Google Accidently Revealed As eBay Critic

Xiroth writes "In what could cause an escalation of tensions between the two internet giants, an anonymous critique of eBay's upcoming move to accepting only PayPal as the payment method in Australia has accidently been revealed to have been submitted by Google thanks to PDF meta-tags."

Comments

Heh

[dreamchaser]

I think it's funny that the PDF dissapeared shortly after the discovery, only to be reposted with the incriminating metadata stripped out hours later. That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag.

Did anyone NOT think that Google astroturfs like all the rest? They just got busted at it is all.

Re:Heh

[elnico]

If you pay attention, you'll notice that the "brazen reposting" was done by the ACC, not Google.

And I don't see this as astroturfing. Posting anonymously is different from posting under a fake identity. Not to mention they're both tangential to whether or not Google has a point in their submission.

Re:Heh

[bit01]

And I don't see this as astroturfing. Posting anonymously is different from posting under a fake identity.

Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud.

Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.

Companies should have no right of anonymity and it's about time the law caught up with them. All communication by corporate entities should be clearly identified as such. Corporations have a privileged legal position and with that privilege comes responsibility. In particular, transparency and accountability.

Think it doesn't matter? It does, or they wouldn't do it.

Corporate tools will claim that readers will not give them a fair hearing if they post under the corporate name. Well hello, guess why. If corporations were trustworthy they wouldn't have a problem.

Others will claim that the message should be evaluated independent of the messenger. Self serving nonsense, context is very important in evaluating the veracity of a message.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Heh

[pclminion]

Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud. Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.

People should be jailed for speaking anonymously? Exactly which Godwin reference were you shooting for?

I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[poeidon1]

so does it really prove that the document came from Google? Of course, they might be the one but who knows...

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[dotancohen]

Why do you people on slashdot keep on repeating the same sentences, are you Bor You must be new here.

RTFA

[IronMagnus]

For all of you saying this was Google's mess up... please RTFA:

The Australian competition watchdog has accidentally revealed Google as the anonymous source of a submission that is highly critical of eBay's proposal to force its users onto the PayPal payments system.

Google didn't mess up, the watchdogs did.

Time for google to step up

[ArchieBunker]

They have a payment system and the technical capabilities, time for Google Auctions. Fuck ebay.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

It's not unethical. What is unethical is not allowing users to use any other form of payment (aside from COD). Why would an online merchant who already has a merchant gateway (credit card processing) account have to pay PayPal's ridiculous fees? There is absolutely zero technical reason for the prohibition, and aside from check/MO/cashier's check fraud, adds zero to the overall safety of transactions.

They are the defacto monopoly in the online auction space, and are using that weight to shut out competitors in another market (payment processing.)

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

You mean you were weren't offering a full refund, or you weren't offering returns? Dude, What kind of sham operation were you running? There are lots of cases where no returns is appropriate and there is NOTHING ethically wrong with a no returns policy as long as it is disclosed up front. No one HAS to buy from you and with a no returns policy you should expect to get less money given the risk the buyer is taking. Lots of real world vendors do it every day. If you don't like the policy, don't buy from that vendor.

Certain types of clothing is an obvious case where a no refund policy (think used underwear... ick) is highly appropriate. Likewise second hand, already opened software or music is another. There are also situations like selling items on consignment where it is impractical to offer a return policy due to insufficient margins. But even beyond all that, if a vendor wants to sell something with a no return policy that is their right just as it is your right not to buy from them.

Nobody expects you to be walmart (though many Americans think that?) and take broken crap back, but if the item hasn't even been opened, you should be taking it back and deducting the shipping fee. Actually buyers DO expect you to be Wal*Mart and that's the problem. If the seller actually got the shipping fee back on returns that would be fine but with PayPal they do not. PayPal does NOT refund shipping EVER. As a seller I am NOT willing to eat a $10 to $100 shipping fee (depending on the item being shipped) just so someone can on a whim decide they don't like something. That's a fast way to lose a ton of money. Furthermore I've experience countless cases where someone shipped back merchandise they broke (not the carrier) and PayPal gave them their money back without the slightest effort to verify the condition of the merchandise. Wal*Mart makes billions and can afford to accept returns for any reason. That rarely describes sellers on eBay.

"Bad buying experience" is caused entirely by sellers who want an easy way to ditch customer service in favor of keeping more of the profit Try actually running a real business someday before making such a ridiculous statement. "More profit"? Try ANY profit. It is extremely difficult to make ANY profit selling on eBay. A no questions asked return policy on top of 7-10% eBay/PayPal fees and non-reimbursed shipping costs is a good way to go out of business fast. Furthermore there are at LEAST as many scummy buyers as there are scummy sellers on eBay. I've seen every scam in the book first hand as a seller and you're going to tell me it's all the sellers fault? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[zippthorne]

Indeed, the infrastructure is already there.

But, we really just need a web-host with a number of decent templates for various items, and a strict classifying scheme to promote good searching. The "auction" bit is a nice gimmick, but search capabilities are more useful.

For instance, you shouldn't have to do a text search for laptops and manually filter out all the laptop accessories. You should be able to drill down your requirements until what remains is a number of laptops that meet your requirements with varying prices and optional stuff that might help your decision, but isn't strictly necessary.

eBay doesn't even do this very well and that's their core business. The auction bit is a nice gimmick, and has some utility in establishing market price for items you're not sure about, but an improved version of craigslist (even one where you pay for the listings) would be an eBay killer.

Anonymous to avoid ad-hominem

[mlwmohawk]

The problem with Google's posting of an opinion, that many probably agree with, is that the use of ad-hominem is so prevalent and accepted that, these days, it is impossible to state something factual and verifiable, or reasonable and well thought out, without it being automatically colored by what people's perceptions of your motives might be.

People have just given up even attempting to think. They judge quickly based on sound bites and prejudices, they no longer contemplate the validity of an argument before forming an opinion.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

De facto: in actuality, if not actual legal definition. Market share is a key indicator of monopoly status. Using that market share to create an artificial barrier to entry (into payment processing, not auction sites) is an abuse of that status.

To put it another way, requiring use of PayPal could easily be argued to amount to unlawful bundling of a service that is not strictly necessary to eBay's auction business.

Granted this is all from a US legal standpoint, rather than an Australian one.

Network effects

[sjbe]

The definition of "monopoly" is not "large and popular". There are thousands of online auction sites. There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field. EBay has one of the most formidable barriers to entry there is, namely network effects. Sellers go to eBay because that is where the buyers are and vice-versa. The barriers to entry if you want to compete with eBay are HUGE. Amazon.com and Yahoo both tried and failed miserably to make a dent in eBay's auction business and they have all the capital and IT talent necessary already. Like it or not, eBay has a de-facto monopoly on online auctions to the same extent Microsoft has one on operating systems.

The only downside is those other sites don't have as many users as eBay, but there are ways around that if you really dislike eBay. That's pretty much the one disadvantage that actually matters. The ENTIRE point of a marketplace is to bring buyers and sellers together. No one brings more buyers and sellers together than eBay - in fact there isn't even a close second. As someone who has conducted over 10,000 online auctions let me tell you, if you want to use any site other than eBay except for very specialized items (like guns) even if you sell your item at all off eBay you aren't likely to get a good price or many interested buyers.