Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Legislation would unmask third-party sellers, but Amazon is fighting it
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/amazon-ebay-fight-legislation-that-would-unmask-third-party-sellers/
84 comments
At least in California they are liable in tort: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/another-court-gets-hove...
> California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product.
> The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha Loomis, bought a hoverboard through the Amazon marketplace. The Amazon marketplace carries both products sold by Amazon and by third parties. In this case, the hoverboard was sold by a Chinese company called SMILETO.
> The Court of Appeal... [held] that a party who has control over and is integral to the chain of commerce, and receives a financial benefit from it, is strictly liable for injury caused by a product’s defects.
> California’s Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) determined that Amazon could be held strictly liable for injuries a consumer suffered from a defective hoverboard she bought from the retailer, even though Amazon neither manufactured nor sold the product.
> The plaintiff in this latest case, Kisha Loomis, bought a hoverboard through the Amazon marketplace. The Amazon marketplace carries both products sold by Amazon and by third parties. In this case, the hoverboard was sold by a Chinese company called SMILETO.
> The Court of Appeal... [held] that a party who has control over and is integral to the chain of commerce, and receives a financial benefit from it, is strictly liable for injury caused by a product’s defects.
Oh, that's important, and new. Here's the actual decision in Loomis vs. Amazon.[1] Amazon has been fighting that case since 2016, and last April, they lost at the appellate level in California.
But the plaintiff hasn't won damages yet; the case will now be sent back to the LA Superior Court where discovery will continue; a trial date is expected to be set in 2022.
So, in California, you can now make product liability claims against Amazon, despite their terms and conditions.
[1] https://cases.justia.com/static/pdf-js/web/?file=/california...
So, in California, you can now make product liability claims against Amazon, despite their terms and conditions.
[1] https://cases.justia.com/static/pdf-js/web/?file=/california...
So Wal Mart is liable for defective products in California too?
Yes, ever since the 1960s, actually. In fact, California was the first state[1] to adopt strict product liability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability#Landmark_leg... Most U.S. states and many other countries have since adopted California's regime. So California courts extending their common law strict product liability doctrine to encompass Amazon's marketplace is quite a noteworthy precedent.
[1] And the first jurisdiction globally, I think.
[1] And the first jurisdiction globally, I think.
Sounds like a big risk reselling anything with any potential to go wrong in California, or at least insurance premiums will be very high.
Not just in California, but in most of the U.S. and E.U.
But if you weren't yourself negligent, you can recover your losses from an upstream supplier. In practice it's manufacturers or importers who bear most of the insurance cost.
The whole point of the doctrine is that someone injured by a faulty product shouldn't have to hunt down the negligent party, who may have chosen to sell through a byzantine supply chain in order to protect themselves. Similarly, a downstream seller shouldn't be free to benefit from such an arrangement, either. IOW, retailers and other sellers should (and because of strict product liability do) have some responsibility to choose their suppliers wisely.
Note that at least conceptually strict liability lessens the need for centralized product regulation. By making recovery for actual damages more efficient, there's less need for government to try to prevent negligence beforehand. And at least in theory that makes it easier for industry to innovate--to take calculated risks. Alas, the U.S. doesn't embrace this potential as well as it could.
But if you weren't yourself negligent, you can recover your losses from an upstream supplier. In practice it's manufacturers or importers who bear most of the insurance cost.
The whole point of the doctrine is that someone injured by a faulty product shouldn't have to hunt down the negligent party, who may have chosen to sell through a byzantine supply chain in order to protect themselves. Similarly, a downstream seller shouldn't be free to benefit from such an arrangement, either. IOW, retailers and other sellers should (and because of strict product liability do) have some responsibility to choose their suppliers wisely.
Note that at least conceptually strict liability lessens the need for centralized product regulation. By making recovery for actual damages more efficient, there's less need for government to try to prevent negligence beforehand. And at least in theory that makes it easier for industry to innovate--to take calculated risks. Alas, the U.S. doesn't embrace this potential as well as it could.
What counts as a supplier as far as California is considered? If someone sells a non-functional piece of equipment via Ebay, how does that work? Unlike Amazon ,which some argue is closer to a store, Ebay is an open market where you're buying the product as is and not as an SKU. When does caveat emptor become a consideration?
