If Amazon punishes sellers for having lower prices elsewhere, isn’t it the sellers choice whether to lower their price on Amazon OR raise their price for other sellers?
I didn’t see anything in the article suggesting Amazon ask for the 2nd option, just examples of sellers who did the 2nd one.
You are correct that the merchants have that choice.
Amazon's behavior is still anti-competitive. They are the big boys. The drive lots of volume, and have high fees. This policy makes it impractical for most vendors to support Amazon's competitors or compete with Amazon themselves. And it robs customers of a meaningful choice that would cut out an expensive middleman.
Without this policy, you might see lots of products on Amazon that are $19.99 with Amazon's 30% cut, and maybe $13.99 (30% less) on the vendor's own website. The consumer loses twice with Amazon's policy: once because they couldn't get the item at a cheaper price, and again because they didn't support any innovation or competition in the market, which would also lower prices.
Whoa! I’d slow down with the hypotheses, considering we have one side of the story.
What we do know is that the US, like all other countries, has wide legal latitude on not allowing foreigners into the country. You can be denied entry for no more than a Facebook like of the wrong post.
The policy of applying US immigration enforcement actions against legal visa holders who have attended specific legal (US based) protests has been publicly reported and confirmed by many government officials and is unrelated to anyone trying to enter the country.
Senior ICE officials have testified under oath in federal court that analysts were moved from counterterrorism, global trade, and cybercrime work to this group focused specifically on writing reports about people involved in student protests.
Yes? Why would a government allow people who aren't citizens to come in and protest on its soil about its actions? I think that's the definition of forgein interference.
The United States has no motive in the constitution or otherwise to let anyone in who behaves in a hostile manner to the country, it's people, or its government.
It's basic rationality. To argue otherwise is to argue that the US has no right to defend itself against external hostile attackers. Utter absurdity. What's the point of a country if it must allow anyone and everyone to enter?
Criticizing the government is not hostility. Its wanting to move towards a better country. This is EXACTLY what the 1st amendment is intended to protect. Whether the legal system decides it applies here is one question, but there are heaps of documents and communications between founding fathers and other figures making this clear. Many of those folks were immigrants themselves. So the idea that it wouldn't apply to legal immigrants is wildly out of line with the founding ethos of the country.
I think on average, outside perspectives are less well-informed than inside ones. It's a decent first-pass filter for quality, despite its inaccuracy.
I see this frequently as an engineer: my pet peeve is the "can't we just..." from someone who has no idea how the system works. Occasionally they're correct that we could make a trivial change to make something work... But most times, that "just" is hand-waving away days/weeks of effort. On the other hand, when "can't we just ..." is uttered by someone else on the same team, they're usually correct that the change is indeed trivial.
In this case, "outside" vs "inside" is actually a good proxy for how informed or accurate the opinion actually is.
Another good example is the stereotypical "expert in a field who thinks their expertise trivially transfers to unrelated fields".
To put it more simply: the distinction exists because outsiders are very frequently blind to the internal complexity of something (a system, an idea, etc), but are still willing to confidently assert their ideas anyway, leading to a frequent association of "outsider" with "poorly-formed opinions".
>
The United States has no motive in the constitution or otherwise to let anyone in who behaves in a hostile manner to the country, it's people, or its government.
Here we are back at the same argument that I just brought:
The definition of what "hostile" is is very arbitrary and can be defined to suit your political agenda.
In the US, the bill of rights and specifically the first amendment unambiguously applies to anyone who is lawfully present in the country, citizen or not.
The EFF letter tends to line up with this guy’s story, though.
Also, since google complied without giving him the ability to challenge the request, we will never have another version. In that context, it feels fair to accept the only version we have.
The events he was likely targeted for happened on a campus in the US.
The people saying it doesn’t work are the same people who can’t must the effort to even contact their representative.
I had a professor in college who was big on entrepreneurship. So he formed an organization, got others involved, went to Washington to lobby his rep. His rep said “let’s do it”, and sat him down with her staff to write a bill. That bill was brought to the floor for a vote and passed.
