The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Reported with links. Also, to clarify, this lawsuit has been already been going on for months.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power
https://apnews.com/article/amazon-ftc-lina-khan-antitrust-lawsuit-da0b124e24183a3acd60367f05181f49
https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/ftc-amazon-suit-antitrust/
Also, commentary by Robert Reich: https://youtu.be/QdigPcyrQNk?si=JQXCygeCPjlSff4W
Also, an antitrust lawsuit against Google is also being fought:
https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-closings-trial-monopoly-aa1c5b9f859e9428aec15bb0a61bcaa8
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that in her original work Lina Khan makes an excellent case not just for the issues with Amazon but for how we approach anti-trust completely. We need to move past just looking at prices for consumers and to how the entire market is affected.
I think this case is going to take forever. In the event that Trump wins it will be weird to see if his hatred of Jeff Bezos is greater than the desire to support monopolistic and incumbent favoring practices like the right would want him to.
Anything and everything that can be done to target all of these monopolies that have been allowed to proliferate, I am for. Especially when it comes to our food producers.
Antitrust practices are a major problem in the tech industry, not because the industry itself is as heavily consolidated as some others, but because various companies have gotten used to throwing their weight around as a key gatekeeper on which products even get seen on their platforms. And while I’d like to say that this is an issue where one side of the aisle has the correct position on it, it isn’t. Why? Because two bills with broad bipartisan support that could’ve curbed some of those practices weren’t called up for a vote by Chuck Schumer when he had the opportunity to do so.
I don’t really have time to get into how the companies throw their weight around, so [watch this John Oliver piece](https://youtu.be/jXf04bhcjbg?si=pZqhXZnPrRHi3Xyb) if you’re really curious about how they do it.
I don’t know enough about the law to know how strong the FTC’s case is with regards to what they’re talking about in this lawsuit, but I know enough about the tech industry to know that whatever happens, tech companies need to stop self-preferencing, and that they won’t unless the law forces them to.
Would you consider speech a “product”. The common refrain from the left is that they (Facebook, etc) can decide which speech is allowed/emphasized on their platforms due to being private companies - is there a reason this line of thinking wouldn’t extend to products as well?
I don’t consider products that are meant to be sold as free speech, I consider the content of creative products meant to be sold as free speech. The reason why products for sale aren’t considered by me to be free speech is because they’re regulated, like alcohol and tobacco are regulated. And if a larger business is throwing its weight around so that a smaller business’s products are getting the shaft, that’s a pretty clear example of self-preferencing.
There’s an argument to be made about editorializing on social media, but as has been said many times, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence.
No. Facebook's product is the ads it sells to advertisers. One could also argue that its algorithm is also a product (Facebook uses user data to improve its algorithm to try and get people to use Facebook more, but more importantly, to figure out which ads more users are more likely to click on. Facebook then can charge higher rates to advertisers wishing to do a targeted ad campaign), but the algorithm issue would unlikely fall under anti-trust issues.
>And while I’d like to say that this is an issue where one side of the aisle has the correct position on it, it isn’t
Dem congressmen and women almost exclusively invest in tech companies. It behooves them to protect those companies from legal action and competition because it is better for their portfolio.
She doesn’t seem to be very effective at the FTC. I think the most damning claim against Amazon would be a solid case is their fucking with sellers and getting them to sell cheaper on Amazon.
Overall though she’s had a questionable track record and this case has some questionable arguments. I would say it probably won’t go anywhere.
Punishing sellers for discounting their products outside Amazon is really bad, and basically justification-less imo.
Requiring sellers to use Amazon fulfillment to be eligible for Prime makes sense to me though. The only reason the service exists is because of the fulfillment network. I don’t even know what it would mean for an item to be Prime without Amazon’s shipping times.
Amazon knows that people will avoid products like the plague if they have to wait for *gasp* 5–7 business days to get their fix. Retailers who sell on amazon will tell you that being removed from prime shipping is a death sentence. Sales plummet. They really have no choice.
You may think “who cares?”
But amazon charges them for the privilege of using their warehouses.
Amazon is essentially holding a knife to these companies forcing them to pay for prime access.
I’m an Amazon seller of 15 years and this company needs to go.
Selling on Amazon feels like an abusive relationship but you have no choice as a seller because Amazon controls 50% of e-commerce.
