Amazon have treated me appallingly

[highland145]

50 posts and the op needs castration (or something). Why are there 50 posts?

 

[mindless1]

That's closer to my Amazon Experience...

They offered forums and I posted on them. They did repeated mass bannings on the forums - everyone got the same form letter than after careful review they had made a 'spiteful' post, and were now banned from posting on Amazon - permanently. With previous posts and reviews removed for good measure.

So now, I can't go on Amazon and post a review, or post a question about a product. They've since gotten rid of their forums - no change.

This happened to me too, except first I got a "warning" email stating I had broken posting rules or something, when as of yet I had never once posted in their forum. It gave no details of what I had done. I sent a reply to that email asking what rule violation I was guilty of and got nothing so then I made my first ever post in their forum asking what was going on.

Just asking that in their forum was enough, perma-ban from posting. No details, just the same form email stating "spiteful posts". No appeal. However, they only deleted product listing posts I'd made for the last several years, not [at least] a decade worth before then.

 

[Cappuccino]

r.i.p

Claire Goldthorpe was last seen:

3d 5h ago

 

[highland145]

r.i.p

Claire Goldthorpe was last seen:

3d 5h ago

:hug;

 

[clamum]

If you only leave positive reviews you may appear to be a shill who is posting phony reviews.

Like others have been saying, she was probably getting paid to leave positive reviews (IMO). Cause it seemed weird to me that someone was so obsessed with their Amazon reviews. I mean, if Amazon deleted all of my reviews I'd be like "Huh. I thought I was being potentially helpful in leaving truthful reviews... but... meh, fuck it" and forget about it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Like others have been saying, she was probably getting paid to leave positive reviews (IMO). Cause it seemed weird to me that someone was so obsessed with their Amazon reviews. I mean, if Amazon deleted all of my reviews I'd be like "Huh. I thought I was being potentially helpful in leaving truthful reviews... but... meh, fuck it" and forget about it.

Possibly. I don't know though, that's still a shitty thing that would kinda make you feel like Amazon didn't value you, which after having spent tons of money there, would get a rile from most. I've seen people make a bigger deal out of even less stuff.

The thing is, I can't imagine that they'd dump someone over paid reviews (I think they had a policy where you'd just state you were given product or something), unless it was a blatant fake account and multiple accounts had been registered doing the same thing from the same IP.

I kinda wonder if their account wasn't compromised or something, and Amazon locked everything down (unfortunately that will likely mean they'll wash all of your reviews regardless, I don't know what their policy is).

My seller account was locked. Probably from not using it for years (they had a thing saying they'd done that to a lot of unused accounts at some point). I went to try to sell something and it wouldn't let me. Their fix was I'd have to make a new seller account, they couldn't do anything to reinstate mine. Which might be a good thing actually though (as it'd probably be a good idea to not have a seller and personal account linked since they sound like they'd be pretty quick to kick you to the curb for just about any reason unless you're a large company; of course they somehow can't do anything about the clearly fake/scam sellers like those just created listing an item for drastically less than the lowest used/new price clearly copy-pasted text saying to e-mail some account).

 

[mindless1]

The thing that most of you are getting wrong is trying to assume there must have been a legitimate reason why the posting ban happened. In an ideal world it would be nice to think that all moderators with that much power use it wisely but on amazon this is not the case. Their moderators seem overworked and will just choose to ban an account based on a complaint (from anyone) without investigation.

It's not the value of posting things (that ultimately benefit amazon) that matters, it's the principle. On the other hand, in my case I must have posted something a merchant didn't like, mentioning false or erroneous specs after a message to the merchant and the amazon notify feature didn't result in correction of product specs, which is a perpetuation of fraud. This is only my best guess, since there was no information, and it seems this is deliberate on their moderator's part.

Clearly Amazon has gotten too big to care about moral and legal rights and wrongs, whatever they can get away with seems to be the agenda. If that is not the agenda of corp then they are still negligent in policing the activities of their moderators who are on a power trip and ought to be fired. If they are overworked then shifting their troubles onto the customers is a bad PR situation.

This is going to snowball. People don't tolerate censorship so long as they're not rabid cursing lunatics that expect it.

 

[paperfist]

Wasn't there a guy who returned too many things, was appalled and later banned?

