Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

From the proposed rule text [0]:

> It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and a violation of this Rule for a business to represent, expressly or by implication, that a website, organization, or entity that it controls, owns, or operates provides independent reviews or opinions about a category of businesses, products, or services including the business or one or more of its products or services.

As I read it, the 5-star review systems on Amazon.com and Walmart.com would be categorized as unfair under this rule, since both companies sell their own products in addition to having a rating system on their website. I'm not sure whether that's intentional or not (and I could be misreading it, IANAL).

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/r311003consumer...

View on HN

No, I don't think that's correct, either by the text or spirit.

This isn't about user reviews, it's about editorial reviews where it is the website/organization itself that is doing the reviews. Think Wirecutter, Consumer Reports, and so forth (although those are fine).

Basically when you search Google for reviews on e.g. an air purifier, you'll find a bunch of sites called things like "air-purifier-reviews.com" that seem to be a legitimate review site/blog at first glance (like Wirecutter), but are just a fake site created by the company whose products are recommended.

Amazon and Walmart with their product listings and user reviews aren't anything like this. User reviews even for Amazon-branded products would continue just fine, although another rule indicates that Amazon couldn't selectively remove negative reviews for their own products (not that there's evidence they have, since there are plenty of terribly-rated ones alongside the good ones).

It's also clear that Amazon wouldn't be able to e.g. create its own Wirecutter or Consumer Reports equivalent as long as it continued its own brands. And it probably means that Amazon wouldn't be able to continue its "Amazon editorial recommendations" which is a row that used to pop up in search results, but that they removed a couple of months ago [1].

[1] https://www.modernretail.co/technology/amazon-has-quietly-re...

That seems to apply only if wire cutter or consumer reports did reviews on wire cutter or consumer reports, isn't that right?

I interpret that more as banning all of the shadier situations like the mattress companies that own “independent” mattress review sites.

I was thinking this but how the same 2-3 vpn providers own all the vpn review websites

I suppose they would be required to work with an independent 3rd party that would manage the reviews. A little bit similar to the Credit Rating companies.

IMHO it could be a good, kind of, separation of responsibility.

> As I read it, the 5-star review systems on Amazon.com and Walmart.com would be categorized as unfair under this rule

Well, in reality they are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com