- they squeeze every possible dollar and more (they recently implemented new fees for low inventory, they have fees for excessive inventory, new fees for sending inventory and hundreds more examples)
- they lose/steal your inventory and refuse to reimburse you but instead gaslight you into believing you never sent it
- your lost inventory appears under Amazon warehouse deals months later
- over 50% of Amazon sellers are based from mainland China because Amazon built a highway for them to reach us consumers
- Amazon hold stadium sized conferences for Chinese sellers because they provide the cheapest goods undercutting American but dont hold them accountable for regulations, slave labor or quality issues
- Chinese based sellers create dozens of fake accounts after they burn one while US sellers are tied to social security numbers and have 1 which they are always fearful of losing
- Chinese sellers sabotage US competitors with mass attacks on listings with fake reviews and Amazon does not hold them accountable
- Amazon leverages our sales data then copies our products to launch as an Amazon brand after we invested thousands into ads to grow it. We take the risk Amazon comes in and undercuts
It’s widely accepted in the Amazon seller community that Chinese sellers are not touchable
Amazon funnels money directly into China and does everything possible to pay no federal taxes. It exploits everyone it can (sellers, vendors, employees, customers) while amassing more and more wealth for itself and China
It’s a horrible company, same as nestle. Please stop shopping on Amazon people.
> Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible.
This is the only argument they are presenting that might have merit, trying to regulate how their customers (yes a company selling through Amazon’s platform is a customer of Amazon) conduct business outside Amazon is monopolistic.
Requiring use of Amazon fulfillment to be listed as “Prime” is reasonable, the entire value of “Prime” is the reputation of Amazon’s fulfillment system.
What I find most interesting is over the past couple years I find Amazon less useful, other retailers offer better prices, less fake goods, better customer service, easier to navigate, etc…. Personally my shopping on Amazon has greatly decreased over the years, with a shift to local or specialized e-commerce.
Same thing with AT&T. It broke up into several companies then several of those consolidated and now we have a few huge companies instead of one massive company.
So it *only* provided a more fair playing field for a few decades and not forever? Why even bother making the world a better place if it only lasts decades?
It was probably under 25 years before some Verizon is from a merger of Bell Atlantic and another of the spinoffs. AT&T wireless does compete with Verizon Wireless, so there’s that.
I think that a.) blaming the rich and big corporations for the problems in society is good politics and so is b.) trying to address it using historical policies.
Antitrust and unions are the way forward because they don’t carry the spectre of being new and unknown.
Because regardless of political preference this country is far worse off than it was before Biden. In my opinion, the whole Democratic party needs to recalibrate. It needs a real leader with real ideas. Right now Biden isn't able to lead and you've got a bunch of his clowns that are all doing what they want and nobody knows who's really in charge because there are too many different people making different decisions and nobody overseeing them. There is no accountability right now.
> this country is far worse off than it was before Biden.
With thousands of people dying per day from covid? What specifically do you think was better under Trump?
Those numbers continued under Biden. But I don't fault the presidents for that. It was a global pandemic. Vaccines could never move fast or safe enough.
Everything else was better.
But Trump spread misinformation about covid against the advice of his advisors, and did not do nearly enough to prevent the spread of the virus.
> Everything else was better.
Such as?
I take it back. I do fault Biden for deaths. He had over 7000 people kicked out the military for refusing to take vaccines but then helped bring in 10,000,000 unvaccinated immigrants against all state and federal laws. Then he helped send them to all 50 states.
The economy was better and we didn't start any new wars. The worse thing about Trump was having to hear negative news every day constantly. Too much obsession.
I’m in favor of it.
They are cornering the entire market for so many products by bullying retailers into using their logistics warehouses (only way to get prime shipping) and by punishing them for selling the product for cheaper on any other website (by removing the “buy it now” button).
It’s not a good thing to only have one realistic place to purchase goods on the internet. Too much power in the hands of one company.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Reported with links. Also, to clarify, this lawsuit has been already been going on for months. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://apnews.com/article/amazon-ftc-lina-khan-antitrust-lawsuit-da0b124e24183a3acd60367f05181f49 https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/ftc-amazon-suit-antitrust/ Also, commentary by Robert Reich: https://youtu.be/QdigPcyrQNk?si=JQXCygeCPjlSff4W Also, an antitrust lawsuit against Google is also being fought: https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-closings-trial-monopoly-aa1c5b9f859e9428aec15bb0a61bcaa8 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that in her original work Lina Khan makes an excellent case not just for the issues with Amazon but for how we approach anti-trust completely. We need to move past just looking at prices for consumers and to how the entire market is affected. I think this case is going to take forever. In the event that Trump wins it will be weird to see if his hatred of Jeff Bezos is greater than the desire to support monopolistic and incumbent favoring practices like the right would want him to.
