I agree completely, so, artificially pumping review sites full of reviews by people who haven't actually read the book as a protest movement doesn't seem like a market-improving action to me.
First, the reviews inform people that the books are available cheaper in other formats, which they might not have known. Second, if the reviews do cause the publisher to lower the price, that will presumably result in more sales, and there will be more consumer surplus gained than producer surplus lost. Boom, market improvement.
When supplier are coerced into changing their prices by force, that isn't the market at work.
You don't like the word "coercion" or "force" because you think stuffing review sites with non-good-faith-reviews it harmless, even though it contravenes the expectation that a reviewer represents a single entity who has actually attempted to consume the book. But the same logic was used during the Wikileaks Visa DDoS flood. You can choose to believe that DDoS attacks are legitimate, too. But you cannot with a straight face say that those attacks are the market at work.
stuffing review sites with non-good-faith-reviews it harmless, even though it contravenes the expectation that a reviewer represents a single entity who has actually attempted to consume the book
I don't agree the the reviews are not "in good faith". It is wrong to write a review of a $100 Monster cable pointing out that no matter how well it works, it's a ripoff when a $10 cable is functionally identical? This is the same idea: the reviewers are expressing their opinion about whether the product is worth the asking price. Their criteria for evaluation is different from yours; that doesn't make it vandalism or coercion or a DDOS.
Yes, I think it is: if you have not purchased the product, the proper venue to point out the TRUE FACT that the cable is a rip off is not in fact the product review site. Unless you buy the product and review it.