Strict product liability usually only applies to commercial sellers. That doesn't directly answer your question, but suffice it to say there are bodies of law that exist to answer that question. It's certainly not a new question as flea markets, garage sales, charity drives, and many other situations long predate Amazon and eBay.
They would likely just need to show "reasonable and prudent" attention to what they are selling. Electrical appliances UL listed, that sort of thing. Selling mainstream brands and not nameless Chinese products is another layer of defense. IANAL.
So basically, Amazon is a large parking lot where they're charging a booth fee for the largest grey farmers' market in existence.
I feel like the offloaded liability is just a technicality and is a poor lack of incentive for Amazon to do anything. Sure, the product was sold by a non-Amazon third party, but from the user perspective the defective product was purchased on Amazon. The company can deflect blame to the marketplace sellers all they want, but it's still Amazon's reputation that receives the most lasting damage.
I am wondering if Amazon is immune to reputational damage though. People have been complaining about counterfeit and defective products from Amazon for about 5 years now, and it doesn't seem to have had significant effect on market share.
I've been disentangling my purchasing habits from Amazon, but I don't know too many other people who are.
I've been disentangling my purchasing habits from Amazon, but I don't know too many other people who are.
I don't think the majority of people care about quality. I think most focus mainly on price.
See Walmart for an example of this. They force manufacturers of otherwise decent stuff to make lower quality versions of products to sell only at Walmart, just to lower the end price.
Considering that Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world, this seems to be a winning tactic.
See Walmart for an example of this. They force manufacturers of otherwise decent stuff to make lower quality versions of products to sell only at Walmart, just to lower the end price.
Considering that Walmart is one of the largest companies in the world, this seems to be a winning tactic.
People only care about quality for a very few select goods in their lives. Most of them are of hedonistic nature and/or are publicly visible so are a status symbol.
Everything else will be as cheap as can be bought (so probably 90% of purchases).
Everything else will be as cheap as can be bought (so probably 90% of purchases).
People are unable to accurately judge quality before they make a purchase, and often well after the purchase the quality is uncertain too. Who knows how long it'll take before you find out that your cheap USB charger was made of shoddy materials and will catch on fire when it fails?
But you can know the exact price before the purchase.
People are optimizing based on the information they have.
But you can know the exact price before the purchase.
People are optimizing based on the information they have.
[deleted]
Amazon doesn't have the best prices though; it's big selling point is, IMO, convenience (this is IMO a bigger factor for Walmart as well; while they heavily advertise a few particularly aggressively priced items, most of Walmart's SKUs are pried middle-of-the-road).
i cancelled my prime subscription yesterday after finally getting frustrated enough by so much of what i've bought/wanted to buy on amazon being clearly fraudulent in one way or another. forget free shipping, i want products that work, and which actually are what they are advertised as. i've wasted too much time munging through reviews to try to figure out if a good product was stealthily replaced with a dud, if manufacturing standards dropped significantly, if the seller was paying for positive reviews, not to mention time/effort wasted on returns and discovering that the products i got were in fact blatantly counterfeit/defective.
yall probably know rule 34, but I'm pretty sure there should be another rule of the internet: "if a product exists, it will be counterfeited on amazon". just try taking a look at how many people on the amazon sellers forum have their businesses/brands seriously harmed by the myriad of counterfeiters on amazon.
i also recommend this write-up for more perspective on the extent and nature of fraud on e-commerce platforms: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0124...
yall probably know rule 34, but I'm pretty sure there should be another rule of the internet: "if a product exists, it will be counterfeited on amazon". just try taking a look at how many people on the amazon sellers forum have their businesses/brands seriously harmed by the myriad of counterfeiters on amazon.
i also recommend this write-up for more perspective on the extent and nature of fraud on e-commerce platforms: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0124...
My biggest problem so far has been finding alternatives that are not just as fraudulent. So far picking a retail store and only getting things that are "available for pickup" even if I plan to have it shipped seems to work for me, but that greatly reduces the available options. Buying direct from the manufacturer often works, but some mfgrs have switched to a storefront on Amazon :(
I don't buy anything from Amazon anymore, but I agree most people I know haven't gone that far.
