Amazon, eBay Fight Legislation That Would Unmask Third-Party Sellers (arstechnica.com) 133
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Amazon and a who's who of online-only retailers are trying to kill proposed federal and state legislation that would make the companies disclose contact information for third-party sellers. The bills would force Amazon and others to verify the identities of third-party sellers and provide consumers with ways to contact the stores. The proposed legislation is pitting brick-and-mortar retailers -- including Home Depot, Walgreens, and JC Penney, which support the bills -- against online retailers like Amazon, Etsy, eBay, Poshmark, and others, which argue that the legislation would harm small sellers. [...] The online retailers argue that the bills would compromise the privacy of third-party sellers. On some platforms, the majority of merchants run their businesses out of their homes. Etsy, for example, says 97 percent of its sellers do. A survey of Amazon sellers found that 70 percent have work outside of their Amazon businesses, suggesting that they, too, run the business from their homes.
That anonymity, though, provides cover for fraudsters. It's not uncommon to find counterfeit and potentially harmful items on marketplace sites. In 2018, the Government Accountability Office ordered 47 items, including shoes, travel mugs, cosmetics, and phone chargers, from third-party sellers on "popular consumer websites" and determined that 20 of them were counterfeit. Even non-counterfeit items bought from third-party sellers have been implicated in consumer harm. In April 2018, a 19-month-old in Texas was injured after ingesting a battery that fell out of a loose battery compartment in a third-party Apple TV remote. The parents asked Amazon to stop selling the defective product and requested contact information for Hu Xi Jie, who ran the Amazon store "USA Shopping 7693" that sold the remote. Hu Xi Jie never responded, and Amazon was not able to locate the individual. The parents sued Amazon in Texas state court, arguing that the retailer is liable for the defective product. Amazon, on the other hand, says it serves as a middleman and bears no liability. It's that argument, among others, that has brick-and-mortar retailers pushing for changes. Consumer product laws hold businesses like Target and Home Depot liable for injuries if the stores do not take sufficient measures to keep defective products from reaching consumers. Online marketplaces haven't been subject to those rules since they don't control third-party sellers.
That anonymity, though, provides cover for fraudsters. It's not uncommon to find counterfeit and potentially harmful items on marketplace sites. In 2018, the Government Accountability Office ordered 47 items, including shoes, travel mugs, cosmetics, and phone chargers, from third-party sellers on "popular consumer websites" and determined that 20 of them were counterfeit. Even non-counterfeit items bought from third-party sellers have been implicated in consumer harm. In April 2018, a 19-month-old in Texas was injured after ingesting a battery that fell out of a loose battery compartment in a third-party Apple TV remote. The parents asked Amazon to stop selling the defective product and requested contact information for Hu Xi Jie, who ran the Amazon store "USA Shopping 7693" that sold the remote. Hu Xi Jie never responded, and Amazon was not able to locate the individual. The parents sued Amazon in Texas state court, arguing that the retailer is liable for the defective product. Amazon, on the other hand, says it serves as a middleman and bears no liability. It's that argument, among others, that has brick-and-mortar retailers pushing for changes. Consumer product laws hold businesses like Target and Home Depot liable for injuries if the stores do not take sufficient measures to keep defective products from reaching consumers. Online marketplaces haven't been subject to those rules since they don't control third-party sellers.
Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to allow sellers to hide their identity, then you have to take full responsibility for the products you allow them to sell. You get to handle support, refunds, any lawsuits related to injury or fraud, etc. For all legal purposes, you are the seller.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The online retailers have to upgrade their "back-of-house" operations to comply with jurisdictional requirements/expectations of liability. If they don't like it, then they should vet their listings prior to publishing into their catalog and taking their sales cut/commissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Begins yes but this is suggesting responsibility entirely lands at their feet. Companies should not have to dox their vendors/sellers as a matter of due course! It isn't as they don't have to respond to legal requests for the information.
What the actual fuck? It's doxing now to want to know basic information about a company that is producing/offering goods for sale?
You have a strange way of thinking.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This touches on why this isn't so simple though. The types of sellers that etsy/ebay/amazon are referring to are individuals who do things out of their home, so their 'basic information' is also their 'personal information'. For small sellers, it isn't really that different from doxing.
If they are *legitimate* then they already have their (what you call) personal information publicly cataloged when obtaining their business licenses and reporting income, submitting their taxes, taking business investments/loans, and conducting such every-day business practices.
