I don't like Amazon's business model for the Kindle and associated store, or any of their past efforts at providing electronic content (music, video), but I don't see how anyone could reasonably object to the clearly identified removal of a competitor site from the review in the OP. They left the review intact while removing one piece of objectionable material and making it clear that it had been removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pking36330
You are making a value judgement that Amazon filtering searches or deleting user posts on their website is 'unethical' and requires a 'remedy' of some sort.
I make exactly the opposite value judgement that this is an ethical and necessary business practice and as sole owner of their web presence, they don't owe consumers even a mention of how they do it or what they do.
|
While Sonist drifts here and there into "T'ain't right" territory, there is a pragmatic basis to his argument. Particularly for Amazon, which is not only a retailer but a marketplace for retailers, manipulating searches and reviews to promote some products above others or paint an overly-rosy picture violates good-faith expectations of both buyers and sellers on their site. It may produce a quarterly uptick in Kindle sales, for instance, but a reputation for deceptive business practices will hurt them in the long run.
Personally, I haven't seen evidence that they or even Newegg, which is strictly a retailer, use such practices, though you seem to be saying they should. Clear business communication is only a liability if your product doesn't stand on its merits.