- csomar 2y ago
  Losing consumer confidence is not profitable. There is a reason people spend more with credit card protections. Amazon is abusing its dominant position to make short-term profits. It is short-sighted and negligent.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    It's been going on for at least a decade, Amazon is still the online retail leader, the main competitors are scammers on Instagram, Temu and AliExpress. Some people will make a point in patronizing more local platforms, but that's far from the critical mass. I'm curious where you see the short-sightedness of this objectively successful and already long lasting strategy ?
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Ebay to me is always bit of an uncontrolled market. But on other hand I fully expect Amazon and other such marketplaces to fully vet their suppliers. And if they are doing fulfilment take any legal hits from not doing reasonable due diligence with stolen or fraudulent merch.
  - onli 2y ago
    A reasonable, but unwarranted expectation. Amazon's marketplace functions without effective oversight since basically forever now. Heck, they sell radioactive metals without warnings and despite those being illegal, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJNllQyoRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJNllQyoRI.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    I’d argue that it’s the opposite. eBay has a lot of individual grifts. They tend to be responsive to grifts that can be easily enforced and proven. Amazon is next level — it has made a lot of money from being the world’s largest fence. Co-mingled inventory makes it trivial to launder stolen goods. They react to things very slowly, as they are at arms length and both make money having criminal FBA sellers operate and by weakening the competition. Walgreen’s pain is Amazon’s gain. The brands slowed down for some things — you can’t sell Tide easily on Amazon now. But now Walmart is locking up men’s briefs because the gangs move to the next commodity.
  - sneak 2y ago
    In thirty seconds you can find fake 2TB flash drives for sale for like $25 on amazon. So can amazon staff. They are still for sale. Lots have negative reviews from people who lost data because these are 64gb drives with reflashed firmware to report 2048gb.
- tlb 2y ago
  It's profitable for Amazon and eBay to have reliable reviews and fewer dissatisfied customers.
  - sneak 2y ago
    Not all customers are created equal, and amazon and ebay control what reviews are shown on their own websites.
- waltercool 2y ago
  Nah, this is not government competence. They will make everything more expensive and we will pay those salaries. Just put a bad score and ask for refund. Amazon does a good job here as you never interact with the seller
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  > The entity which should crack down on this is the government. The problem with fraud is what else these same people are organizing themselves to do. Today it's fake gadgets, tomorrow it's fentyl precursors, the next day it's kidnap for ransom. You go after it for the same reason the US Federal government took on the mob 60 years ago.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  Customers avoid your platform because they associate it with scams is unprofitable, but since the effect is delayed, it'll be ignored until it's a blatant problem and the majority of customers have learned the hard way.
  - stevenwoo 2y ago
    Or they have incorporated the cost of returns into their pricing and it is still profitable, like Amazon.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    Unless you succeed in killing half of the competition in the meantime and the remaining sellers follow the same pattern as you as you're getting away with it and they see the end game. Customers will then suck it up and it becomes the new normal.
agumonkey 2y ago
Amazon rarely does anything that won't benefit them first. Even the customer first policy is a way to attract more people so they spend time on their listings, which are degrading and full of cheap / scam parts and prices nowadays.
sidewndr46 2y ago
Why? They make money off it too.
UltraSane 2y ago
Amazon enables this by commingling products from multiple vendors making it impossible to know which vendor you are actually buying from.

