- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
California Attorney General Rob Bonta last night filed a request for a preliminary injunction in California’s existing case against Amazon for price fixing. Attorney General Bonta’s 2022 lawsuit alleged that the company stifled competition and caused increased prices across California through its anticompetitive policies in order to avoid competing on price with other retailers. New evidence paints a clearer and more shocking picture. The motion for a preliminary injunction comes after a robust discovery process where California uncovered evidence of countless interactions in which Amazon, vendors, and Amazon’s competitors agree to increase and fix the prices of products on other retail websites to bolster Amazon’s profits. Time and again, across years and product categories, Amazon has reached out to its vendors and instructed them to increase retail prices on competitors’ websites, threatening dire consequences if vendors do not comply. Vendors, bullied by Amazon’s overwhelming bargaining leverage and fearing punishment, comply — agreeing to raise prices on competitors’ websites (often with the awareness and cooperation of the competing retailer), or to remove products from competing websites altogether. Amazon’s goal is to insulate itself from price competition by preventing lower retail prices in the market at the expense of American consumers who are already struggling with a crisis of affordability.
Your point is valid and definitely a concern.
But how are people so basic.
You hate Amazon, but just have to have your caramel syrup? Doesn’t really sound like hate.
Sounds more like you do not want to have to make sacrifices to the things you like.
Wonder why bad things continue to happen.
I use Amazon too. Not trying to be too judgy, but come on. Accept some personal responsibility for your actions.
Ah yes - the “personal responsibility” argument… 🙄
Whatever product it is isn’t really the point.
There are certain things that people either need or want and if Amazon is the only place to get them and your solution is, “well, just sacrifice” is fine if it’s a luxury good like stupid caramel sauce, but what if it’s something like vacuum cleaner bags for the vacuum you use are only sold now via Amazon?
What if it’s a specific chewable version of a vitamin your kid’s doctor suggested for your child who has a specific deficiency and can’t swallow pills and the only maker of the kids chewable of it sells on Amazon?
Should the parent just “take responsibility” and not give them that vitamin their pediatrician suggested they need?
…or maybe we should just be okay with criticizing the fucking trillion dollar company that gets to have a monopoly, and maybe think of other suggestions to give other than a “Ben-Shapiro tier” canned response. 😑
Oh gosh. Great 6 paragraph essay countering made up points I wasn’t making.
Choosing Amazon for a dr recommended medicine is definitely the same as choosing it for your coffee flavoring.
Nevermind the part where I said I also use Amazon.
My point is unless you are under duress, you are responsible for your actions.
Sorry to make you read so much?
Here…
Let me make a 4-paragraph response to that criticism specifically (since apparently when I do the internet thing of separating out some sentences to give certain thoughts some visual breathing room, that’s means it’s a big scary paragraph I guess.)
🤣 Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think (based on the other responses you got besides mine), your point seemed to be “don’t like it? Stop buying that thing b/c you don’t need it” rather than being something perhaps more prescriptive from a policy-proposal standpoint where you might accurately assign the blame to the giant monopolistic company who has a stranglehold on the space of digital marketplaces like “yeah we probably should break up Amazon” or maybe even just more helpful in a direct way like “here’s a link to a place you could buy that thing that I know about” instead.
The point I was making in response is that what the product IS matters NOT. The point was that a SINGLE COMPANY might be the only feasible place your average consumer could purchase said product - whether frivolous luxury sprinkles, or a niche but paramount healthcare need… is bad.
Disagreed due to poor framing. One of the reason we broke up monopolies in the past (but don’t anymore thanks to capital basically fully capturing any semblance of a working democratically elected government), was to eliminate the ability of singular entities - through the knowledge that they owned the ONLY way to get something - to exploit or price gouge on goods that consumers either want, but especially NEED.
Obviously my stupid caramel sauce is not a great example of a NEED, so you can disregard it, but my point wasn’t about stupid caramel sauce or other frivolous bullshit… it was about the fact that THERE ARE SOME THINGS NOW THAT YOU CAN ONLY REALISTICALLY FIND ON AMAZON and if THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE IT, THEY CAN FUCK YOU OVER HOWEVER THEY WANT.
“Don’t buy stuff” is a stupid fucking argument (regardless if it’s your banana slicer or your fat ass’s XXXXL diapers that your mom can’t buy anywhere else) - in the same way someone says “just sell your house if global sea rise causes it to flood there…” like how Ben Shapiro likes to do.
Assigning “personal responsibility” as a response to a SYSTEMIC problem is a stupid one.
Why are Americans fat?