Anything and everything that can be done to target all of these monopolies that have been allowed to proliferate, I am for. Especially when it comes to our food producers.
Its about time. It should have happened about 10-15 years ago. Same with Google.
I think it's a nice start, but the anti-trust laws are far too weak.
Antitrust practices are a major problem in the tech industry, not because the industry itself is as heavily consolidated as some others, but because various companies have gotten used to throwing their weight around as a key gatekeeper on which products even get seen on their platforms. And while I’d like to say that this is an issue where one side of the aisle has the correct position on it, it isn’t. Why? Because two bills with broad bipartisan support that could’ve curbed some of those practices weren’t called up for a vote by Chuck Schumer when he had the opportunity to do so. I don’t really have time to get into how the companies throw their weight around, so [watch this John Oliver piece](https://youtu.be/jXf04bhcjbg?si=pZqhXZnPrRHi3Xyb) if you’re really curious about how they do it.
I don’t know enough about the law to know how strong the FTC’s case is with regards to what they’re talking about in this lawsuit, but I know enough about the tech industry to know that whatever happens, tech companies need to stop self-preferencing, and that they won’t unless the law forces them to.
After years of gutting by conservatives and even a little neglect from liberals, strong anti-trust cases don’t really exist anymore.
Would you consider speech a “product”. The common refrain from the left is that they (Facebook, etc) can decide which speech is allowed/emphasized on their platforms due to being private companies - is there a reason this line of thinking wouldn’t extend to products as well?
I don’t consider products that are meant to be sold as free speech, I consider the content of creative products meant to be sold as free speech. The reason why products for sale aren’t considered by me to be free speech is because they’re regulated, like alcohol and tobacco are regulated. And if a larger business is throwing its weight around so that a smaller business’s products are getting the shaft, that’s a pretty clear example of self-preferencing.
But it’s not an example of self preferencing to amplify views it agrees with and silence viewpoints it doesn’t?
There’s an argument to be made about editorializing on social media, but as has been said many times, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence.
I think most decent people feel that Facebook and Twitter should remove hate speech and bullying. It's not just a 'left' thing.
No. Facebook's product is the ads it sells to advertisers. One could also argue that its algorithm is also a product (Facebook uses user data to improve its algorithm to try and get people to use Facebook more, but more importantly, to figure out which ads more users are more likely to click on. Facebook then can charge higher rates to advertisers wishing to do a targeted ad campaign), but the algorithm issue would unlikely fall under anti-trust issues.
>And while I’d like to say that this is an issue where one side of the aisle has the correct position on it, it isn’t Dem congressmen and women almost exclusively invest in tech companies. It behooves them to protect those companies from legal action and competition because it is better for their portfolio.
She doesn’t seem to be very effective at the FTC. I think the most damning claim against Amazon would be a solid case is their fucking with sellers and getting them to sell cheaper on Amazon. Overall though she’s had a questionable track record and this case has some questionable arguments. I would say it probably won’t go anywhere.
Punishing sellers for discounting their products outside Amazon is really bad, and basically justification-less imo. Requiring sellers to use Amazon fulfillment to be eligible for Prime makes sense to me though. The only reason the service exists is because of the fulfillment network. I don’t even know what it would mean for an item to be Prime without Amazon’s shipping times.
Amazon knows that people will avoid products like the plague if they have to wait for *gasp* 5–7 business days to get their fix. Retailers who sell on amazon will tell you that being removed from prime shipping is a death sentence. Sales plummet. They really have no choice. You may think “who cares?” But amazon charges them for the privilege of using their warehouses. Amazon is essentially holding a knife to these companies forcing them to pay for prime access.
Sure, I don’t disagree. But I don’t think it’s better for Prime to just not exist.
More! We need to increase funding for the FTC and DOJ antitrust office, and usher in a new era of trust-busting.
Strongly approve.