 

[Craig234]

Wasn't there a guy who returned too many things, was appalled and later banned?

They do have a secret limit on returns, after which they ban you, people have said.

 

[VirtualLarry]

They do have a secret limit on returns, after which they ban you, people have said.

Is that what happened to your keys?

Edit: Just giving you a gentle ribbing, Craig, don't take it the wrong way. My bathroom's a mess too.

 

[Mike64]

r.i.p

Claire Goldthorpe was last seen:

3d 5h ago

Wow, Amazon must've been really pissed off, huh?<weg>

 

[Mike64]

This is going to snowball.

If I had a $1 for every time I've seen someone say something along those lines that in a complaint about how they themselves have been treated by a company, I'd be posting this via telsat link from my own private island in the Caribbean... ETA: (Well, actually a small island somewhere in the Hawaiian archipelago would be my preference, if such things exist. But you get the idea...)

They do have a secret limit on returns, after which they ban you, people have said.

If they actually "ban" people rather than just stop letting them return things, it seems to me they're doing them a favor since they no doubt have some sort of severe compulsive issue that drives them to continue to buy stuff from a company they're obviously really very dissatisfied with. :hmm:

Most businesses, certainly all the bigger B&M stores I know of, "reserve the right to limit or refuse" returns they (in their "sole discretion") deem abusive; nor do any of them state a specific number or percentage of returns they consider "abusive". The latter for what I would've thought are obvious reasons,

And before I bother I start sympathizing with these allegedly-innocent bannees, I'd certainly want to know just how many things/what percentage of their purchases they returned over what period(s) of time, how long after purchase they returned them and the "reasons" for the returns, and what the relative percentages of outright refunds versus "exchanges" or re-purchases were...

 

[mindless1]

^ It's a bit different with Amazon in that it's censorship and you're continually reminded. I have left a fair # of reviews over the years and often get comments and questions emailed, to which I cannot reply.

It's also different in that I have no major complaints with Amazon except for these rogue mods who seem to have effectively insulated themselves from scrutiny. At most businesses you can talk to someone's supervisor and so on up the ladder.

Maybe I'm suffering from jilted lover syndrome because I love many things about amazon, the product selection, prices, reviews, their escalating empire of services and my proximity to a major warehouse and rapid delivery city. Those and that I was accused of wrongdoing but never told what. If you had a great relationship with a company (or person) then suddenly that ends for dubious reasons, wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of it? Then again I don't go around starting topics about it, but will post if someone else has a relevant topic.

Not sure why the topic is going off on the product return tangent since nobody [that I recall] has stated they were banned from product purchase or returns.

 

[Craig234]

^ It's a bit different with Amazon in that it's censorship and you're continually reminded. I have left a fair # of reviews over the years and often get comments and questions emailed, to which I cannot reply.

It's also different in that I have no major complaints with Amazon except for these rogue mods who seem to have effectively insulated themselves from scrutiny. At most businesses you can talk to someone's supervisor and so on up the ladder.

Ya, I contacted Jeff Bezos' office about this in addition to their customer service note I posted above, and it was no better terrible service. (His office is simply jeff@amazon.com).

 

[Paladin3]

^ It's a bit different with Amazon in that it's censorship and you're continually reminded. I have left a fair # of reviews over the years and often get comments and questions emailed, to which I cannot reply.

It's also different in that I have no major complaints with Amazon except for these rogue mods who seem to have effectively insulated themselves from scrutiny. At most businesses you can talk to someone's supervisor and so on up the ladder.

Maybe I'm suffering from jilted lover syndrome because I love many things about amazon, the product selection, prices, reviews, their escalating empire of services and my proximity to a major warehouse and rapid delivery city. Those and that I was accused of wrongdoing but never told what. If you had a great relationship with a company (or person) then suddenly that ends for dubious reasons, wouldn't you want to get to the bottom of it? Then again I don't go around starting topics about it, but will post if someone else has a relevant topic.

Not sure why the topic is going off on the product return tangent since nobody [that I recall] has stated they were banned from product purchase or returns.

