Amazon’s enforcement failures leave open a back door to banned goods
themarkup.org
themarkup.org
You can see this because the teams which manage virtually every other part of the site are not involved - the search recommendation was suggesting banned items - the buy together team does not use it’s system to find banned products related to removed items - the amazons choice team does not apply extra diligence to the things it flags. All things that a postmortem on now people find banned items would come up as action items. I bet they probably have, but it was low priory on those teams backlog.
It’s also clear they have not funded a big enough secret shopper team to just act like a user and try and buy banned products and then make reports to various teams across the site where they have gaps. If an outsider can sit down with your system and find bugs after a little bit of time, you don’t have a decent quality process in place.
Anything else isn't a real issue. While accidentally rejecting even 0.1% of the legit listings surely would cause heads to roll for screwing with the bottom line.
So I have a theory on Twitter - it's not that Twitter causes people to spout offensive rants and bully people - it's that it simply takes every pub and street conversation that happened anyway and makes them publically available.
(yes there is an effect of reinforcement that the pub conversation would not get so it's not perfect analogy)
Amazon is similar - they are trying to become the marketplace for everything sold in the world - which will include the crap, the counterfeit and the simply useless.
It kind of is Amazons problem, but like Twitter and Facebook, they are not causing it, and it won't go away if we stop Amazon somehow.
It's us and our societies.
Edit: there is a secondary effect here (linked to Google as well) that is no-one would buy from "some random dude selling pills on a street corner" but Amazons big tent lends him some of Amazons credibility.
Thirdly we often moan here on HN that Google just returns mainstream results and we cannot find the out of the way stuff - but in these cases that's exactly what we want.
So I am not sure if this is an Amazon search problem (don't return counterfeit products - cost bourne by Amazon) or of it is an enforcement problem (police arrest counterfeiters - cost bourne by taxpayer) or something else like only buy from reputable providers (cost bourne by purchasers)
Since this is nominally a site that discusses technology and Amazon is itself a major vendor of internet services it is not out of the question to think that they could, with programmers assigned to it and a desire to do so, massively reduce the ability for dangerous and/or banned items being sold on their site. Given that many of these things come from the same sellers and are being purchased by the same people it’s not as if these are all one off outliers. It’s a hard problem, certainly, but this is a company led by the richest man in the world for crying out loud!
If ever there was a reason for state oversight to stop large tech entities from getting away with whatever they want, surely it’s enabling people to actually cause deaths?
... and hugely amplifies them, giving them an audience of potentially millions instead of a couple of people chatting together.
Aside from that, all this offensive ranting and bullying, as well as every other type of conversation, is now saved and ready to be mined for advertising or political gain. Advertising is annoying but can be lived with, it's the political data-mining companies that are a real problem. See, for example, Cambridge Analytica.
Arguably, without these shady political entities and their data mining capabilities, and the amplifying power of Twitter and Facebook, we might not be faced with Brexit and Trump.
Or maybe we would, but at the very least we need to consider this and can't just say, sure, nothing has changed really. Because things have changed, and are continuing to change, rapidly and in ways we cannot predict, due to the sudden central role of tech giants in our societies.
Joseph McCarthy has been resurrected but now by the mob.
I'm not saying Amazon should be selling these things, but that choice makes me distrust this whole article.
Is Amazon’s approach to this policy reasonable and effective given the resources at the company’s disposal? Amazon is a tech behemoth. Surely they could spare a developer or two to come up with a more effective and automated way to monitor for banned items. A process that looks for keywords wouldn’t be hard, especially given how Amazon’s retail system works. Or maybe a system that identifies product listing photos that are similar shape/size to banned items. Amazon has some experience with image recognition and machine learning that would make that much easier to implement compared to most online retailers that allow third-party listings.
Amazon is more than capable of designing and implementing procedures to achieve much more robust compliance with their policy without expending considerably more effort. The only reason they don’t is because they don’t want to - because it hurts their bottom line and (for now) failing to reasonably and effectively implement their policy costs them only the occasional PR ding.
As for woman in the picture up top, I think she has a reason to complain:
She woke up in a hospital bed herself. She didn’t realize her father had slipped the counterfeit pills into his prescription bottle of Percocet at home and, distraught with grief, she had taken what she thought was a safe medication to help her relax.
The people actually manufacturing the fake drugs have a lot more liability than the sale of pill presses, which have legitimate uses.
> She didn’t realize her father had slipped the counterfeit pills into his prescription bottle of Percocet at home and, distraught with grief, she had taken what she thought was a safe medication to help her relax.
This whole family shares each others pills?! W-T-F!
I don't see anything about this anywhere in the article.
Also, taking the drugs left by someone who died of an of an overdose is best done with extreme caution, or not at all.
In assigning blame, it's also worth remembering that tablet presses are also used for compounding legal vitamins, making packaging cleaners and reagents ("dissolve one tablet of cleaner in a liter of water") and so forth.
I'm not saying that Amazon wasn't at fault here, but if you just read the headline and looked at the picture you might think Amazon was the one selling the counterfeit pills.
I personally enjoy being able to obtain "weird shit" of all varieties. I don't know what's involved in a pill press per se, but I can't imagine it's particularly complex or tough to improvise. Distributed 3d printing/milling culture can't come quick enough, and get us some refuge from this clueless fear of tools.
It really is absurd how so many people want to continue with this ridiculous war on inanimate objects, when the problem is almost always people.
