That is the whole point. Amazon doesn't allow multiple sellers of Kindles or Amazon Basics power cords, but it did/does allow multiple sellers of, say, Birkenstocks or Popsockets or Magformers or Ripple Rug. That they don't allow multiple sellers of Kindles proves that this is not an unsolvable problem.
For example:
- If there is a single manufacturer of a brand-name product, Amazon could make it so that only that manufacturer can sell on Amazon, just like it does with its own products.
- They could also make it more clear for commodity items which seller provided the item linked with a given review. Often different sellers sell entirely different goods under the same SKU, leading to wildly varying reviews.
- They could probably do some other things too. I bet if you ask someone who's products are getting counterfeited on Amazon, they have a lot of ideas for what could be changed.
> The lack of some rights for LGB+ people under current law does not prevent Amazon from employing them. In fact, that lack of rights probably actually makes it easier for Amazon to employ them by easily extending benefits beyond what are required. Once those rights are legally granted, all employers will have to extend them, reducing Amazon's advantage.
Yeah, that's a good point. I was assuming that LBGTQ+ people were powerful enough now that they didn't have to stay at a company that didn't believe in their rights, and would leave Amazon for greener pastures if Amazon came out against their rights.
> It takes government to establish regulatory frameworks
Or, a massive cloud provider could establish a policy against certain uses of facial recognition technology on their own platform, tomorrow.
A lot of the letter is of the form "We want someone else to put restrictions on everyone against doing bad stuff - in the meantime, we will continue to do that bad stuff, and/or continue to allow it on our platform"