But if they're not properly registered (arguably *fraudulent*) then you're basically stating that all frauds, no matter how large or small, should be OK. And this begs many questions about online marketplaces' standard practices
Re:Easy answer (Score:4, Interesting)
This touches on why this isn't so simple though. The types of sellers that etsy/ebay/amazon are referring to are individuals who do things out of their home, so their 'basic information' is also their 'personal information'. For small sellers, it isn't really that different from doxing.
If they are *legitimate* then they already have their (what you call) personal information publicly cataloged when obtaining their business licenses and reporting income, submitting their taxes, taking business investments/loans, and conducting such every-day business practices.
Not even close. I'm pretty sure that the largest category of Amazon sellers consists of individual authors who sell books through KDP. Approximately none of those sellers have business licenses; there's no legal requirement to do so under most circumstances, and it's a huge pain in the backside for no real benefit. They report their income as royalty income on their personal income taxes. Their "business" address is their home address. For them, this sort of legislation is just inviting serious abuse, stalking, or worse.
If a seller does something bad, hire a lawyer, subpoena Amazon, and they'll unmask the seller. If not, why do you care? What's the legitimate public interest that is served by making that information available?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Setting that aside for a moment. In order to take that back from doxing I set up my Wyoming llc via an attorney and establish a mail drop box from such a place. At this point it is going to be even more difficult for you to obtain my infor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that the largest category of Amazon sellers consists of individual authors who sell books through KDP.
May be, I would need evidence before believing this. The number of trinket sellers (either produced small scale, imported, or bought in bulk) is also quite huge.
But I've had Amazon sellers directly contacting me on the phone number listed for Amazon - sometimes for just insisting on a feedback. They knew my name, address, obviously phone number, maybe email address. What's the legitimate public interest that is served by making that information available to sellers ?
Re: (Score:2)
This is something I've never liked about ebay, they give out your tel to every tom dick and harry that you buy from, thankfully there's nothing preventing you from putting your tel as 12345678 here.
In the UK it seems that sellers with a high enough turnover have to include their vat reg details such as address and tel. It seems to work out ok, although with refund guarantees I never needed those details anyhow. I think forcing sellers to provide details is better as protection against them being fraudsters.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when it is a $20 transaction that goes bad. It isn't worth hiring a lawyer for those vacuum bags that never showed up and the seller vanished.
Is it right that someone can nickel and dime their way into riches by ripping people off?
Re: (Score:1)
This problem of the amount being too small to be worth fighting is hardly novel though. I guarantee Amazon faces their share of this in the form of chargebacks wherein the credit card companies take the word of the card holder that a charge wasn't authorized and yank back the
Re: (Score:2)
What actually happens with me is I write it off and don't go back. Ideally the market would lead to the fast food place that routinely screws orders to lose business.
Re: (Score:2)
This touches on why this isn't so simple though. The types of sellers that etsy/ebay/amazon are referring to are individuals who do things out of their home, so their 'basic information' is also their 'personal information'. For small sellers, it isn't really that different from doxing.
If they are *legitimate* then they already have their (what you call) personal information publicly cataloged when obtaining their business licenses and reporting income, submitting their taxes, taking business investments/loans, and conducting such every-day business practices.
Not even close. I'm pretty sure that the largest category of Amazon sellers consists of individual authors who sell books through KDP. Approximately none of those sellers have business licenses; there's no legal requirement to do so under most circumstances, and it's a huge pain in the backside for no real benefit. They report their income as royalty income on their personal income taxes. Their "business" address is their home address. For them, this sort of legislation is just inviting serious abuse, stalking, or worse.
If a seller does something bad, hire a lawyer, subpoena Amazon, and they'll unmask the seller. If not, why do you care? What's the legitimate public interest that is served by making that information available?
As EvilSS stated below, Amazon Services LLC is the actual seller of record (legal entity upon which the transaction occurs). AMZN takes their cut and *deposits* the rest into the bank account... think of it as direct-deposit, but they're not the accounting firm, so they don't determine how the deposit is to be treated (business income category, taxable considerations, domestic or overseas account ownership, whether it's actually meant as a foreign escrow account, etc.).
Nobody is asking for the PII of (o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your girl scout cookie example is cherry picked and you know it. If all you are concerned about is accountability then how is that not served by a lawful request to Amazon? In fact, in absence of having presented someone else for the chopping block you can still file suit against amazon and unless they actually show up and provide the real seller as a scapegoat they'll likely lose.