Until you’ve done that, dont complain the system doesn’t work.
The issue with politics today is the level of engagement of the average voter. Few people ever get involved, so the vacuum gets filled with whichever power-hungry mediocre person who puts some effort in.
I have worked on electoral and initiative campaigns, and traveled thousands of miles to knock on doors. I’ve donated money. I’ve called my congresspeople. I’ve gone to and spoken at public meetings. I’ve protested, been tear gassed, beaten, and thrown in jail. I’ve been doing all of this continuously for about 20 years. I can tell you, from extensive experience going through the official channels, that the formal mechanisms of our democracy are fundamentally broken. We need to seriously face this problem and fix it, or things are just going to keep getting worse.
Yeah, America as a whole voted for Trump, and later atleast reading online I am seeing people be like: "I didn't know he was this bad" when reading his policies, he was exactly this bad :-/
People don't vote for their own gains but rather the gains of the few and to be honest, one can argue that within America this is a both-party problem and sometimes you are just picking for the less wrong politician and then you have these biases which blind them.
if this is the case, I have seen American people online say that "But, people know that the American govt and american people are different"
It is almost as if people are saying whatever is convenient at the time. This can only be one or the other.
If the average American's intent is of the system which is current administration, then forget about the trust within the system. I find your position with a bit of irony.
The system isn't working and that's a fact. You can say that people are to be blamed for that, sure, but then the people will be blamed entirely.
To be honest, The americans I sometimes talk online to don't share this ideal of the govt. and are fighting against it in some way or another but they are tired and hopeless, for the most part. I really take a deeper offense to your statement as that makes all the problems persist longer and thus to many people who have nothing to lose, violence feels like the only option which might be what GP might be referring to.
Either America needs to fix itself or violence will keep on happening. To be honest, I am not that much hopeful that America can fix itself though in the sense that the corporate influence is so immense with the two party system and the trust is still lost in some ways in America and times in future are gonna be even more harder yet America is completely polarized. These problems are also existing in other countries to be honest but America is at another magnitude and at these levels of inequality, violence to many people feel like the only way to share their voice which has been suppressed by the system for far too long. From my time reading history, this is a very repeating phenomenon and in a sense, history is messy but when people got really pissed at the system failing, mass scale revolt and violence was always picked as the last resort and we are in those times now.
I feel like we can either condemn or do anything as a society but if people (and humans just like you and me actually) get so frustrated within the system that violence seems like an good choice, then that is upon the fault of the system and I feel like the condemnation of act just does nothing in the long grand scheme of things.
TLDR: People should really act together to solve these things peacefully but its very far from happening in reality and reality is messy and always has been in some regards, we just read it from the line of statistics and history.
Yes many people couldn't vote (say youngsters) and many people didn't vote on the election day and from that sample who could and did vote did Trump win and within the election itself Democrats had gotten 75 million people.
In a similar fashion, my point is, I actually agree with you sir @mbgerring and your original comment. you tried your best to raise awareness and there are people who do the same and there are many who reach the support of millions but still no change is enacted because of the way system is enacted.
Yet the system can make someone like trump with maybe even sometimes far fewer people supporting it and billionaire's capital flowing into propaganda etc. too thus the people saying "we didn't vote for this"
My point was that the system is ultimately rigged by some people at the top against the average person and @refurb saying to you that oh this is then what the people must want, is a factually wrong statement.
I think you yourself have put it right: "We need to seriously face this problem and fix it, or things are just going to keep getting worse."
And I also agree with your overall statement that if the system continues on being as hopeless as it is, then for some people violence would become the only option for their voices as their voices get shutted from every peaceful way.
Because so many people are being ground down. You have time to organize something, instead of making rent? Well now you have to fight to even get your voting rights back, that you were silently stripped off because of your skin color and demographic, or social status. Then you need to see if you can ever get the gerrymandered border back to where it should be so the other party will ever have a chance at winning in your area, instead of losing by default. Pretty sure the next election is only about two swing-states again.
