2021年5月21日 星期五

On Tech: Amazon’s great purge

A purge of products on Amazon tell us a lot about untrustworthy internet reviews

Amazon's great purge

Burton Booz

Today I want to talk about a semi-mysterious purge of products on Amazon. Shoppers probably haven't noticed, but these evictions tell us a lot about untrustworthy internet reviews and they show both the power and the limitations of Amazon.

Researching this made me feel (again) that it's exhausting trying to avoid being cheated or manipulated online and our favorite internet destinations aren't doing enough to protect us. Let me explain what's happening.

Who was evicted?

About three weeks ago, some big brands on Amazon suddenly got kicked out.

Most people wouldn't recognize the names of the more than a dozen Chinese companies, like Mpow and Aukey, that disappeared. But those two sell large numbers of electronics like phone chargers and external smartphone batteries. If you've clicked "buy" on the first phone charger or wireless headphones that you saw on Amazon, it might have come from one of those now-suspended merchants.

It is rare for Amazon to boot off a merchant that sells so much stuff, but the company hasn't said exactly why it made the move. Experts on Amazon's workings, however, believe that the sellers were punished for manipulating customer reviews. And some of the company's public statements — this helpful one is in Chinese — seem to back that up.

ADVERTISEMENT

It's against Amazon's rules to pay people for glowing feedback. But it's also an open secret that bought-off or otherwise gamed reviews are common on Amazon and lots of other websites.

An Amazon representative said that the company is "relentless in our efforts to protect the integrity of customer reviews, and we will continue to innovate to ensure customers can trust that every review on Amazon is authentic and relevant." I tried contacting a couple of the suspended merchants, too, but haven't been able to reach anyone.

So why does this matter to us? I'll answer my question with two other questions.

Can we trust online feedback when it's so easy to game the system?

A big selling point of the internet is that we can glean the wisdom of the crowds before we see a movie, eat at a restaurant or buy a product. But there are so many ways to cheat online reviews that it's hard to trust them.

ADVERTISEMENT

If some of Amazon's top sellers have manipulated shoppers' impressions of their products, it shows just how pervasive the problem is. Amazon presumably keeps a closer watch on big merchants than it does on fly-by-night companies that don't sell much. And there is a good chance that those suspended companies have been cheating at reviews for a long time, Juozas Kaziukėnas, the founder of e-commerce research firm Marketplace Pulse, told me.

That means some people have been tricked into buying junk products, and merchants who played by the rules were outmatched by those who didn't. Bogus reviews, in short, hurt us and make Amazon a worse place to shop.

Did Amazon catch merchants, or was it pressured into it?

There are two ways of looking at what Amazon did. The first is that Amazon isn't afraid to punish companies that move a lot of merchandise to protect shoppers from deception.

ADVERTISEMENT

The less charitable view is that it appeared that Amazon ignored the problem for a long time. And it's not clear that Amazon discovered the problem on its own.

Recode reported that pressure from the Federal Trade Commission led to at least one of the seller suspensions. And a computer security recommendation website recently uncovered a database of Amazon merchants organizing payments in return for about 13 million glowing reviews. That disclosure happened just before the Amazon bans came down.

So what now?

I understand if you don't want to know how the online shopping sausage is made. Most of the time, buying stuff from Amazon and other reputable sites turns out just fine. (If you want to better protect yourself, here is some advice on how to shop safely and reliably.)

Kaziukėnas also suggested that it may be time to stop using reviews as a go-to way to gauge other people's opinions on products or services. "It's the internet," he said. "Nothing is real on the internet."

And that's the problem, isn't it? Wouldn't it be nicer if we could more confidently click "buy" without worrying that we've been misled? Shouldn't we demand more from Amazon, Yelp, TripAdvisor and Rotten Tomatoes to make sure that feedback is as trustworthy and transparent as possible? We shouldn't have to put up with fakes and frauds.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Ugh, so much crime: The insurance giant CNA Financial paid what may be a record sum, $40 million, to pay off criminals who locked up its computer networks in a ransomware attack, Bloomberg News reported. And my colleagues Nicole Perlroth and Adam Satariano wrote that Ireland's health system has been time warped back to the 1970s because of a ransomware attack.
  • When romance means hawking a pair of pajamas: A Chinese social media influencer promised his followers a live webcast of his wedding proposal. Instead, it was a five-hour home-shopping show. That crossed the line even for many Chinese internet users who expect product promotion with their entertainment, my colleague Tiffany May writes.
  • Does this take nostalgia way too far? NO! "Space Jam happened at a moment in time when the internet was still whispering its promise." This is a weird and lovely appreciation of the clunky old website for a ridiculous 1990s sports movie.

