It’s presumptuous to say that I know how to run a giga-trillion, global company who outpaced Kuwait’s GDP this year. I do not know how to do that. I also do not know how to launch things into outer space, deliver anything by a drone or how to even hotwire a van. I do know, however, not to bite the hand that feeds me and expect to keep eating.

Amazon is a collective of millions of sellers. We’d like to think of it as one, ginormous factory, but it’s not. Over 60% of its sales are sourced from individuals. They actually fabricate very little. They store and fulfill and market, but they don’t really make stuff.

I’m a huge fan of open source anything. But not when it makes one company god-like in their economic power. Which is why I found this recent article in the Financial Times so disturbing. I don’t know what to hate more: Amazon’s arrogance or opportunistic lawyers.

According to the Financial Times, sellers on Amazon’s marketplace account for more than 60% of sales. It received $96bn in commissions and fees paid by sellers in nine months.

During the first half of 2023 in its EU store, Amazon took 274mn “actions” in response to potential policy violations and other suspected problems, which included the removal of content and 4.2mn account suspensions. Amazon revealed the numbers as part of its first European transparency report newly required by EU law.

Financial Times

I don’t think that selling knock-off Chanel bags is a good business model even if profits are insanely high. It’s illegal and you will be caught (perhaps) and forced to pay back that profit (kinda). A lawsuit is defined as “compelling action otherwise incomplete.”

It’s a no-brainer from a corporation’s point of view: we give you the playing field, but we’ll keep changing the rules.

The acceptance of the words “gig economy” make me recoil. It really is just usery. The proposition works like this:

• You’re temporary and will be replaced
  
• You have no benefits
• You are not an employee
• You will depend on us/our platform/our payment descisions.

It is a weird argument to say that Amazon Sellers are “autonomous” or even “independent” since their entire business depends upon Amazon’s platform. Perhaps it’s the goal of independent wealth or the now-past “it’s-too-good-to-be-true” internet goldrush. There are heavy consequences. On average, sellers on Amazon realize less than 40% of potential profit, less when taking into account ancillary services such as advertising and “placements.” This means nothing when the platform simply disappears.

Amazon has a reputation for being an asshole arbiter. It simply suspends accounts that are in “violation.” The problem with this is that “violations” are never explained or defined. Ed. note: to be clear, I’ve never been an Amazon seller.