Me : “Because we have more shitty foods literally lab-designed to maximize addiction, filled with additives that were made illegal in other countries, because we allow companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi to advertise to children and set up soft-drink machines in school common areas and cafeterias now have fast-food outlets in them, there is almost no public transit or walkable cities anywhere in the US nor safe biking lanes or even consistent side-walks - meaning a car is the only choice for many places Americans live - which means less traversal by foot, zero free time to cook healthy meals nor the larger incomes needed to afford things like fresh groceries, nor even access in some cases to nearby healthy food suppliers such as grocery stores vs gas-stations filled with lukewarm hot dogs and 5-hour energy drinks? All of which statistically can be linked to people in the US on average having a much higher-than-other-countries-with-similar-GDP average weight, increased rate of diabetes, and other tangential health problems.”
You : “No, stupid… it’s b/c Americans are big fat lazy cunts who love choco-bars and are unique to the world and like being fat.”
Ooops sorry - that’s like 30 paragraphs. Just forget reading it since that’s probably too hard. Probably because you hate reading… not because of any other factor. You just need to take personal responsibility.
Lol. We just disagree. Your point seems to be all or nothing with the blame. I believe there is never 0 personal liability unless under duress.
I am well read, and I gather you are too. No point going further with you here.
Enjoy
I would like a thing. All retail commerce has been monopolized by a handful of big box storefronts. One of those storefronts sucks marginally less than the others, such that I can actually find what I want to buy and expect it to be delivered in a timely fashion.
But I shouldn’t shop there because… ???
Damn, so true. We should never have quit shopping at
TargetWalmartSearsWoolworths. Now we live in Capitalist Hell and its all our own fault.You shouldn’t shop there because of their blatantly anti-consumer monopolistic practices.
$1000 says you’re, at best, a college kid. Probably a teenager.
Why? People with actual life experience in this shitty system don’t make the personal responsibility argument because they’ve lived enough to know that’s bullshit.
I bet they’re in their early-20s and either are done with college or didn’t attend so they’ll respond with “HA. Wrong!”
Companies like Amazon can’t exist if people don’t buy from them. The fact that you think people have to buy from them is the problem.
No one has to spend their money on Amazon. There’s always going to be a personal responsibility aspect when people willingly do something they know is wrong.
You don’t have to use Facebook… but if you have a kid… - guess where almost every school seems to post EVERYTHING you would want to know about?
Like upcoming charity events, extra-curricular club sign-ups, campus event pictures (none of which I would want of my kid being posted, but they will do anyway), important announcements about the next school dance, or anything else you might give a shit about if you’re a parent who wants to do more than the bare minimum?
Do you have a choice then NOT to use Facebook? Yeah… but it’s kind of shit to suggest since it then would mean not realistically having access to a bunch of stuff a parent would want to have.
Even the ones that DON’T use Facebook use some other dog-shit app with ads and monthly “premium” features they put behind paywalls.
So the real answer instead of the Ben Shapiro-tier response of “just take responsibility” is "Hey maybe we should have publicly funded applications and privacy laws that help stop schools from putting shit up on Facebook w/o legal consequences… maybe we should have an app without ads and spyware that allows public schools to safely and securely put this kind of stuff up so that parents can participate without having to use Facebook or the hit mobile app - “DefinitlyNotKIDZAdvertisingSpamSpyware2026.”
Do you get what I mean? You don’t HAVE to use Amazon is the same sort of silly-seeming argument where the real solution can be crafted using legislation NOT drafted by barely-lucid octogenarian luddites. We could treat them like a hostile monopoly and break them up or something, and that would actually SYSTEMICALLY fix the issue.
We’re not talking about Facebook. We’re talking about buying things.
Jesus Christ… Can you not understand the relevance of using that in my point? 🤣
I’m using another massive monopolistic company (Amazon = Facebook) who has pretty much cornered a market (shopping online = social media) - thereby making the only options for most Americans wanting to have access to something said company has a monopoly on (caramel sauce, niche healthcare product, etc. = school communication) being “A - don’t use the thing” and “B - stop your bitching and use it?” and how terrible it is that we don’t instead go with “C - do a legislation to make it so we can still do the thing we want or need, but we don’t have to let the shitty monopolistic company continue to have carte blanche to do whatever they want in that space?”
Is that really lost on you?
How about… you do what you want with your own money and let other people do the same?
I do. It’s just the claim that people aren’t personally responsible for where they choose to spend their money is preposterous.
Yeah, free will sucks like that…
What, taking responsibility for your choices?
Yes. Because heaven forbid someone does something you don’t like.
People REALLY need to mind their own business. 🙄
Bro, I’m not denigrating anyone for spending money on Amazon. I’m guilty of forgetting the moral and ethical implications for a short term dopamine rush too.
But I’m not going to delude myself into thinking I had to spend money with them.
My problem is with people using flimsy excuses trying to assuage their guilt for doing something they knew was wrong.
What a facile argument.
So you think people aren’t responsible for where they choose to spend their money? Is Amazon holding a gun to their head?
Lol, I’ll take my $1000.
Sorry that you lack logical thinking. Enjoy your coffee.