Same here. It isn't easy. I dropped Prime a couple years ago. I think I placed five total orders last year, pandemic and all.
I recently purchased a set of full ear headphones with boom microphone from Amazon. From a 'five star' reviewed product and vendor. It came with a printed piece of paper in the box from the vendor offering a $15 gift card if I left a five star review for the product and then sent a screenshot to the company. Such shady behavior.
The headphones are only average quality.
The headphones are only average quality.
I had a similar experience in April. I reported the seller to Amazon, including lots of evidence (links to reviews by other buyers complaining about the same thing, etc.) They assured me that they would take care of it, but the product is still available and it seems that nothing has changed.
Yep. Widespread problem, as noted in this submission and thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25459434
Once again, the good guys (customers and honest sellers) lose out while the bad guys win, with no repercussions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25459434
Once again, the good guys (customers and honest sellers) lose out while the bad guys win, with no repercussions.
I got one of those once, and wrote a review saying that this seller is paying for 5 star reviews and even though the product seemed fine, be wary of 5 star reviews. Amazon removed my review as going against the terms of service.
I had a similar event happen with a product that cost $11.99 and they offered a $10 amazon gift card if I reviewed it. I did like the product and left a review, and they emailed me a gift card a week later. I was quite surprised. How does the business side of that work?
Easy, don't put that notice in every box, and don't expect that everyone that receives the notice would bother filling it out, and maybe once you are winding down that product, start delaying or just not sending the gift cards.
You only need to keep ahead of the other items in the same product category in terms of average score and review count. That's public information, so it's pretty clear how many of these gift cards you need to give out to top the category.
You only need to keep ahead of the other items in the same product category in terms of average score and review count. That's public information, so it's pretty clear how many of these gift cards you need to give out to top the category.
Lose money for the first several months, and then print money after you have thousands of 5 star reviews and a first page Amazon listing.
As many have already mentioned in prior discussions, 5-star reviews are meaningless and Amazon does not care.
this has been going on for years. amazon benefits, so they allow the practice.
Germany just passed a law that forces Amazon, eBay (or any platform) to be transparent about who you are buying from (company / individuals). Additionally they need to be transparent about how they rank search result and whether the results include paid placements.
German source here: https://www.golem.de/news/bundestag-amazon-und-ebay-zu-mehr-...
German source here: https://www.golem.de/news/bundestag-amazon-und-ebay-zu-mehr-...
This is currently a big pain in the butt for me.
I sometimes buy specialized tools and equipment from Amazon due to the convenience of Amazon's great catalog and suggestion system, it can be quite useful.
However, sometimes I receive items that are clearly B-stock, returns, mislabeled defective, improperly packaged, etc from these third party sellers who "win the buy box".
The subtle difference between useful and completely useless is really hard to demonstrate to someone who is not familiar with the usage and normal appearance of these products.
When I have a problem with some of these specialized industrial products I often cannot simply return them for service or warranty to the reseller, I am required to return them to the authorized reseller (Amazon is often one of these) for warranty service.
The problem with this is that the manufacturer often only warranties their product when sold from their authorized reseller. Even though Amazon may be an official reseller affiliate, the third party reseller that I purchased it from (again, FBA, but sold by GUYA JICKSV LLC) is not on this list!
In order to get the warranty service I now have to go to the manufacturer, who is wary of theft, counterfeit, returns, and a really surprising number of times I discover that there is a part missing or duplicate parts, and this renders the warranty void.
Dealing with the manufacturers in these situations is really annoying and often fruitless. To them its just one unit and they do industrial sales volume, but to me it is several hundred dollars and days of hassle. This costs me much more money than the cost of replacing the thing.
I am now very wary of buying certain types of products from Amazon, as they often appear to be sold by Amazon, but is actually not sold by Amazon, but only technically sold by amazon because of this buy box behavior.
Its is incredibly opaque, error prone, and nobody cares except me and my customers (with whom I sure do have a relationship, unlike the Amazon seller does with me.) As a result, I have reduced my purchasing from Amazon. Cest la vie.
I sometimes buy specialized tools and equipment from Amazon due to the convenience of Amazon's great catalog and suggestion system, it can be quite useful.
However, sometimes I receive items that are clearly B-stock, returns, mislabeled defective, improperly packaged, etc from these third party sellers who "win the buy box".