Careful with that word "censorship." Amazon owns those servers and forums and service and have no responsibility to allow you to post there. They aren't censoring you in any way, they are simply refusing to allow you to use their servers and forums to spread your message. You are always free to publish your message, but nobody is forced to provide you a forum to do so or even listen to it. Go start your own forums, or stand out on the corner and shout your message from on high. It's easier to self-publish today than it ever has been in the history of nan, but it's not censorship because someone refuses to let you use their forums or services to do so.

 

[mindless1]

Careful with that word "censorship." Amazon owns those servers and forums and service and have no responsibility to allow you to post there. They aren't censoring you in any way, they are simply refusing to allow you to use their servers and forums to spread your message. You are always free to publish your message, but nobody is forced to provide you a forum to do so or even listen to it.

1. I never claimed anyone was forced to provide or listen.
2. They are censoring. Whether they have the right to or not, does not change what it is.
3. That they are censoring, does not mean anyone else is.

Go start your own forums, or stand out on the corner and shout your message from on high. It's easier to self-publish today than it ever has been in the history of nan, but it's not censorship because someone refuses to let you use their forums or services to do so.

As I already stated, I don't go around starting topics about it. It's not that important to me, but at the same time it is a slippery slope. If one major etailer starts doing it, then the next and so on, what good are customer posts if they censor away anything negative and provide a deceptive product misrepresentation? Some might argue that is borderline illegal in intent, though of course the legal system has quite a way to go to catch up to the internet.

Let's be clear that I did not participate in Amazon's forums until a single post after already warned, asking what the warning was. I was not cursing or other vulgarities, no spam, nothing off-topic, etc. I was not writing glowing product reviews like a shill would. I gave as many 3 star or below ratings as I did 5 star, and always explained what the issues were to earn the rating.

 

[Paladin3]

1. I never claimed anyone was forced to provide or listen.
2. They are censoring. Whether they have the right to or not, does not change what it is.
3. That they are censoring, does not mean anyone else is.



As I already stated, I don't go around starting topics about it. It's not that important to me, but at the same time it is a slippery slope. If one major etailer starts doing it, then the next and so on, what good are customer posts if they censor away anything negative and provide a deceptive product misrepresentation? Some might argue that is borderline illegal in intent, though of course the legal system has quite a way to go to catch up to the internet.

Let's be clear that I did not participate in Amazon's forums until a single post after already warned, asking what the warning was. I was not cursing or other vulgarities, no spam, nothing off-topic, etc. I was not writing glowing product reviews like a shill would. I gave as many 3 star or below ratings as I did 5 star.

I'm not debating anything to do with your experience with Amazon forums. I'm just saying that "censorship" is a loaded word. I am a former librarian and our profession has a history of fighting long and hard to stop the censoring of books and information in public libraries. Getting kicked off private forums for any reason, or no reason at all, doesn't rise to the level of censorship in the classic sense of the word that makes folks picket and protest (not that I am saying you are picketing or protesting, just using a word that is a little more loaded that you may intend it to mean.) Maybe you could use the term "banned from their forums" instead?

Or just do what you want. Maybe I'm trying to censor you, lol! But, IMHO, you come off at least a little outraged over it and I don't think it rises to the level of true censorship.

Edited: to remove irrelevant and possibly offensive comments.

 

[mindless1]

^ So no word that has been used in history can be used to refer to something on the internet? Sorry but no, it is censorship in the classic sense, that they wish to suppress my opinion, not due to the classic internet banning from things socially disruptive like trolling, spam, vulgarities, etc. It may not violate the law or be a complete global censorship but within Amazon's domain it is.

I am not outraged, just stating it like it is. You are being dramatic instead of sticking to the topic. Apparently you would like to censor me too, lol. If it is no big deal to you then I'm fine with that.

 

[Paladin3]

^ So no word that has been used in history can be used to refer to something on the internet? Sorry but no, it is censorship in the classic sense, that they wish to suppress my opinion, not due to the classic internet banning from things like trolling, spam, vulgarities, etc. It may not violate the law nor be a complete global censorship but within Amazon's domain it is.

I am not outraged, just stating it like it is. You are being dramatic instead of sticking to the topic. Apparently you would like to censor me too, lol.

I'm not sure Amazon banning you from their forums is censorship in the same way efforts to remove books on, say, evolution from public libraries is censorship. That's all I'm saying. Racism, Sexism, Censorship, Oppression and other words should be saved for the times they are really necessary. Almost everyone can agree that censorship is universally a bad thing that is worth fighting against. Folks who cry censorship when they are banned from an internet forum really are overstating what happened.