teddyh 2y ago

> Amazon and eBay should crack down on this crap. Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
Yes and no. Once (if) the government cracks on the retailer, the retailer cracks down on sellers who use their platform. Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar.
- teddyh 2y ago
  > Additionally, the retailer could actually have ethics of their own and choose willingly to raise the bar. And my grandmother could get some wheels and become a bicycle.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    That transcends laughably unlikely and is instead impossible. At least it’s possible for ethics to come without law and it’s worth recognizing that.
  - NilMostChill 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc
- yndoendo 2y ago
  Worked for a company that made a machine used for automated. Built with USA government specifics and it could remove limbs. Over 1600 Newton force, equivalent to an adult panda. Model A. It was risk assessed and needed a complete redesign for the EU market. Model B is so safe it cannot even take off a finger. Now model A is no longer built and model B is sold in the USA and EU. It was not the goodness of the company that re-engineered safety into the product. It was EU laws and regulations that demand safety be built into the product. The cost savings of manufacturing only model B is why A is no longer sold in the USA. Economic side effects of multinational trade is what gave USA a better and safer product. Proper regulation works. It saves limbs and lives. USA is one of the countries with the lowest standards. USA companies and law makers care about money, not your safety or not consumer protection. And if they do they are the GREAT minority. EU has better quality of food standards. USA allows for designing food to be addictive. Just look at the difference in sugar in bread standards. USA consumes sugar loafs. Japan has their food packaging to resemble what is actually inside. USA will edit mold riddled images to look fresh and a dream of what is actually being sold versus the real thing. Learned that from a family member that delivered food product to a marketing company. Norway requires advertising photos to be labeled if they are modified and unnatural. USA helps promote unrealistic body standards which amplifies emotional, mental, and physical harm. Something I have been trying to help a family member with for over a year. Anorexia and suicidal behavior of go hand in hand. USA standards are more harmful than other 1st world countries. USA companies and lawmakers actively harm their citizens for profit.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The problem is they're both doing it wrong. The way you protect consumers is with a competitive market and a low rate of fraud. So the government is primarily responsible for preventing market consolidation and prosecuting fraud. The problem in the US is that they don't do either of those things well and then you get consolidated markets that are insulated from competition or competitive markets where fraud is rampant, and the latter tend to become the former because a high rate of fraud causes people to turn to major brands to protect themselves until the market consolidates. The problem in Europe is that they not only don't prevent market consolidation, they pass rules that make it worse. You don't need to micromanage how stuff is made or how people interact with each other as long as you have competitive markets and informed consumers, because then people just don't patronize abusive businesses because they both have alternatives and know about them. But if you do micromanage everything then compliance costs go up, which are fixed costs that increase barriers to entry into the market, which reduces competition and then you're screwed again. The best case there is cost disease where everything costs an order of magnitude more than it should because everyone is paying for an army of bureaucrats to check boxes, but even more common is that you get that and abusive cartels that take advantage of consumers in every way that hasn't already been regulated. Which becomes a vicious cycle where more abuses lead to more regulations which lead to higher costs and even more market consolidation.
ajb 2y ago
The UK now has an offence of "failure to prevent fraud", but it seems to me that it doesn't include this case (it includes things like fraud by employees and associates who "act on behalf of" the organisation). Amusingly the same legislation also mandates that "A company must not be registered under [the companies act] by a name that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, consists of or includes computer code.” So no more "drop tables" company names.
reaperducer 2y ago
Amazon and eBay are companies, which will do whatever is profitable and legal. The entity which should crack down on this is the government. Amazon and eBay should crack down on it so the government doesn't. History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation.
- rjmorris 2y ago
  > History is full of examples of companies doing the right thing if only to prevent government regulation. Citing a couple would help your argument.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    Everyone but Apple going for mini-USB, micro-USB and finally USB-C is probably the most well known example. Another decently well known example was the early stages of social media moderation. The "business model" of the EU is to check if something is going wrong or could be changed to make the life of European citizens better, to then show that to the industry with "hey, we noticed X - you got a chance to clean up shop on your own, or we will force you by passing laws".
  - reaperducer 2y ago
    Citing a couple would help your argument. I'm not making an argument. I'm stating a fact that is well-known if you follow business at all. In the United States, it is common for: 1. Politician to complain about situation. 2. Congressional committee holds hearing about situation. 3. Congressmen threaten to pass laws about situation. 4. Industry involved in situation makes changes so that laws are unnecessary. The airline industry is full of examples. This is basic knowledge. Google is your friend.
csomar 2y ago
Losing consumer confidence is not profitable. There is a reason people spend more with credit card protections. Amazon is abusing its dominant position to make short-term profits. It is short-sighted and negligent.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  It's been going on for at least a decade, Amazon is still the online retail leader, the main competitors are scammers on Instagram, Temu and AliExpress. Some people will make a point in patronizing more local platforms, but that's far from the critical mass. I'm curious where you see the short-sightedness of this objectively successful and already long lasting strategy ?
Ekaros 2y ago
Ebay to me is always bit of an uncontrolled market. But on other hand I fully expect Amazon and other such marketplaces to fully vet their suppliers. And if they are doing fulfilment take any legal hits from not doing reasonable due diligence with stolen or fraudulent merch.
- onli 2y ago
  A reasonable, but unwarranted expectation. Amazon's marketplace functions without effective oversight since basically forever now. Heck, they sell radioactive metals without warnings and despite those being illegal, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJNllQyoRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmJNllQyoRI.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  I’d argue that it’s the opposite. eBay has a lot of individual grifts. They tend to be responsive to grifts that can be easily enforced and proven. Amazon is next level — it has made a lot of money from being the world’s largest fence. Co-mingled inventory makes it trivial to launder stolen goods. They react to things very slowly, as they are at arms length and both make money having criminal FBA sellers operate and by weakening the competition. Walgreen’s pain is Amazon’s gain. The brands slowed down for some things — you can’t sell Tide easily on Amazon now. But now Walmart is locking up men’s briefs because the gangs move to the next commodity.
- sneak 2y ago
  In thirty seconds you can find fake 2TB flash drives for sale for like $25 on amazon. So can amazon staff. They are still for sale. Lots have negative reviews from people who lost data because these are 64gb drives with reflashed firmware to report 2048gb.
tlb 2y ago
It's profitable for Amazon and eBay to have reliable reviews and fewer dissatisfied customers.
- sneak 2y ago
  Not all customers are created equal, and amazon and ebay control what reviews are shown on their own websites.
waltercool 2y ago
Nah, this is not government competence. They will make everything more expensive and we will pay those salaries. Just put a bad score and ask for refund. Amazon does a good job here as you never interact with the seller
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
> The entity which should crack down on this is the government. The problem with fraud is what else these same people are organizing themselves to do. Today it's fake gadgets, tomorrow it's fentyl precursors, the next day it's kidnap for ransom. You go after it for the same reason the US Federal government took on the mob 60 years ago.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
Customers avoid your platform because they associate it with scams is unprofitable, but since the effect is delayed, it'll be ignored until it's a blatant problem and the majority of customers have learned the hard way.
- stevenwoo 2y ago
  Or they have incorporated the cost of returns into their pricing and it is still profitable, like Amazon.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Unless you succeed in killing half of the competition in the meantime and the remaining sellers follow the same pattern as you as you're getting away with it and they see the end game. Customers will then suck it up and it becomes the new normal.

agumonkey 2y ago

Amazon rarely does anything that won't benefit them first. Even the customer first policy is a way to attract more people so they spend time on their listings, which are degrading and full of cheap / scam parts and prices nowadays.

sidewndr46 2y ago

Why? They make money off it too.

UltraSane 2y ago

Amazon enables this by commingling products from multiple vendors making it impossible to know which vendor you are actually buying from.