The subtle difference between useful and completely useless is really hard to demonstrate to someone who is not familiar with the usage and normal appearance of these products.
When I have a problem with some of these specialized industrial products I often cannot simply return them for service or warranty to the reseller, I am required to return them to the authorized reseller (Amazon is often one of these) for warranty service.
The problem with this is that the manufacturer often only warranties their product when sold from their authorized reseller. Even though Amazon may be an official reseller affiliate, the third party reseller that I purchased it from (again, FBA, but sold by GUYA JICKSV LLC) is not on this list!
In order to get the warranty service I now have to go to the manufacturer, who is wary of theft, counterfeit, returns, and a really surprising number of times I discover that there is a part missing or duplicate parts, and this renders the warranty void.
Dealing with the manufacturers in these situations is really annoying and often fruitless. To them its just one unit and they do industrial sales volume, but to me it is several hundred dollars and days of hassle. This costs me much more money than the cost of replacing the thing.
I am now very wary of buying certain types of products from Amazon, as they often appear to be sold by Amazon, but is actually not sold by Amazon, but only technically sold by amazon because of this buy box behavior.
Its is incredibly opaque, error prone, and nobody cares except me and my customers (with whom I sure do have a relationship, unlike the Amazon seller does with me.) As a result, I have reduced my purchasing from Amazon. Cest la vie.
If the only argument is having to list a home address then a PO Box resolves the privacy issue.
When I setup a small online business, that was one of the first things I did. It doesn't cost much at all, and was very easy.
In my experience, a "real" address is needed somewhere. PO Boxes are fine for many things, but for process service, etc. the part of your state government that is responsible for business entities will want a real address.
So you've never heard of competitive addressing, then.
Instead of PO BOX 1234, Anytown, ST USA you use Street Address of Post Office, Unit # PO BOX Number, Anytown ST USA.
In addition to giving you a "real" street address, it works for any services unable to otherwise deliver to a PO BOX like UPS, Fedex or DHL, because as long as they deliver during business hours, the post office will sign for your package.
I use this to great effect as package theft is so rampant in my area. It does add a one day delay since the package is signed for by my post office and not delivered into my po box until the next day. And I've had to call and complain to Amazon a few times until they stopped trying to use their vans to deliver to that address. The drivers rarely read the instructions that say "You must deliver during business hours as this is a post office." When Amazon actually ships via USPS to my po box I get the packages same day as delivery so it's the best of all scenarios. Really I don't know why people have a such hate on for the post office. I love it.
https://postalpro.usps.com/mailing/competitivepoboxes
But yeah most likely a process server will leave the post office frustrated. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature. :-)
Instead of PO BOX 1234, Anytown, ST USA you use Street Address of Post Office, Unit # PO BOX Number, Anytown ST USA.
In addition to giving you a "real" street address, it works for any services unable to otherwise deliver to a PO BOX like UPS, Fedex or DHL, because as long as they deliver during business hours, the post office will sign for your package.
I use this to great effect as package theft is so rampant in my area. It does add a one day delay since the package is signed for by my post office and not delivered into my po box until the next day. And I've had to call and complain to Amazon a few times until they stopped trying to use their vans to deliver to that address. The drivers rarely read the instructions that say "You must deliver during business hours as this is a post office." When Amazon actually ships via USPS to my po box I get the packages same day as delivery so it's the best of all scenarios. Really I don't know why people have a such hate on for the post office. I love it.
https://postalpro.usps.com/mailing/competitivepoboxes
But yeah most likely a process server will leave the post office frustrated. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature. :-)
The only reason people on HN have hate for the post office is they are influenced by capitalists who want another industry to “disrupt.” American oligarchs have been declaring war on public services since the New Deal, and over time American workers have sadly been propagandized to buy into it.
As a result, the U.S. Post Office is not what it used to be (it used to offer banking services!!!) but it’s still one of the best things we have left. Not to mention its glowing record of equal employment.
As a result, the U.S. Post Office is not what it used to be (it used to offer banking services!!!) but it’s still one of the best things we have left. Not to mention its glowing record of equal employment.
I have hate for the post office because I get like 1 legitimate piece of mail a month, yet the post office is constantly stuffing those stupid supermarket flyers in my box with no opt-out.
