I'm of two minds on this. We all hate getting calls and mail from people and being hounded time and time again - in fact, I have a certain history of blocking people just for that. So all the anger is understandable. I share that annoyance.
However, I find it curious that the article never once turns its eyes on the monopolization of online commerce and the monopolization of communication in Amazon's walled garden as a problem. Rather, it goes with this "tech company must handle this" approach that, in the end, deputized a powerful monopolist as an enforcer for rules, supporting its tactic of monopolizing communication within amazon's systems so amazon can read it all (and undoubtedly analyze it all), which then strengthens that monopolist's stature, since we're now also dependent on it for enforcement (the facebook, twitter, youtube problem all over again) AND it can use it to drive those very sellers out of the market with cheaper knockoffs, which we know amazon does regularly.
In the end, these actors aren't gaming amazon because they're bad apples and crooks; they're gaming it because amazon has become the only game in town, their entire economic existence is dependent on these reviews, AND their walled garden overlord is only keeping them to gut them and take their stuff. Breaking out of it is anoying; but from their perspective, it's also eminently reasonable.
Also, classic journalism: they used clearly outrageous examples to whip us up into supporting this problem construction to make these small sellers the bad guys (highlighting the crooks) - leaving the monopolist hulk that creates the structure in which they all now have to play unexamined.
> since we're now also dependent on it for enforcement
This, I think, is the root of the problem. In the case that Amazon takes control of the situation (you don't really have a relationship with the third party seller; you have a relationship with Amazon), then despite what they claim, they should be held legally responsible.
In the UK we have a legal concept of "vicarious liability". An employer is liable for an employee's actions, regardless of culpability. The employee could be in breach of all agreements and instructions from its employer, yet the employer is still liable. We also have harassment laws. These should be extended to allow victims to hold Amazon liable as if they're a first party in the case that their "third party" sellers are untouchable (as they usually are). Amazon (and other companies) shouldn't be allowed to act as a middleman without also taking on that liability. It should be up to them to recover their costs from the third party, not the consumer.
This would correctly incentivize the big players to ensure that their third party sellers behave. Instead, what we have right now is a legal system that allows them to effectively collude to shirk that responsibility entirely.
> then despite what they claim, they should be held legally responsible.
I fully agree with this. There is a great deal of distrust in contemporary society, because those who hold the power do everything they can to avoid being held responsible. And because they hold the power, they are able to do it. If these parasites want a civilisation to be parasitical off, they will need to shape up.
However, it needs to be careful legal responsibility. Otherwise you just end up with the Google problem. Google will arbitrarily shut down an account for no apparent reason and no clear possibility of appeal or even explanation. So aside from being responsible for the bad actors they choose not to exclude, they should also be responsible for the actors they unfairly or disproportionately exclude. Probably it means their current business models become unviable, but that's fine.
> So aside from being responsible for the bad actors they choose not to exclude, they should also be responsible for the actors they unfairly or disproportionately exclude.
I entirely agree. I think that this could be made quite general: when a private entity is in a position of gatekeeping a large proportion of a market (say, 30%), then it should automatically have a universal service obligation - unable to arbitrarily choose not to do business with those it finds inconvenient. "Fired" customers should have legal recourse under the universal service obligation. Abuse (by a fired customer) would be an acceptable reason to fire that customer, but the business would have to demonstrate abuse to a legal standard of proof.
Business owners might consider this to be an unfair burden. I see it from a socialist perspective: if you're a big player, that's the burden you must bear in order for the market to remain a fair place to do business.
However, I find it curious that the article never once turns its eyes on the monopolization of online commerce and the monopolization of communication in Amazon's walled garden as a problem. Rather, it goes with this "tech company must handle this" approach that, in the end, deputized a powerful monopolist as an enforcer for rules, supporting its tactic of monopolizing communication within amazon's systems so amazon can read it all (and undoubtedly analyze it all), which then strengthens that monopolist's stature, since we're now also dependent on it for enforcement (the facebook, twitter, youtube problem all over again) AND it can use it to drive those very sellers out of the market with cheaper knockoffs, which we know amazon does regularly.
In the end, these actors aren't gaming amazon because they're bad apples and crooks; they're gaming it because amazon has become the only game in town, their entire economic existence is dependent on these reviews, AND their walled garden overlord is only keeping them to gut them and take their stuff. Breaking out of it is anoying; but from their perspective, it's also eminently reasonable.
Also, classic journalism: they used clearly outrageous examples to whip us up into supporting this problem construction to make these small sellers the bad guys (highlighting the crooks) - leaving the monopolist hulk that creates the structure in which they all now have to play unexamined.