Amazon seller lost $400K in sales after being attacked by 'virus of Amazon' | Hacker News Reader

Amazon seller lost $400K in sales after being attacked by 'virus of Amazon'

cnbc.com

87 pointsSREinSF23 comments

If what's claimed in this article is true (and obviously it's difficult to check as it's one person's word against another, although a lot of the evidence does point against Krasr), then it illustrates another time when something as large as Amazon - which clearly relies a great deal on automated systems - is totally incapable of handling the situations it finds itself in. If it was run solely on humans (and they took their job seriously), then it would have been resolved much quicker, in the same way the handling of cases on YouTube and so on will always lag behind the application of intelligence to the problem.

For 99% of situations, I'm sure the automated systems that have been set up work OK, but they can clearly be gamed when there are loopholes (and there have been loads of them - whether it's marking an item as 'fake' on eBay, and getting refunded for it and getting to keep it, or lying about your item's location, or spurious copyright claims at a crucial time on YouTube), but the problem is that 1% gamification can mean the ruin of people who've worked hard to create a business, and they have no way to recover the damage caused. There are no meaningful consequences for those who have gamed the system to destroy their competition; the worst case scenario is that they'll start up with another name.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to view those who are running marketplaces such as Amazon, YouTube and eBay with positivity because of these issues; the way that they are addressed is with a generic "We work to keep up with these situations" type response, but I don't think they really do, as it doesn't effect their bottom line in any significant way, so there's no reason for them to take it seriously or devote any worthwhile resources to solving the problem. I know it's a small fraction of their total business, but to me it's how unusual situations are dealt with that show the real sentiment behind any business.

well I think the article is fishy. especially because of the headline. It says: $400k lost, yeah thats a ton of money, but than it says: "built revenues in his skin care business to more than $10 million annually in seven years"

I mean if I have a REVENUE of $10 million annually I would have savings of more than $400k dollar?!

Also if the product did not have had a trademark its just fine that somebody could clone the product. what is not so fine are of course fake reviews and other stuff, but thats illegal and every sane person would actually use a lawyer. Also amazon actually suspended his account for infridgement cases and I highly doubt that their system is so bad that it does that automatically. Because that would be more than insane.

every story has his two sides and this story looks fishy on both ends.

> I mean if I have a REVENUE of $10 million annually I would have savings of more than $400k dollar?!

You might perhaps google the difference between "revenue" and "net income".

> Also amazon actually suspended his account for infridgement cases and I highly doubt that their system is so bad that it does that automatically.

Have you missed the last several years of tech news?

It's funny that he's angry at his competitor for copying his product, because his own product is a copycat of Panasonic's.

If you read the article it's not just copying the product. The krasr company is also accused of committing fraud and various probably illegal tactics.

Yea, my sympathy level is pretty close to zero. Both of these "companies" are examples of how Amazon is full of dropshippers selling identical white-label knock-offs using 16 different brand names. If this is entrepreneurship, it's pretty sad.

Classic crap

One thing that stands out in this story is that we don't have an authenticated email system that most people are willing to use, and this causes real problems.

The problem is the industry at large rather than "people". If the likes of Amazon and Google were willing to actually treat authenticated email with priority or higher trustfulness of some sort, people would use it. But they treat everything in the same way, so why should I bother?

If the largest players could agree on one standard for secure email, I bet lots of people would transition overnight.

I think the biggest problem is that "normal" people have no clue that email is as insecure as it is. They trust that if an email says it's from a specific address, it must be.

The issue has to be fixed on a system level so spoof emails are impossible, because thats how most users think it is already.

https://www.krasr.com/ is now attacking this article by redirecting to an ad

The fuck did I just click on? That must have cycled through at least 30 scammy domains before rendering my iOS safari tab completely unusable.

> Facebook's vulnerabilities were exposed during the 2016 election when Russian propagandists infiltrated the network and targeted people with fake news

What's the source on this? Do they mean some people bought "advertising"?

Yes.

The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits foreign nationals from buying "advertising" that influences the campaign. I think the FEC would say that foreign nationals are prohibited from:

Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication.

(https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/)

This is considered to be something sacred in US politics (cough even though we interfere with non-US elections all the time cough).

> This is considered to be something sacred in US politics (cough even though we interfere with non-US elections all the time cough).

I never understood the uproar with Russia and the election. It just seems so hippocritical. Is there any valid reason to be upset when someone does it to us when we do it to others all the time?

If you’re upset about us doing it because it’s wrong, why wouldn’t you also be upset when it’s done to us? It doesn’t magically not become wrong, just like if you murdered a murderer, it doesn’t magically get you out of jail.

> If you’re upset about us doing it because it’s wrong, why wouldn’t you also be upset when it’s done to us?

Because people don’t seem to get upset about it. Because “democracy is best”

> Because people don’t seem to get upset about it.

Speak for yourself; the US history of regime change contains some of the biggest stains in our history.

Just being hypocritical doesn't mean it's wrong.

Even then calling it "infiltrated" is disingenuous.

I find it interesting to consider which jurisdictions the Federal Election Campaign Act is meant to encompass

It wasn't that sacred when Obama turned off country of origin checks for donations, making it trivial for foreign agents to help fund his election.

I'm trying to narrow it down, but I'm pretty sure only about 5-15% of politics is principled, and the rest is mere rooting for one's own team regardless of their sins.

There’s been congressional hearings. My favourite line was someone saying to a Facebook representative “US Election ads were paid for in Rubles and that didn’t send up any flags?” (I paraphrase)

The CIA has also published its own conclusions on Russian interference in the election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com