So I got a PO Box...Aaaannnd of course the P.O. couldn't forward that 1 piece of mail properly :-p
so yeah - I find them useless and actively avoid any items that will be delivered by them (eg 'e-packet' stuff from aliexpress is a no go)
So I got a PO Box...Aaaannnd of course the P.O. couldn't forward that 1 piece of mail properly :-p
so yeah - I find them useless and actively avoid any items that will be delivered by them (eg 'e-packet' stuff from aliexpress is a no go)
Interesting. I literally never get flyers of any kind in my po box. I used to get them at home but opted out using the usual process.
Weirdly I have the opposite experience using foreign delivery services: my wife buys items from Japan regularly that come DHL and I've never lost one. But I don't use my po box to forward mail, just receive it.
https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...
Weirdly I have the opposite experience using foreign delivery services: my wife buys items from Japan regularly that come DHL and I've never lost one. But I don't use my po box to forward mail, just receive it.
https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...
Unless its changed - you can't refuse stuff addressed to 'occupant' like supermarket flyers. You can remove your _name_ from mailing lists, but that wasnt' my issue. So I got a 'PO Box' from a local ups store type place. Now I don't get junk mail.
Maybe the difference is due to my "PO Box" actually being at a store and not an actual Post Office? It's at a local ups store/mailboxes etc. type store, so the Post Office would actually have to forward the mail, not just drop it in a PO Box on premise.
Maybe the difference is due to my "PO Box" actually being at a store and not an actual Post Office? It's at a local ups store/mailboxes etc. type store, so the Post Office would actually have to forward the mail, not just drop it in a PO Box on premise.
Someone on HN once mentioned that anti-USPO plays are likely aimed at "freeing up" all the prime real estate the USPO owns in cities all over the country for private buyers, which was the thing that finally made some people and groups' evident hate and ill-wishing for the post office make sense to me. I'm sure killing some competition is also a factor for certain interests, but that was never enough, I thought, to explain all the forces working against them.
The real estate effort makes sense because it gives an objective to organize around. In the case I made, I should probably elaborate. I don’t think there are many groups of people wanting to take over mail delivery for profit, or that those groups are terribly committed. I think it more often serves as an ideological punching bag that represents public services in general. The USPS is often cited in arguments for why public healthcare supposedly can never work, for example, despite it’s success in most developed nations. This depends on attacking public services in general. Currently, maintaining this sentiment for the private sector against the public sector is important to the effort to withhold IP of the coronavirus vaccine from the third world. IP laws are often complained about by HN readers, but IP itself is not. This conflict between regulation and anarchy is an eternal contradiction in the entrepreneurial pursuit, but public services which serve working people equally are ideologically beyond the pale, enemies of the entrepreneurial spirit.
The inherent contradiction between
-- "let me do anything I want, I want to succeed and be huge!"
-- "make sure I can stop anyone that wants to do the same thing, I want to be the only one to succeed and be huge!"
-- "let me do anything I want, I want to succeed and be huge!"
-- "make sure I can stop anyone that wants to do the same thing, I want to be the only one to succeed and be huge!"
Don't forget the people trying to destroy it so they can prevent postal voting in certain counties.
Replace "disrupt" with "replace with an improved version" and you have accurately characterized my view.
The USPS does an absolutely terrible job, by objective measure. Many of their locations are significantly understaffed, with 30-60 minute waits for basic services (for paying customers!). Rude, unhelpful employees are the norm.
Why should package and letter delivery be a public service? Their approach is not working.
The USPS does an absolutely terrible job, by objective measure. Many of their locations are significantly understaffed, with 30-60 minute waits for basic services (for paying customers!). Rude, unhelpful employees are the norm.
Why should package and letter delivery be a public service? Their approach is not working.
You'll never please everyone: any replacement service will have the same complaints magnified by the fact they'll be unable to operate at the post office's scale. My local post office can have lines but they greet me and any other regular by name. They're also down the street from me. In fact there are several within a three mile radius and that's a good thing.
My experience going to FedEx and other post office competitors is the polar opposite. Everyone there is pissed off they're forced to schlep across the city to some grubby terminal staffed by permanently disaffected employees. FedEx is fortunately a couple of miles away but if I'm forced to go to UPS that's a ten mile drive and DHL is more like 23 miles and that's in traffic because I'm not taking a day off for a package pick up.
