|
|
|
|
|
|
by guiand
2069 days ago
|
|
|
One particular thing that has always deeply concerned me about Amazon is the cognitive dissonance: they aren't a store but a platform, and yet they can exert total control over the store in an anticompetitive way when it suits them. They banned selling the Chromecast and Apple TV [1]. Isn't that curious? They don't have to exert quality control over the Amazon marketplace because they just Connect Sellers to Buyers. But if that seller happens to compete with an Amazon product, sorry! No-can-sell. [1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-to-stop-selling-google-chro... |
|
|
There are two issues with that. The first is it won't satisfy the people who demand that amazon be killed. The second is that actually running a neutral platform would mean amazon could no longer ban other products (firearms, nazi materials, alcohol, dangerous chemicals etc).
I think the issue here is that there is no easy answer to any of the overlapping issues that large platforms represent. People don't know what they want and often want mutually exclusive things (more safety and less restrictions). There is ban behaviour on all sides.
I'm concerned that mostly people seem to coalesce around the most extreme outcomes (and those are least likely to improve things). you get a lot more support for "break up amazon" than "some amazon activities may be a utility and a natural monopoly and others not. And that requires different regulation. But there are downsides to that and they are also serious and unpopular. And we also shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. And there are plenty of examples of similar issues in non-tech. So we have a systemic issue as well, though how we deal with this can inform further action. And whatever we do won't be 100% correct".