> I had a professor in college who was big on entrepreneurship. So he formed an organization, got others involved, went to Washington to lobby his rep. His rep said “let’s do it”, and sat him down with her staff to write a bill. That bill was brought to the floor for a vote and passed. Until you’ve done that, dont complain the system doesn’t work
This is a sign of the system not working. A well connected professor, with plenty of free time to form an organization and go to Washington to talk to his rep
Might as well be an industry lobbyist.
Could a worker from Walmart do the same thing? In theory sure. In practice unlikely, for any number of reasons. Not least because people are unlikely to take a Wal Mart worker seriously enough to join their organization.
> Nothing stops the average citizen from organizing and getting similar access to representatives
I disagree pretty strongly. There are tons of soft power social levers and bureaucratic structures designed exactly to prevent your average Joe from getting access to representatives
Even a comparatively powerful person like a wealthy CEO of a big company often experiences friction trying to get access to public servants. That's why they hire lobbyists whose job it is to get past the friction
This system totally works so long as you can take time off work to form a lobbying group -- this does not pass the sniff test to me.
Reminder that even in the scenario that constituents 100% support or 100% reject a policy, their opinions hold almost no statistical sway to their elected representative. It's actually worse than a coin flip.
It's only when you restrict your constituent demographic to just those in the top 10% of wealth (...like a professor in college for example...) that suddenly their voting decisions align to constituent opinions.
Look up "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", this has been known for some time.
I did something similar with drawer handles. I was living in a place with cheap furniture and the handles were aluminum billet cut to length and tapped so it could be screwed to the drawer face. The edge on either side were crazy sharp. If you bumped it with your knee you'd easily cut the skin.
So I took some 1000 grit sand paper for metal and gently wet sanded the edge. If you rotate it a little you can get a very small radius evenly around the edge and it will keep a nice finish that matches brushed aluminum.
I'd actually feel comfortable doing this to a Macbook having done it to the drawer handles. Just use little pressure, back the paper with something flat, and check your progress often. It takes very little to remove the sharpness to the edge, to the point it's hard to see with the naked eye.
Not in this instance. People don't stop being people when they join an organization. If we can recognize that getting ignored, suppressed, or met with hostility "discourages people from posting", why can't we recognize that it can also discourage organizations from posting?
You don’t think people have different goals than organizations?
Do you think the goal of EFF posting on HN is the same as some random user posting on HN?
Of course not. So it’s not surprising they have different actions under similar circumstances. Nor is having different actions indicative of differing morals.
Now imagine how the international community feels about the toll - “sure would be nice if Iran’s leadership was replaced so we don’t have to pay a toll for an international waterway”.
The whole situation further isolates Iran globally (they were already isolated before the war).
Now imagine how the international community feels about the US starting a war of aggression against Iran without even consulting with its allies and trading partners beforehand.
The whole situation further isolates the US globally (they were already isolated before the war due to threats of taking Greenland, making Canada the 51st state, leaving NATO, etc.).
How do you know allies and trading partners weren’t consulted? Of course they were! The US had to get overflight permission the first day.
Iran had long been a thorn in the side of Europe and the Middle East countries. There is no love lost if the US decides to attack Iran. Most US allies would welcome deposing the current Iranian regime.
The US is anything but isolated. Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
Don’t confuse public statements intended for local consumption with what’s happening behind the scenes. Countries will happily talk tough to keep their own people happy all the while partnering behind the scenes.
> Notice how happy Europe is now that the US is bankrolling the Ukraine war?
The US is not currently bankrolling Ukraine in the way it was in 2022–2024. Under Donald Trump, no new large aid packages have been approved, and support now largely consists of delivering previously authorised funds and equipment.
mopsi provided a link to data. Please at least look at it before making unsubstantiated statements. It clearly shows that the US has not contributed since the beginning of 2025, let alone 'bankrolled' it.
I didn’t see anything in the article suggesting Amazon ask for the 2nd option, just examples of sellers who did the 2nd one.
reply