So I don't agree aggregation down to a few physical places for package pick up when otherwise service will be for me worse and equally bad or worse for everyone else is an improvement. The only change will be a publicly traded company will be chasing new levels of poorer service every quarter because their #1 duty is not to their customers but their shareholders. It's exactly the opposite of what you want in a customer-facing service.
You only have to look at customer ratings of the local competitors to see what the public thinks of corporate run delivery services now. They hate them. I am skeptical yet another delivery service could improve much less disrupt anything, other than ruin a public service. Hate the post office? Then engage in the political process and help it improve.
My experience going to FedEx and other post office competitors is the polar opposite. Everyone there is pissed off they're forced to schlep across the city to some grubby terminal staffed by permanently disaffected employees. FedEx is fortunately a couple of miles away but if I'm forced to go to UPS that's a ten mile drive and DHL is more like 23 miles and that's in traffic because I'm not taking a day off for a package pick up.
So I don't agree aggregation down to a few physical places for package pick up when otherwise service will be for me worse and equally bad or worse for everyone else is an improvement. The only change will be a publicly traded company will be chasing new levels of poorer service every quarter because their #1 duty is not to their customers but their shareholders. It's exactly the opposite of what you want in a customer-facing service.
You only have to look at customer ratings of the local competitors to see what the public thinks of corporate run delivery services now. They hate them. I am skeptical yet another delivery service could improve much less disrupt anything, other than ruin a public service. Hate the post office? Then engage in the political process and help it improve.
With the exception of wait times for in-person service, I don't really get the impression that the USPS does a worse job than any other delivery service. Mail arrives consistently, on time, and at competitive prices.
> Why should package and letter delivery be a public service?
Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.
> Why should package and letter delivery be a public service?
Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.
For most shipments in the weight categories I use, USPS is the least expensive. It's as reliable as Fed Ex or UPS in my experience. I do go into the post office fairly regularly, and have a PO box as well. Everyone's nice enough, they can answer pretty much any question you have. They're experienced, career employees, rather than franchisees. Yes, you usually have to wait in line for some things, but they have kiosks for simple tasks.
I'm sure others will have had other anecdotal experiences, both bad and good, that's just the nature of a large organization. I've lived in several different cities over time and USPS has been consistently fine.
I'm sure others will have had other anecdotal experiences, both bad and good, that's just the nature of a large organization. I've lived in several different cities over time and USPS has been consistently fine.
> Mail arrives consistently, on time, and at competitive prices.
That's absolutely not true in most parts of their coverage area, especially the extremely dense ones (for example in Manhattan). With FedEx, it is.
> Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.
This, even if we take its premise on faith, seems like an argument for subsidy, not necessarily a publicly operated service like the USPS. Food access is required for all people but we don't have government farms, we give people food credits. We have private hospitals and Medicaid, for another example.
I'm also not sold on the idea that in 2021 (that is, email, webapps, and government subsidized smartphones with browsers and government subsidized network service) that equal access to postal mail is the necessity it once was. Many services now are unusable without an email address, and while they require a postal address the stuff there can be ignored forever if you can access the website and receive email.
That's absolutely not true in most parts of their coverage area, especially the extremely dense ones (for example in Manhattan). With FedEx, it is.
> Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.
This, even if we take its premise on faith, seems like an argument for subsidy, not necessarily a publicly operated service like the USPS. Food access is required for all people but we don't have government farms, we give people food credits. We have private hospitals and Medicaid, for another example.
I'm also not sold on the idea that in 2021 (that is, email, webapps, and government subsidized smartphones with browsers and government subsidized network service) that equal access to postal mail is the necessity it once was. Many services now are unusable without an email address, and while they require a postal address the stuff there can be ignored forever if you can access the website and receive email.
> Because everyone needs equal access to those services. Everyone, no exceptions, regardless of how profitable it is or not.
I can see that argument about food, water, healthcare, maybe even electricity and internet but postal services? It’s pretty low down the “need” pyramid.
I can see that argument about food, water, healthcare, maybe even electricity and internet but postal services? It’s pretty low down the “need” pyramid.