Why would I use an example that does not relate to the issues?! (hint: neither I nor anybody else would, because they would not advance the points in either direction.)
And you have not been paying attention to anything! It's all about accountability, and lawsuits/lawyers are an expensive hurdle/gambit to eventually force Amazon's hand to disclose the business contact information just to report product issues (from non-delivery to lethal hazards). As has historically become the case, multiple online sel
Re: (Score:2)
You touched on an interesting edge case which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. KDP is already an wholly Amazon run service where Amazon has full control. KDP doesn't move products, only moves virtual items. The sellers in this regard are as irrelevant to the buyer as they are irrelevant to the discussion of liability and meeting the legal requirements to sell products.
I have a registered business. The application took me 15minutes, was online, and free. Once a year I fill out about 5 fields in
Re: (Score:2)
This touches on why this isn't so simple though. The types of sellers that etsy/ebay/amazon are referring to are individuals who do things out of their home, so their 'basic information' is also their 'personal information'. For small sellers, it isn't really that different from doxing.
No no no... When you engage in business, you have to provide certain information. Generally you have to file certain tax forms with the State & Feds. You might have to file with your municipality, but that's not always required.
Certain states (and maybe all, but I don't know) require anyone doing business under anything other than their true, legal, name file a "Fictitious Business Name" statement with the State. In my own state, this notification must be published in the newspaper for 3 consecutive
Re: (Score:3)
DBA licenses are only required if the person's name isn't part of the business name, generally speaking. Amazon authors don't need one unless they're publishing under a pseudonym (and maybe even then, but it's a grey area). So you're talking about doxxing a LOT of people who have no legal obligation to have their personal info published.
Re: (Score:2)
DBA licenses are only required if the person's name isn't part of the business name, generally speaking. Amazon authors don't need one unless they're publishing under a pseudonym (and maybe even then, but it's a grey area). So you're talking about doxxing a LOT of people who have no legal obligation to have their personal info published.
This is NOT about eBook authors!!!
And, yes, d/b/a are required for ALL instances when the entity name is not *exactly* the person's legal name. I cannot call it "Joe Smith Enterprises" without registration; nor can I call it "Imports by Joe Smith." Anything besides the *exact* legal name (Joe Smith, Joe M Smith, and Joe Michael Smith, would all represent fully qualified legal name variations) must be registered as d/b/a (fictitious business name).
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my understanding, that is NOT true. It must contain the person's name, not BE the person's name.
Re: (Score:1)
To the best of my understanding, that is NOT true. It must contain the person's name, not BE the person's name.
You are correct. I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. The business name must contain the person's name. i.e. You can have Joe Smith's Painting Services. But you can't have Joe's Painting Services or Smith's Painting Services, without a FBN. That's what I meant but failed to properly convey.
Re: (Score:2)
To the best of my understanding, that is NOT true. It must contain the person's name, not BE the person's name.
You are correct. I wasn't as clear as I needed to be. The business name must contain the person's name. i.e. You can have Joe Smith's Painting Services. But you can't have Joe's Painting Services or Smith's Painting Services, without a FBN. That's what I meant but failed to properly convey.
And that largely depends on the state's business registration rules. Regardless of my tax accounting strategy, I had to register the business name (separate from the d/b/a) with whichever applicable professional licensure I wished to postfix (e.g. MD) in order to register the business properly. In any other circumstances/business dealings, any payments would be regarded as personal (where my alias is "Joe Smith, MD") rather than business (with "Joe Smith, MD LLC"). For an additional d/b/a, I can pay extra
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. And I would oppose any attempt to unmask pen names. Anonymous speech is important. Anonymous commercial sales... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
The types of sellers that etsy/ebay/amazon are referring to are individuals who do things out of their home, so their 'basic information' is also their 'personal information'.
Too bad. If you want to avoid having your personal residence associated with your business, rent office space. If that's too expensive, then maybe your "business" is really more of a hobby. In neither case should your customers be denied recourse if you sell them a faulty/counterfeit/whatever product.
Re: (Score:2)
For small sellers, it isn't really that different from doxing.
Why do you think this is relevant? Since when is the point of a business transaction to be hidden behind a pseudonym? There's no such thing as anonymous business. If you want to run an actual business doing actual sales then your requirement is to file that paperwork with authorities, register the name complete with address in a searchable database.
The fact that it's a home address is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
For small sellers, it isn't really that different from doxing.
I'm not asking for them to be "doxxed". I just want contact information that has been vetted by Amazon as legit. This can be as simple as an email address or a phone number.