I'm out, no more replies. I'll let you get the last word in of you want, and have a great day.

 

[Craig234]

Careful with that word "censorship." Amazon owns those servers and forums and service and have no responsibility to allow you to post there. They aren't censoring you in any way, they are simply refusing to allow you to use their servers and forums to spread your message. You are always free to publish your message, but nobody is forced to provide you a forum to do so or even listen to it. Go start your own forums, or stand out on the corner and shout your message from on high. It's easier to self-publish today than it ever has been in the history of nan, but it's not censorship because someone refuses to let you use their forums or services to do so.

Sorry, you're the one who needs to better understand the word censorship. They are censoring people for no good reason - the fact it's on their servers doesn't change that.

They don't have to prevent him from communicating on ANY medium for it to be censorship - even one qualifies.

You're conflating two different things - whether it's censorship, and whether they have the legal right to not let him use their forums.

They're not the same thing. It is censorship, and they have the legal right to do it - which is different that the right and wrong of the issue.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not sure Amazon banning you from their forums is censorship in the same way efforts to remove books on, say, evolution from public libraries is censorship. That's all I'm saying. Racism, Sexism, Censorship, Oppression and other words should be saved for the times they are really necessary. Almost everyone can agree that censorship is a universally a bad thing that is worth fighting against. Folks who cry censorship when they are banned from an internet forum really are overstating what happened.

I'm out, no more replies. I'll let you get the last word in of you want, and have a great day.

Again, you're the one confused here. You are defining censorship far too narrowly, only as the 'worst cases' such as books on evolution.

Instead, understand what the word means. If I want to post on Anandtech that I think evolution is real and they delete the post, or if I post your home address and ask people to go hurt you and they delete the post, those are both censorship; one is a quite 'wrong' case, and one is a quite 'right' case - the latter being one you don't want to call censorship.

Instead of wrongly defining the word narrowly, discuss the merits of the censorship in question. People do too often have very wrong ideas about things like the first amendment and 'right to free speech' thinking the constitution gives them the right to use private forums when it doesn't, but that's not the issue here in your misguided limitations on the word 'censorship' as only the 'famous' cases.

 

[mindless1]

Racism, Sexism, Censorship, Oppression and other words should be saved for the times they are really necessary.

I don't recall making a call to arms and storming their headquarters. Take a word like "theft". It does not have to mean you stole someone's life savings. A minor theft is still theft.

Almost everyone can agree that censorship is universally a bad thing that is worth fighting against. Folks who cry censorship when they are banned from an internet forum really are overstating what happened.

Stating what happened is not overstatement. I was not dramatic except when I stated I love amazon for (xyz). Just as I am opposed to censorship, I am fully in support of you not reading my opinions if you don't want to.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Is that what happened to your keys?

Edit: Just giving you a gentle ribbing, Craig, don't take it the wrong way. My bathroom's a mess too.

That made no sense.

And I know what thread you're referencing, but still, makes no sense.

 

[Mike64]

I'm just saying that "censorship" is a loaded word.

No, it's really not. Among a few other vague, not entirely related notions, you're conflating "censorship" with "violating one's legal right to free speech", or its moral equivalent (which is a loaded phrase) in contexts where there is no legal protection of the rights provided for in the US Constitution's First Amendment.

But no one's claiming Amazon is violating their right to "free speech", which by definition only comes into play when (oversimplifying slightly) government actors do the censoring. They are (or more specifically mindless1 is) saying he's being "censored". Anyone with control over a medium of communication can "censor" people, usually it's perfectly legal, whether one likes it or not, and in many cases, most people actually don't have a problem with it, at least not when they agree with the "censor"...

 

[Perknose]

. . . and I'm certainly not one of the far-too-many people who believe themselves obligated to post reviews

[...]

I once had some of my reviews "hidden" by Amazon. But they were for books I had not bought on Amazon (or anywhere, thankfully, I'd borrowed them from my library)

[...]

For a while I totally boycotted Amazon reviews, not posting any at all

[...]

But eventually I got bored with that and started reviewing stuff again

I'm guessing self-awareness isn't your strong suit. j/k