The platform company playbook: ignore abuses of the platform; leave it to customers/users, journalists, and 3rd parties to police harmful activities; wait until there's an outcry take stuff down. In other words, externalize the costs and keep the profits. cnbc.com/2019/10/20/ama… 
Amazon has defended against lawsuits by arguing that it isn't the seller. But this is disingenuous:
–Amazon advertises itself to customers as a 1-stop shop
–It makes its own brand way more prominent than the seller's
–Amazon doesn't even know the seller's identity in many cases!
–Amazon advertises itself to customers as a 1-stop shop
–It makes its own brand way more prominent than the seller's
–Amazon doesn't even know the seller's identity in many cases!
Does the practice of burdening users and journalists with the responsibility of policing platforms sound familiar? It should, because many other companies operate that way.
Here's a story making the rounds about Airbnb's hilarious failures in cracking down on fraudsters.
Let's not forget: it's not just Airbnb. Standard operating procedure for platform companies is to let users and journalists do their dirty work for them.
Let's not forget: it's not just Airbnb. Standard operating procedure for platform companies is to let users and journalists do their dirty work for them.
Thought experiment🤔
–Privacy & disinfo on FB
–Product safety/quality control on Amazon
–Fraud on sharing platforms
–Worker/contractor rights across the board
If forced to internalize these costs, which platform co's would survive?
How much of disruption relies on lax regulation?
–Privacy & disinfo on FB
–Product safety/quality control on Amazon
–Fraud on sharing platforms
–Worker/contractor rights across the board
If forced to internalize these costs, which platform co's would survive?
How much of disruption relies on lax regulation?