In the US, it's relatively easy to set up a business and allow you to operate under that business name. It is also very easy to obtain a second phone number separate from your personal number that you use solely for your business. Most carriers even give multi-line discounts. It is also very easy to go down to your local post office and
Re: (Score:2)
It's doxing now to want to know basic information about a company that is producing/offering goods for sale?
Someone's home address is not "basic information". No one should have to disclose their home address just to sell on Amazon. If they provide email and/or phone and are responsive, that is enough.
Re: (Score:1)
It's doxing now to want to know basic information about a company that is producing/offering goods for sale?
Someone's home address is not "basic information". No one should have to disclose their home address just to sell on Amazon. If they provide email and/or phone and are responsive, that is enough.
I disagree and it would appear that a lot of politicians disagree too.
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't have to Dox on a daily basis, but why should sellers get more privacy than buyers? It's only fair.... Sellers get to know their buyers' contact information.
Amazon/etc should at least be required to take steps to scrutinize and Verify the identity of people who sell with them (At the very least, have a copy of their business license or Driver's license for a proprietor on file) AND Have a process for the buyer to get the actual information to work on their dispute before filing a lawsuit, s
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they assume complete responsibility, yes they should .
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day a retailer isn't much different than a vending machine in a hotel lobby. The idea you'd blame the innate machine if you didn't consider the 'new and improved' variant candy bar to be 'improved' instead of yourself for taking the chance or the company who made the bar and chose to call it "improved" on their label is mind boggling. I can't imagine the rational behind this.
Re: (Score:2)
So what actions should we still be allowed anonymity?
While I agree that a store or online merchant should not be allowed to misidentify themselves, I have no problem with them staying anonymous.
Should message boards be required to present correct identify of posters? Think of all the fake news, lies, and chaos that has been created.
Re: (Score:2)
So what actions should we still be allowed anonymity?
That's a tough one to answer. But the question is "should anonymous people be allowed to sell things?". The answer to that, is "probably not." I have no problem if the home address isn't posted everywhere, but you need to be able to get a hold of the person selling the stuff. Someone has to be able to be brought in front of agencies like the CSPS when something goes pear shaped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that a store or online merchant should not be allowed to misidentify themselves, I have no problem with them staying anonymous.
What a load of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
> I have no problem with them staying anonymous.
Nobody proposed banning anonymity. Just that Amazon et al needs to pick up the slack. The buck needs to stop somewhere.
What's not fine is the combination of anonymity + "it's not my problem".
Re: (Score:3)
For practical purposes, yes, they should be considered the seller. I agree with that. But the retailer doesn't normally have full legal responsibility for every product sold. Certainly a flea market or classifieds listing doesn't. The probl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In both those cases you have the seller information up front.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't recall either providing me a full dox of the poster/vendor. In a flea market I see a human but have absolutely no information that would enable me to find them tomorrow and in the case of the classified you have whatever the seller did or didn't choose to provide in the ad.
Too Big To Fail (Score:1)
If you want to allow sellers to hide their identity, then you have to take full responsibility for the products you allow them to sell. You get to handle support, refunds, any lawsuits related to injury or fraud, etc. For all legal purposes, you are the seller.
Well, they already provide support and refunds.
Regarding that whole "legal" thing though, let's play this out. 1,000 babies become ill from selling some horrific knock-off baby food tainted with paint chips or some shit. 50 of them sadly lose their life.
A billion-dollar lawsuit is brought forth.
The hell makes you think that cost still isn't a drop in the bucket financially for them? Lawsuits will be settled just in time for Black Friday sales to erase any consumer memory of it, and they'll raise the pric
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hyperbolic? I didn't exactly pull that concept out of my ass. The congressional report was released in February.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
"The subcommittee said Walmart, Sprout Foods and Campbell Soup Co., which makes Plum Organics baby food, didn't cooperate."
Oh, they "didn't cooperate" eh? Gee, I wonder what kind of corporate arrogance it takes to be dismissive over something like that. Maybe an untouchable kind of arrogance.
We'll see what happens as a result of this if Greed is ever actu
Re: (Score:2)
In sure this has been answered already, but Amazon is the one that cares about masking the identity of these sellers. They are the middle man and they don't want to be cut out of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That nicely sums it up.
Re: (Score:1)
Your choice (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There was no support for this when it was the classifieds in the newspapers and there is no basis for it now. If there is a claim of fraud they already have to turn over seller information in response to a lawful request.