Hugs to this

The Durham Bulls minor league baseball team tweeted a photo of a dog wearing a tiny hat. It's adorable. So were the replies with MORE DOGS (and one happy looking reptile) wearing hats.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年5月20日 星期四

On Tech: An old conflict with digital twists

How the latest violence between Israelis and Palestinians encapsulates the best and worst of digital life.

An old conflict with digital twists

Daniel Zender

My colleague Sheera Frenkel has a unique perspective on what happens when the modern mechanics of the internet combine with an old conflict.

She reported from the Middle East for years, and now is assessing the influence of technology on the recent escalation of violence between Israelis and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Sheera this week reported on Israeli extremists organizing mob attacks on WhatsApp in novel and scary ways, and she wrote about false online claims and conspiracies that inflamed tensions. But the same social media and communications tools that some people have used as weapons are also giving people caught up in the violence a voice to share their experiences.

The latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict encapsulates the best and worst of digital life, and Sheera talked to me about the complexities.

Shira: What did you find unusual about the WhatsApp groups of Israeli extremists organizing violence against Palestinians?

Sheera: I was caught by surprise at just how explicit people were. They were doing things like setting a time and place to smash windows of Palestinian-owned businesses and coordinating to make sure they weren't targeting Israeli businesses by mistake.

Explicitly calling for violence against individuals tends to be a red line for Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, and other technology companies. They make a distinction between posting something general like "death to all men" and openly directing attacks against certain people.

How does this compare to other extremist violence online?

What I saw in the Israeli WhatsApp groups was a notch different from what we've seen in India or Myanmar or at the Capitol riot in January where people spread hate or misinformation online, but it wasn't targeted at individuals or businesses. I and people who study misinformation had never seen organized violence on social media or communications apps in quite this way.

Did you find extremist Palestinians using WhatsApp to organize their attacks, too?

There has been Palestinian violence against Israelis, but we didn't find online mobilization in the same way. One Israeli official told me, in dark humor, that there is so much surveillance of Palestinians by the Israeli police and security forces that WhatsApp mobs would be found before they had a single member.

ADVERTISEMENT

Who deserves blame? Are tech companies responsible for WhatsApp mobs and for false online claims that inflamed tensions between Israelis and Palestinians? Or are humans at fault?

Renée DiResta, a misinformation researcher, talks about human bias or fallacy as a foundation for false online narratives. While technology companies facilitate this, misinformation about this conflict and others take hold because people in positions of power on both sides share, endorse and accelerate ideas that denigrate people.

Many of my Palestinian and Israeli friends have been shocked by the violence that's happening among friends and neighbors. But humans are responsible for the hatred, and so are politicians who fail to effectively stop extremists from carrying out violence.

I expected you to blame Facebook and other tech companies more.

I mostly agree with tech companies' statements that technology is agnostic. It's not created to hurt people. And I'll give WhatsApp credit for taking measures like restricting how many times messages can be forwarded. That's a first step to keep misinformation and mob violence from spreading further and faster.

I feel like there's a "but" coming.

There is. Researchers and journalists find that we wind up being free research arms for Facebook and other rich companies. We find misinformation, hate speech and violent mobs organizing on their services. The company could have gone out and proactively looked for and found these extremist WhatsApp mobs, the way that I did.

ADVERTISEMENT

Compared with the prior violence that you've covered in the region, does it feel like social media is helping the world witness and understand what's happening?

At its best, social media gives us a window on the lives of other people and in their own voices. I saw that in Gaza in 2014 and again during the last two weeks with posts and videos that make you feel what it's like to be a Palestinian or an Israeli hiding from airstrikes or rockets.

It is helping the world understand, but I wonder if these people posting on social are sometimes speaking past one another. Palestinians mostly aren't making videos that are intended to show Israelis what their lives are like, and the same for Israelis. These people in close geographic proximity to each other largely aren't watching each other's lives.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • Maybe companies don't need to know everything about our lives to sell us cookware? About 94 percent of iPhone users in the United States have said no to being tracked across apps. Greg Bensinger, a member of The New York Times editorial board, says that advertising tailored to our online activities is both unwelcome and potentially a waste of money.
  • America is exporting vaccine misinformation: Misleading information about coronavirus vaccines that internet companies have blocked or flagged in the United States is now circulating in languages other than English, Bloomberg News reported (subscription may be required). It's a longstanding issue that social media sites are less capable of spotting sometimes dangerous information outside the United States or other rich countries.
  • Is that smartwatch good for your health? Body-worn gadgets that monitor people's heart rhythms sometimes detect potential cardiac dangers. But they can also mistakenly warn people that something is wrong, and doctors aren't sure whether they do more good than harm, Dr. Randi Hutter Epstein wrote for The New York Times.

Hugs to this

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. You can also read past On Tech columns.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018