Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KTLA Los Angeles)   You really think Amazon would do that? Just go in front of Congress and tell lies?   (ktla.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, United States House Committee on the Judiciary, Jerrold Nadler, letter Monday, criminal investigation of Amazon, recent media reports, Testimony  
•       •       •

569 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Oct 2021 at 7:15 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



10 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-10-18 6:00:56 PM  
Oh, they probably didn't lie. Look at this statement (and the highlighted word) and I can tell you exactly what the lawyers are going to focus on:

"Amazon and its executives did not mislead the committee, and we have denied and sought to correct the record on the inaccurate media articles in question," the company said in a statement. "As we have previously stated, we have an internal policy, which goes beyond that of any other retailer's policy that we're aware of, that prohibits the use of individual seller data to develop Amazon private-label products."'

See? Amazon isn't using individual seller data to game the system, they're using aggregate data to game the system! It's completely different!

Reminds me of my niece when she was younger and she'd ask her mom for a cherry popsicle and when her mom said no, she'd grab an orange one. Then when challenged, she'd say it wasn't cherry flavored.
 
2021-10-18 7:24:42 PM  
Do not let them correct the record. If it were a common person that lied to Congress, US Marshals would be at their door within 24 hours. Fine them. And not pokey little fines, fine them billions. Seize assets. Nationalize. Bezos sat right in front of Congress, opened his ballsack mouth, and when they asked, "Are you trying to be a monopoly?" he said no, even while his company was acting exactly as a monopoly acts.
 
2021-10-18 9:49:01 PM  
Legit question, no snark intended or implied, and the question is not meant to defend Amazon if they lied to Congress, but should we extend this "no first party brands when you're a marketplace" anti-monopoly rule to every store? WalMart, Target, supermarkets, etc. all openly rip off their vendors and place their own products, usually under a different name, in the prime positions on shelves and at deeply discounted rates. It's happened for decades and is widely accepted. Basically precisely what Amazon is doing.

Back to bashing Amazon though: this "we have policies against this" is, if you've ever worked for Amazon, one of the stupidest possible defenses they could offer. One of the very first videos a new hire engineer has to watch on orientation day is a talk by Bezos on how "good intentions don't matter." By that he doesn't mean "be evil," but he means "having good intentions isn't good enough because humans are fallible, and you need mechanisms and process -- preferably automated -- to make those good intentions actually happen, or your intentions are worthless."

By basically leaving the entirety of "don't rip off our sellers by mining their data" to a good intentions-only process of "internal policy," Amazon is openly inviting it to be violated. And they know it. That's precisely the kind of thing that Amazon would discount as a worthless mechanism for literally anything else internally. Like... whoever came up with that as an excuse would be fired for that level of stupidity... levels of pitiful excuse. I.e. they know very well that it's going to be violated and are practically encouraging it, just with a veneer of plausible deniability.
 
2021-10-18 10:04:12 PM  
You know what's a funnier Arthur meme?, This.

You've Gotta be Kidding!
Youtube wCdBtEM3E7Q
 
2021-10-18 10:23:49 PM  
If only we'd catch them selling individual cigarettes, then a cop could just murder them without due process
 
2021-10-18 10:33:11 PM  
When I was in college, they had rules against drinking on campus.   We never broke the rules, we bent them to allow ourselves to get intoxicated on campus.

The way is to have a line of questions where Amazon dead ends themselves into a "we farked ourselves and now need regulation", but it would take an amazing word-wizard that understood tech without being a douchie tech-bro to do that.

And let's face it, if congress ever succeeded, whomever does that just ends up never getting quality Amazon delivery times ever again, and all the good stuff is on Amazon.
 
2021-10-19 12:51:44 AM  

jaerik: Legit question, no snark intended or implied, and the question is not meant to defend Amazon if they lied to Congress, but should we extend this "no first party brands when you're a marketplace" anti-monopoly rule to every store? WalMart, Target, supermarkets, etc. all openly rip off their vendors and place their own products, usually under a different name, in the prime positions on shelves and at deeply discounted rates. It's happened for decades and is widely accepted. Basically precisely what Amazon is doing.

Back to bashing Amazon though: this "we have policies against this" is, if you've ever worked for Amazon, one of the stupidest possible defenses they could offer. One of the very first videos a new hire engineer has to watch on orientation day is a talk by Bezos on how "good intentions don't matter." By that he doesn't mean "be evil," but he means "having good intentions isn't good enough because humans are fallible, and you need mechanisms and process -- preferably automated -- to make those good intentions actually happen, or your intentions are worthless."

By basically leaving the entirety of "don't rip off our sellers by mining their data" to a good intentions-only process of "internal policy," Amazon is openly inviting it to be violated. And they know it. That's precisely the kind of thing that Amazon would discount as a worthless mechanism for literally anything else internally. Like... whoever came up with that as an excuse would be fired for that level of stupidity... levels of pitiful excuse. I.e. they know very well that it's going to be violated and are practically encouraging it, just with a veneer of plausible deniability.


The problem isn't that Amazon is making rip-offs of their vendor's products. It's that they are making exact duplicates of those products, and then because they can subsidize the entirety of the Amazon web store with Amazon Web Services, they can then turn around and sell those products for less than the original vendor, potentially even at a loss, because that loss is subsidized. Because the vendor cannot sell so absurdly low, they are essentially frozen out of the marketplace, but it gets worse than that, because Amazon can make sure you see their product first, and hide the original on page 3, 5, 100, etc.
 
2021-10-19 2:28:38 AM  
Misleading?  Only Congress is allowed to do that.
 
2021-10-19 2:51:20 AM  

jaerik: Legit question, no snark intended or implied, and the question is not meant to defend Amazon if they lied to Congress, but should we extend this "no first party brands when you're a marketplace" anti-monopoly rule to every store? WalMart, Target, supermarkets, etc. all openly rip off their vendors and place their own products, usually under a different name, in the prime positions on shelves and at deeply discounted rates. It's happened for decades and is widely accepted. Basically precisely what Amazon is doing.

Back to bashing Amazon though: this "we have policies against this" is, if you've ever worked for Amazon, one of the stupidest possible defenses they could offer. One of the very first videos a new hire engineer has to watch on orientation day is a talk by Bezos on how "good intentions don't matter." By that he doesn't mean "be evil," but he means "having good intentions isn't good enough because humans are fallible, and you need mechanisms and process -- preferably automated -- to make those good intentions actually happen, or your intentions are worthless."

By basically leaving the entirety of "don't rip off our sellers by mining their data" to a good intentions-only process of "internal policy," Amazon is openly inviting it to be violated. And they know it. That's precisely the kind of thing that Amazon would discount as a worthless mechanism for literally anything else internally. Like... whoever came up with that as an excuse would be fired for that level of stupidity... levels of pitiful excuse. I.e. they know very well that it's going to be violated and are practically encouraging it, just with a veneer of plausible deniability.


The difference is that it's pretty obvious which is the good one and which is the knock off and it's pretty easy to see them side by side. It's like "what is a foul" in basketball, there's an accepted level of behavior.
 
2021-10-19 8:29:05 AM  

tdyak: When I was in college, they had rules against drinking on campus.   We never broke the rules, we bent them to allow ourselves to get intoxicated on campus.


Butt chugging?
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.