How often was someone making a living by selling via classified ads? Especially from around the world... classifieds tended to be local sellers with one or a few items to sell, not a large inventory sold from anywhere in the world. Maybe there was no basis for classifieds, but Amazon sellers and the likes are in a completely different category.
Re:Your choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Classified Ads are Not comparable. Classified Ads contain contact information - No transaction occurs as a result of a classified Ad without the buyer either making contact with the seller, essentially, or the Ad containing info which the buyer uses to visit the seller's physical location, or call them, or mail them, etc. That's not like Amazon where there is generally no contact made with the seller; you can barely tell the difference between buying from Amazon itself and buying from a seller on Amazon.
In order to exchange goods in response to a classified ad - You have to make human contact with the seller, or some agent of the seller, in order to do so, And the buyer can ask them for Any and all contact info they want or refuse to make an offer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case though, Amazon is the parking lot, and people are tired of getting ripped off by anonymous sellers there.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a claim of fraud they already have to turn over seller information in response to a lawful request.
That just is not acceptable, because the current "standard" for a lawful request is a subpoena -- that cannot be obtained without filing a lawsuit. And you cannot or will not file a lawsuit over small damages, such as less than $50 which may be still fraud committed by the seller that needs to get reported to protective agencies such as BBB and in public reviews so others can protect themselv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solution is simple 3rd party sellers (Score:2)
Unmask Third-Party Sellers ? (Score:3)
But then they might get COVID
Re: (Score:2)
Then we would finally have proof that masks work!
Re: (Score:2)
No we won't. If anyone thinks we don't have proof now then no amount of additional proof will change their minds as they gave up on science in favour of mask religion long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Right! Mask-wearing certainly is a religion!
Vox recently had a good article that outlines some of the complexities of the effectiveness of mask-wearing and lockdowns. https://www.vox.com/coronaviru... [vox.com] It's nice to see an analytical point of view that doesn't introduce politics.
There is plenty of evidence that masks work in the lab. It's less clear that they are effective on a large scale, as evidenced by the lack of statistical differences between states that mandated masks and other measures, and states th
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Just like a religion you decided to go with an interpretive periodical from a second rate news site instead of going straight to the many peer reviewed studies on mask effectiveness that have come up in the past 12 masks.
I get it, the world is 6000 years old, was created by god, and masks don't work. You read your good book. I'll stick to the science thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to read one of your plentiful peer-reviewed studies. I'll bet you can't cite even one.
Re: (Score:2)
A hypocrite is a person who accuses someone else of something they themselves do. It's hypocritical to say, "I follow the science, and you should too" when you are actually following a popular preacher. Dr. Fauci is very well-intentioned, I have no doubt, just as many Bible teachers are well-intentioned. I believe he believes what he says is true! But he does not have an actual study to back up his words about the effectiveness of masks outside the lab.
Many new drug candidates have been discarded because th
There could be a middle ground (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The intermediary could provide the seller's country and postal code and an anonymized email service to buyers, and they could provide verified identity with full contact info to law enforcement. The purchaser should know up front the origin of the seller/product so that what laws govern the transaction can be known before purchase.
I could probably live with that. What I'm mostly interested in is knowing what country I'm buying from.
I've been burned by that a few times.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing Amazon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is totally in the right here because why would they need to vet the things that they sell?
For the same reason brick and mortar stores do in most states https://berkowitzlawfirm.com/c... [berkowitzlawfirm.com] , https://www.hg.org/legal-artic... [hg.org] .
A company should know what it's selling and clearly the US legal system agrees when it comes to store fronts.
Re: (Score:2)
While on the surface you raise an interesting point, I think there is a subtle difference between Amazon and Ebay.
Ebay (as far as I am aware) does not present itself as a "store". It instead is a facilitator to allow independent entities, either individuals or companies, to sell their products. They are ONLY a platform, a way for sellers to meet buyers, and thus they can get away with a general disclaimer that they don't vet products.
Amazon, however, presents itself as a store. It's business is to sell good
Re: (Score:2)
It instead is a facilitator to allow independent entities, either individuals or companies, to sell their products.
How come eBay lists the items and takes the orders then, and their new system prohibits sellers from taking direct Payments through Paypal, etc, also? I don't agree that they are just a way for Buyers to meet Sellers when eBay requires that all Payments be processed by eBay, who then takes their cut and direct-deposits it to the Sellers' bank account --- while prohibiting that sellers col
Re: (Score:2)
They posted even quicker than you did. [slashdot.org]
Gives you a nice glimpse into the corporate mind though. They are so out of touch with normal people that they think calling vendors "neighbors" and characterizing disclosure as snitching, is something other than laughable.
