| ▲ | pnt12 7 hours ago |
| This reads like propaganda. Amazon has no business de-listing products because of their price elsewhere. If it wanted to be pro-consumer, I don't know, it could warn the consumer the price is lower somewhere else, and point them there, like a good search engine of products! Sounds ridiculous? Yeah, because those claims are a bit ridiculous too. |
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "…[Amazon] could warn the consumer the price is lower somewhere else, and point them there…" That would be a miracle. (On 34th Street.) |
| |
|
| ▲ | terminalshort 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Rules around pricing like that are standard retail practice since well before the internet even existed. |
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | cebert 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don’t like it, but it is Amazon’s web property and they can do whatever they want. They could put up political banners on the top of their website, but I wouldn’t recommend it with how divided the country is. |
| |
| ▲ | malfist an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They can't do whatever they want, we live in a regulated economy for precisely this reason. Otherwise you get exactly what is happening here, a company using it's near monopoly power to raise prices on everyone to enrich a few | |
| ▲ | robotpepi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | for sure they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't make it "pro consumer" as said above | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | celticninja 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | you may want to re-evaluate your understanding of the word hackers. It has had a few definitions during my lifetime and none of the fit with how you have used it here. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mattlondon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When Google did it with their search results on their site that included links to their own products everyone lost their shit about it. And those were just links to sites, not things to buy... | |
| ▲ | robtherobber 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's not legally correct in the US, EU, or the UK. Private ownership gives Amazon a lot of discretion over its own site design, messaging and whatnot, but not unlimited freedom to do or say whatever they please. In the US major firms do not get a free pass simply because they own the platform and the idea that a website constitute "private property" doesn't work as a defence to anticompetitive conduct or to display a political banner expressing support for a political party of candidate without triggering additional rules / limits. In the EU this is even less the case, as it effectively treats some platform conduct as capable of creating societal/systemic risks and thus needs to be kept in check. Whether is happens like that all the time in reality is subject of another discussion, I think; the point is that the mechanisms exist. Political spending/advertising is a regulated activity that goes beyond rules that apply to private property. In the UK, for example, spending, donation, reporting etc. if the activity is intended to influence voters, falls under specific regulations: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-guidance/campaign... | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | eesmith 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Companies are required to follow the law. These laws do not prohibit putting up political banners, but Amazon certainly cannot do whatever they want. There are laws regarding price fixing, abuse of monopoly powers, discrimination on a protected class, product labeling, and making false and misleading statements about drugs. If they sell Cuban-made cigars made with conventionally grown tobacco, then while they technically can put up a banner claiming "these organic, made in the USA cigars, if smoked twice daily, will cure epilepsy in children - buy now!", they'll have broken several laws. |
|