> I think deficient or faulty products exist and amazon often sells them.

So nothing I said disagrees with this. I agree that "pseudo-scam" products and counterfeits exist on Amazon, but if something is risky/dangerous for someone to buy, Amazon is at least partially liable for this - I got a product recall from Amazon for a water kettle (that Amazon doesn't make) that had some defect that could lead to scalding.

While it's a problem, Amazon is incentivized to make sure that the customer would want to keep returning to Amazon for future purchases. If they develop a reputation of giving suggestions for junk/scam/counterfeit products that people end up buying, people will stop using Amazon - at both the individual, and word of mouth levels. Your concern is "naturally" regulated in that way. Amazon wants to keep it's customers happy so it can keep selling them things, and selling them crap is a bad way to keep them happy.

> when someone tries to buy a brand-name product and receives a counterfeit knockoff instead, that some proportion of those customers prefer to pay brand-name prices for knock offs

What did I say that would imply this? No, I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that some people want to pay less ($100 vs $450) for a cheaper product (barebones version) and that's what represents good value to them - not something at the same price that's fake, I really don't know where you think I implied that lol.

▲

aeturnum a day ago | parent [-]

Gotcha - then I think you are misreading my 2nd post - directing consumers away from psudo-scam products is "reversing" the understanding. Not assuming everyone wants one perfect product, but realizing that almost everyone wants to avoid known bad products. A bare bones $100 air fryer is good value.

> I really don't know where you think I implied that

When you said "What you perceive to be "good value" might be "overpaying for useless features" to someone else." you implied that there was no knowable standard for good value. I articulated that idea to an absurd degree in suggesting that you were saying some people would be happy to be scammed - which might be true if good value is impossible to understand objectively.

▲

its_ethan a day ago | parent [-]

It's possible we're not on the same page on what you meant, but after your clarifying, it still requires defining what a "bad product" is, and that's not as easy as it feels like you're suggesting. A cheap product can be both good value and a bad product, depending on the type of product/intended use/customer expectations/etc. But it's up to the customer to decide that.

The main point I'm trying to make there is that customers are unpredictable (and irrational) and they have autonomy, and they need to bear at least some responsibility in making sure what they are buying meets their needs/wants, regardless of what Amazon was paid to suggest to them. This is true everywhere, like at a grocery store - it would be a silly article if it complained about more expensive or store-brand products being placed at eye-level when a "better deal" might be 3 shelves down. That's essentially what Amazon is doing and what the complaint is.

> you implied that there was no knowable standard for good value

This is something I stand by (see above), but you would have to take it to an absurd extreme to conclude that it means I think people are happy being scammed.

Being scammed on Amazon a separate problem, with other avenues of recourse (filing complaints directly to Amazon/requesting refunds, legal system for counterfeits or misleading advertising, etc.), and Amazon is financially incentivized to avoid it to keep customers happy/returning.

	▲	aeturnum 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This is true everywhere, like at a grocery store - it would be a silly article if it complained about more expensive or store-brand products being placed at eye-level when a "better deal" might be 3 shelves down Ok, let's look at this example to refocus. I agree with you that OP is mistaken in their analysis - that you can't jump from the most popular item to knowing that item is best for everyone. But I think we have switched onto talking about other things the vendor could do. Both Amazon and the grocery store both keep records on why people return things (and general complaints) and they would be able to track items that people dislike. Amazon already warns you when an item is returned often, for instance. So I'm saying that Amazon can know when someone buys ads for a product that has higher than normal returns and they may have a responsibility there. In general retailers can be held liable for selling defective products even if people want to buy them so I think there's a framework for warning consumers.
	▲	Dylan16807 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's not that unknowable. When a customer makes a deliberate tradeoff that's fine. But some products are strictly worse than others. You can build a pareto front out of features and price and see which products are near it and which are way behind.