Looks like they haven't had time to hone the message yet. I'm sure they'll come up with something mumble-mumble-the-economy that will fool the redhats at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon and eBay are the two companies explicitly cited in the article headline. So why are you talking as though eBay are getting a free pass?
no problem with their desire to block (Score:2)
I don't see the issue (Score:2)
eBay and Amazon are different ... (Score:2)
It's been a LONG time since Amazon really catered to the "mom and pop" seller out of their home. We're talking, back in the "Amazon Auctions" days, they used to compete head-to-head w/eBay. But now, they're downright hostile to anyone not moving large quantities monthly and big enough to absorb all kinds of losses from returns for any reason, etc.
Amazon absolutely needs to disclose who is selling when it's not their own products. eBay? They're the last bastion for the casual seller, selling from home....
Missing the point here (Score:2)
"Protecting the privacy of the seller" sounds like a noble goal (whether or not that is right)
but I think the real purpose might be to prevent these sellers from establishing a relationship to the buyers, cutting out the middle man or enabling them to move to another platform.
don't control third-party sellers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
provide a middleman service (Score:1)
Mega Sellers (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:2)
Amazon just required me to submit full name, birthday, address, drivers license image, and credit card statement just to be able to sell a few books I no longer need.
Use a post box number. (Score:2)
Oh, sorry, would that result in a paper trail that the tax man could subpoena and catch you evading your business taxes? Well boo hoo for you.
What's the issue here? (Score:2)
Also I just checked a third-party seller on Amazon, and they had a "Ask a question" button for the seller, as well as their phone number.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay I'll bite, what people and what neighbors?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh of course and all the people who work at tech companies live next door to the people who sell on their platforms! I mean, that's literally what you're saying here.
What a terrible analogy you used and then you get snippy with me about it when I don't get it? I would imagine no one at Amazon HQ considers any of the merchants selling on their platform their metaphorical "neighbors".
Re: (Score:2)
The online retailers argue that the bills would compromise the privacy of third-party sellers.
Fuck you. No. I won't support a measure which requires people to inform on their neighbors.
Why should people be allowed to hide who they are if they are selling me something?
The only reason I can think of, is so they can screw me over. I don't get to hide who I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should people be allowed to hide who they are if they are selling me something?
They're in an online business from home, they maybe have a policy of e-mail only support for digital/virtual work and goods, Or remotely shipped goods, and need/want to avoid the possibility of people harassing them at home: Coming to their house, flooding their home mailbox, or calling them, based on issues related to their business.
This is common... if you deal with even 10 or 20 customers a year; you are bound to eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple answer. Too goddamn bad. Your customer has the right to be able to contact you about your misbehavior.
This is false. Make no mistake: the buyer managing to obtain an address or # does not give a right to contact a business If it is not with the consent of the business. Nobody has a right to contact anyone that doesn't want to be contacted, and if you know they don't and do it anyways, then it's harassment which is a crime. A business can refuse to accept contact, and state the policy that they
Re: (Score:2)
Probably many cannot afford or do not want the $200/Year+ in expenses of buying a separate location for their business and/or hiring a lawyer and paying 3rd party agents to formally register their business as a corporation: that costs even more to register a corporation in a manner where their home address will not be a Google search or local Secretary of State database search away
Then that's too bad for them. If they want to engage in a real business,there are real costs in doing so properly. If they ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you're selling shitty merchandise.
Re: (Score:2)
But you support sellers having buyers' name, address, phone number ?
For various kinds of issues with products, especially if the issue arises after a while, leaving a review for the product is the only option given by Amazon. That review appears publicly losing the privacy of buyers.
Buyers need to provide their real address and phone number for obvious reasons. They also need to give their real name for 2 kinds of reasons :
1. Address is at times complete only with name. Or real name at least greatly helps d
Re: (Score:1)
So, you think it is okay for Amazon to sell un-vetted, harmful items and then not be liable for any harm AND not have to disclose the actual offender?
You are totally missing the bigger picture.
There is no "ratting-out" of anyone.
It is a matter of holding the truly responsible parties accountable.
How would you feel if you were harmed by someone that only your neighbor saw do the harm?
Would you expect that neighbor to help you identify and hold accountable that offending