As someone who loves to complain about the post office, you're way overthinking it. There's no conspiracy. I just hate spam.
Exactly - especially in the age of online billing and e-statements, the stupid super market flyers filling up my box for nothing is annoying as hell.
I got a PO Box, not that my local P.O. seems to be able to actually honor a change of address form. And I actively avoid anything that uses postal delivery. I'm much happier now :-P
I got a PO Box, not that my local P.O. seems to be able to actually honor a change of address form. And I actively avoid anything that uses postal delivery. I'm much happier now :-P
When I was a kid, I had a job delivering spam. A lot it does not come from the post office but from other delivery services.
the USPS consistently has the highest favorability rating of any government agency, at 91%: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/agency-oversight/2021/04/usps...
Impressive. Grew up when “Going postal” was a popular expression due to how often postal workers went on shooting rampages.
I recall efforts to reduce stress as apparently managers were tired of being murdered.
Maybe new phrase will be “Going Amazon”
I recall efforts to reduce stress as apparently managers were tired of being murdered.
Maybe new phrase will be “Going Amazon”
The reason for that was that the US government tried to guarantee jobs for veterans. The one government task that could use relatively uneducated but fit people no matter where they happened to live was postal delivery. So a lot of veterans with PTSD and weapons training wound up as postal delivery workers.
Veterans with PTSD and weapons training sometimes flip out and shoot people.
Veterans with PTSD and weapons training sometimes flip out and shoot people.
> But yeah most likely a process server will leave the post office frustrated. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature. :-)
It’s probably one of those things that starts as a feature and quickly morphs into a really, really big bug.
It’s probably one of those things that starts as a feature and quickly morphs into a really, really big bug.
The part of this that is news to me (I have long known about using the street address of the post office with #BOXNUMBER, and used this to get driver's licenses in the past) is that they will now accept UPS/FedEx shipments to a PO box when addressed in this manner.
For a long time, the USPS would simply refuse to accept deliveries from competitors, which always struck me as the utmost in anticompetitive, non-interoperable-by-design bullshit. I'm glad to hear they have stopped.
For a long time, the USPS would simply refuse to accept deliveries from competitors, which always struck me as the utmost in anticompetitive, non-interoperable-by-design bullshit. I'm glad to hear they have stopped.
Be careful. There are services companies use to detect if they are delivering to a PO Box or not. It basically blacklists any po box- hosting address.
It’s more expensive, but a lawyer can serve that role.
A bus stop is a valid address for some things.
For anyone believing amazon's claim that servicing vendor complaints of copycats/trademark infringers was a "hard" problem
I give you exhibit A.
Its not hard. Amazon is just not interested in fixing it
I give you exhibit A.
Its not hard. Amazon is just not interested in fixing it
How is that even an issue for the HN-folks? This clearly takes power away from amazon, as for example this helps with growing business relations outside of amazon (you might start buying directly from the seller at some point).
Everyone on this forum is a temporarily embarrassed big tech founder/CEO who hates regulations which let the little guys compete.
What are these "regulations" that help little guys compete?
If anything, regulations hinder little guys from competing.
Whos passing laws? Who is giving money to politicians?
Hint: its not the tutors, community banks and its not the bodegas contributing to pols. Its the universities, monster banks, and supermarket chains.
If anything, regulations hinder little guys from competing.
Whos passing laws? Who is giving money to politicians?
Hint: its not the tutors, community banks and its not the bodegas contributing to pols. Its the universities, monster banks, and supermarket chains.
The little guy wont compete with Amazon, they will however sell and buy stuff at Amazon.
[deleted]
This whole legislation is a huge waste of time as a way to fight fraud and fake products. Do you really expect the consumer to try to track down some person via their address (which may be a PO Box) and try to sue them, only to have them say their merchandise was actually mixed with others and so they are not liable?
The much better version is to make Amazon fully liable for everything they sell, even third party merchandise. Amazon can then figure out what it needs to do to fix the issue. Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about it.
The much better version is to make Amazon fully liable for everything they sell, even third party merchandise. Amazon can then figure out what it needs to do to fix the issue. Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about it.
> Do you really expect the consumer to try to track down some person via their address
Product manufacturers track these unauthorized sellers and do pretty deep investigations into who they are to stop counterfeit / unauthorized distribution.