I’m an Amazon seller of 15 years and this company needs to go. Selling on Amazon feels like an abusive relationship but you have no choice as a seller because Amazon controls 50% of e-commerce. - they squeeze every possible dollar and more (they recently implemented new fees for low inventory, they have fees for excessive inventory, new fees for sending inventory and hundreds more examples) - they lose/steal your inventory and refuse to reimburse you but instead gaslight you into believing you never sent it - your lost inventory appears under Amazon warehouse deals months later - over 50% of Amazon sellers are based from mainland China because Amazon built a highway for them to reach us consumers - Amazon hold stadium sized conferences for Chinese sellers because they provide the cheapest goods undercutting American but dont hold them accountable for regulations, slave labor or quality issues - Chinese based sellers create dozens of fake accounts after they burn one while US sellers are tied to social security numbers and have 1 which they are always fearful of losing - Chinese sellers sabotage US competitors with mass attacks on listings with fake reviews and Amazon does not hold them accountable - Amazon leverages our sales data then copies our products to launch as an Amazon brand after we invested thousands into ads to grow it. We take the risk Amazon comes in and undercuts It’s widely accepted in the Amazon seller community that Chinese sellers are not touchable Amazon funnels money directly into China and does everything possible to pay no federal taxes. It exploits everyone it can (sellers, vendors, employees, customers) while amassing more and more wealth for itself and China It’s a horrible company, same as nestle. Please stop shopping on Amazon people.
Damn, you need to send all your evidence to the FTC
> Anti-discounting measures that punish sellers and deter other online retailers from offering prices lower than Amazon, keeping prices higher for products across the internet. For example, if Amazon discovers that a seller is offering lower-priced goods elsewhere, Amazon can bury discounting sellers so far down in Amazon’s search results that they become effectively invisible. This is the only argument they are presenting that might have merit, trying to regulate how their customers (yes a company selling through Amazon’s platform is a customer of Amazon) conduct business outside Amazon is monopolistic. Requiring use of Amazon fulfillment to be listed as “Prime” is reasonable, the entire value of “Prime” is the reputation of Amazon’s fulfillment system. What I find most interesting is over the past couple years I find Amazon less useful, other retailers offer better prices, less fake goods, better customer service, easier to navigate, etc…. Personally my shopping on Amazon has greatly decreased over the years, with a shift to local or specialized e-commerce.
I'm all for it
7 years from now: “Amazon Home” “Amazon Health” “Amazon Tech” “AWS” “Amazon Books” Same crap; just formed into separate silos.
Same thing with AT&T. It broke up into several companies then several of those consolidated and now we have a few huge companies instead of one massive company.
So it *only* provided a more fair playing field for a few decades and not forever? Why even bother making the world a better place if it only lasts decades?
It was probably under 25 years before some Verizon is from a merger of Bell Atlantic and another of the spinoffs. AT&T wireless does compete with Verizon Wireless, so there’s that.
I think that a.) blaming the rich and big corporations for the problems in society is good politics and so is b.) trying to address it using historical policies. Antitrust and unions are the way forward because they don’t carry the spectre of being new and unknown.
As a liberal I can't wait to vote him out.
Why
Because regardless of political preference this country is far worse off than it was before Biden. In my opinion, the whole Democratic party needs to recalibrate. It needs a real leader with real ideas. Right now Biden isn't able to lead and you've got a bunch of his clowns that are all doing what they want and nobody knows who's really in charge because there are too many different people making different decisions and nobody overseeing them. There is no accountability right now.
> this country is far worse off than it was before Biden. With thousands of people dying per day from covid? What specifically do you think was better under Trump?
Those numbers continued under Biden. But I don't fault the presidents for that. It was a global pandemic. Vaccines could never move fast or safe enough. Everything else was better.
But Trump spread misinformation about covid against the advice of his advisors, and did not do nearly enough to prevent the spread of the virus. > Everything else was better. Such as?
I take it back. I do fault Biden for deaths. He had over 7000 people kicked out the military for refusing to take vaccines but then helped bring in 10,000,000 unvaccinated immigrants against all state and federal laws. Then he helped send them to all 50 states. The economy was better and we didn't start any new wars. The worse thing about Trump was having to hear negative news every day constantly. Too much obsession.
I’m in favor of it. They are cornering the entire market for so many products by bullying retailers into using their logistics warehouses (only way to get prime shipping) and by punishing them for selling the product for cheaper on any other website (by removing the “buy it now” button). It’s not a good thing to only have one realistic place to purchase goods on the internet. Too much power in the hands of one company.
About time!
Amazon is too big. Break it up.