Sleazy doesn't imply deceitful. Black markets set a tone of little enforcement and no recourse, since participants are already criminals. This encourages negative-sum games.
Prohibited: Single point, 3-point, tactical, and quick detach slings
Why? seems like slings can be used for many things.
Permitted: Fixed stocks, with the exception of thumbhole stocks
Prohibited: Any non-fixed stock, including telescoping, folding or collapsible stocks
Someone please tell me why non-fixed stock are so horrible?
Permitted: Magazine floor plates/base plates
I'm actually surprised by this one.
Prohibited: Full auto sears (also known as drop-in auto sear or DIAS)
Haha. Amazon would be the least of your problems if you sell one of these. They should also probably stop selling metal coat hangers.[1]
Prohibited: AR-15/M16 armorer’s wrenches or combo wrenches
Really? So I cannot by a castle wrench if it's marketed as for AR-15s?
Prohibited: Magazine loaders, except for those that can accommodate the following calibers: .223/5.56; 7.62x51; 308; 7.62x39; 5.45x39
Okay but .300 AAC, 6.5, 30-06, .338, .50 BMG/Beowulf are fine.
So much irrational hate for the AR-15 platform. It should be right up HNs alley as it is a fully customizable and reparable platform unencumbered by patents.
[1] https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/04/coat-hanger-m...
Aside from actual serialized firearms, ammunition, magazines, and some triggers in some state, pretty much every state has no restrictions on firearm accessories such as stocks, grips, slings, sights, and even barrels.
[1] https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/help.html?...
Exactly.
> Adjustable stocks are arguably a concern because they make building rifles shorter than 26 inches easier.
You could just not put stock on. An AR-15 with a 16in barrel is 30in with the stock collapsed and cannot be much shorter without the stock because of the buffer tube.
Telescoping stocks maybe not (my inexperience showing there) but folding stocks definitely can take it under 30 inches then. I assume you're saying a normal caliber ar15 won't be very fireable without a buffer tube. Anyways, apparently folding and telescoping stocks are also illegal in California, which might be the real reason amazon has these rules.
They are not illegal to own in California. They are only illegal to be on a semi-automatic center fire rifle with a detachable magazine. So if you mag lock your AR with something like this[1] you can put a telescoping stock on it. This is also legal[2] (with a 10rd magazine) since it is not a center fire rifle.
Again a stock is not integral to the operation of most rifles so you can just not put one on. Oh course then it's legally not considered a rifle most of the time.
>Rimfire ammo is limited to smaller calibers since the cartridge walls need to be thin enough to be able to be crushed by the firing pin and ignite the primer.
> The downside?
> Well, the nature of the casing means it’s pretty much limited to small calibers. You have to have some relatively flimsy brass to handle the rimfire set up. As a result, the powder necessary to propel a larger bullet would blow the brass apart.[1]
Correct about the buffer tube. So even if you installed a folding stock on an AR-15, it require some proprietary buffer tube to work like this one.[2]
[1] https://www.pewpewtactical.com/rimfire-vs-centerfire-ammunit...
Funny, I just received a VTAC sling from Amazon. I wonder if I was able to buy it due to the "enforcement failures" mentioned in the article or if it's because it is a 2-point sling (obviously much safer than a single point or 3-point sling which are basically weapons of mass destruction).
I suppose we could go the opposite way and declare Amazon should not sell any punch, hammer or gauge...
So a top level reading would indicate they don't allow ak47 vise blocks either.
pistol grip + collapsing stock? assault weapon!
pistol grip + a2 fixed stock? not an assault weapon?
I’ve been trying to get my hands on a real kinder egg (not the kinder joy bullshit) for a while now. I thought the kinder joy and a wonder ball would be enough, but it is not.
I don’t know why German kids are so much more resilient against choking than American kids, but whatever. (I actually do know, it’s because of an ancient law that should have been updated by now)
I've got a closet full of this stuff. And I never used them to commit a crime.
They're saying Amazon prohibits their sale, but doesn't effectively enforce that rule.
> They’re included among 38 pages of third-party seller rules and prohibitions for its U.S. marketplace.
> Yet an investigation by The Markup found that Amazon fails to properly enforce that list, allowing third-party sellers to put up and sell banned items.
We don't know how effective their enforcement of the rules are. Maybe 99.9% of listings for banned items are properly removed and what we see are just 0.1% of a very large number. I would say 99.9% is a rate that most people would say is effective. Would you say the rule enforcement is effective if it catches exactly 100% of violators?
I always get some enjoyment from making Amazon donate to gun rights organizations with Smile.
If someone wants a $4000 pill press they’re going to get it anyway. The idea that somehow this will prevent harm is absurd.
Found one stall in a giant market selling weed? Ban all sellers. Had one illegal BnB in an apartment building? Expunge all renters in the whole apartment block.
It’s more akin to finding it on the shelf at walmart than a stall in a market, or more akin to making your payment for the illegal BnB directly to the landlord’s office.
“ Alongside its third-party marketplace, Amazon sells products to consumers directly, and The Markup found it was also selling banned items itself, revealing cracks in the largely automated purchasing system that feeds its massive product catalog.”
No one is suggesting this. It’s more like if you find one stall selling weed and then five hundred other stalls selling various illegal things, and then you go to the market manager and tell them and they lazily remove one or two vendors but don’t or any actual resources to work to root out the problem.
And unlike a market, which is generally not owned by a single entity, this market is owned by the richest person in the world, so it certainly has the resources to enforce its policies.