Source: I worked on software that tracked pricing and unauthorized sellers for 4 years.
Product manufacturers track these unauthorized sellers and do pretty deep investigations into who they are to stop counterfeit / unauthorized distribution.
Source: I worked on software that tracked pricing and unauthorized sellers for 4 years.
Very FEW product manufacturers track these unauthorized sellers. Amazon should require the store name to MATCH the llc/corp name and they should require a US registered agent to be publicly displayed as well.
Source: I actively manage about 30 different vendor/seller accounts as a consultant. Tracking sellers is a fools errand.
Source: I actively manage about 30 different vendor/seller accounts as a consultant. Tracking sellers is a fools errand.
That's absolutely false in my experience. I can't speak for who I worked for or our large client list, but there were quite a few fortune 50/100 companies in there, and many many others monitoring MAP and unauthorized sellers. Tooling to track down unauthorized sellers was one of the top features that was requested and used.
You'll often see sites like Amazon match the pricing of a smaller unauthorized seller. Amazon's response to a MAP enforcement email in that case is when you stop the other guy, we will go back to MAP. So it is very important to stay on top of those sellers.
You'll often see sites like Amazon match the pricing of a smaller unauthorized seller. Amazon's response to a MAP enforcement email in that case is when you stop the other guy, we will go back to MAP. So it is very important to stay on top of those sellers.
You are both correct
Parent is right. Small manuf / authorized resellers get shafted and have no resources to do this sort of audit work.
Fortune 500 have tight integrations with partners and proper controls in place to identify where the leaks are and to address them.
Amazon opening up names of sellers will help parricularly small firms that dont have the sophisticated means that large fortune500 firms have to root out unauthorized sellers
Parent is right. Small manuf / authorized resellers get shafted and have no resources to do this sort of audit work.
Fortune 500 have tight integrations with partners and proper controls in place to identify where the leaks are and to address them.
Amazon opening up names of sellers will help parricularly small firms that dont have the sophisticated means that large fortune500 firms have to root out unauthorized sellers
[deleted]
I don’t expect consumers to track down fake Ball lids and Apple chargers. I expect Ball and Apple to do that.
So it would make sense that Ball and Apple would need to find out who the seller was, from Amazon. Amazon at least knows where to send the checks, and likely a lot more about these businesses.
What bothers me about Amazon is that they are actively providing anonymity to enterprises engaged in consumer-hostile activities including fraud, and are resisting efforts to pierce the shield they are providing.
What bothers me about Amazon is that they are actively providing anonymity to enterprises engaged in consumer-hostile activities including fraud, and are resisting efforts to pierce the shield they are providing.
In civilized countries you have consumer watchdogs that deal with fraud and unsafe products so the consumer doesn't have to. The point of the law isn't to catch criminals, it's to prevent crime.
The watchdogs can't do anything because the sellers are essentially spam themselves. That is why Amazon has NNN thousand new "stores" opening everyday and why they have a billion variations of the exact same product. There is NO way that any sort of entity outside of Amazon can make heads or tails of that volume of data in order protect the consumer.
And Amazon is complicit in this just as much as Aliexpress and all the other platforms that are enabling product spam coming from China.
And Amazon is complicit in this just as much as Aliexpress and all the other platforms that are enabling product spam coming from China.
consumer watchdogs are useless. the only good deterrent against fraud is jail time
I expect amazon to not sell them and to get as sued by Apple and Ball if they do
Amazon doesn't want to be liable for ANYTHING, they just want to sell stuff and make money any way they can.
The business/GOP view of the world is that responsibility is for individuals not corporations. Freeing corporations so they can do whatever they want without fear.
The business/GOP view of the world is that responsibility is for individuals not corporations. Freeing corporations so they can do whatever they want without fear.
[deleted]
There is a public interest in making /someone/ liable for defective products, as it provides a incentive for sellers to do due diligence on what they sell.
The party most able to root out sellers of defective or counterfeit goods is probably Amazon, but they currently have no incentive to do so as the liability is offloaded to judgement-proof Marketplace sellers.
Amazon's business innovation here is figuring out how to run a multi billion dollar retail business without product liability, and that's negative for society.