Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Facebook Medicine

Amazon Bans 1 million Products Over Coronavirus Claims (siliconvalley.com) 67

Posted by EditorDavid from the worse-than-bad-reviews dept.
"Amazon has pulled more than 1 million items from its digital shelves due to claims that the products could either cure or help prevent the spread of coronavirus," reports SiliconValley.com: The move comes during the same week that Facebook said it would ban advertisements on its platform for products purporting to cure or curtail the spread of the virus that has so far infected more than 80,000 people, and results in almost 3,000 deaths, mostly in China. Amazon said has been taking the products in question down throughout the month... "Amazon has always required sellers provide accurate information on product detail pages and we remove those that violate our policies," said an Amazon spokesperson, in a statement given to this news organization.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Bans 1 million Products Over Coronavirus Claims More

Amazon Bans 1 million Products Over Coronavirus Claims

Comments Filter:
  • Look at the prices of hand sanitizer on Amazon. They have other issues.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      I looked at the MSDS for Purell to be sure: the active ingredient is alcohol. Other ingredients included in some sanitizers are *antibacterials* and useless in this situation.

      You can make your own sanitizer by combining six parts 99% alcohol and four parts hand soap, although rubbing alcohol is disappearing from stores too.

      Most people don't need sanitizer, they just need to wash their hands thoroughly for about 20 seconds. Schools where you're dealing with snotty kids all day long are probably an exceptio

      • antimicrobials keep the hand sanitizer a little more shelf stable. While a sanitizer may have about 70% ethyl alcohol in them, they're are molds and fungus that can tolerate dilute alcohol and contaminate products kept in storage for a long time.

        You'd want 150 proof vodka if you're going to wash up with it, and that's not really all that cheap. The 80 proof vodka is not strong enough to make a difference, soap and water is better, even a wet wipe is probably better than 40% alcohol. As a key ingredient in w

      • Your ratio is off. Should be at least 7:3 (or 3:1) if you are starting with 99% alcohol.

        Also, hand soap isn't your best bet if you are hoping for a no-rinse solution. You would be better off with Carbopol as a gelling agent. Since you aren't taking it internally, you can use one of the commonly available "cosmetic" grades, rather than one of the pharmaceutical/excipient grades, which are much harder to find in small quantities. Carbopol comes in dozens or hundreds of varieties - probably just about any

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      That's Amazon's price mechanism at work. Go to your grocery store, they're having sales for bulk packages right now capitalizing on the media circus around it.

    • Classic panic then price gouging. Of course, there is a million other things that have been around forever that is dangerous to your health and contaminates every surface around you. You have a far greater chance of getting struck by lightning than picking up the Corona virus from a toilet seat.

    • "Look at the prices of hand sanitizer on Amazon. They have other issues."

      Look at the prepper meals, they went from 139 to 239 for 20 day package days ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      Same for face masks!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Amazon's problem is 3rd party sellers. Some jackass lists a popular $2 item at $150. Then, when thousands of items sell at $2, when they sell out, the product placement is top of the list as "popular", and only the $150 price is listed.

      There is reasonably priced hand sanitizer on Amazon, you just have to work to find it. It's Amazon's search result product placement's problem, not an inventory problem.

      Equate Hand Sanitizer is popular and shows up in searches, and is now sold out of all low-cost options
  • Over a million?
  • Oh, they managed what's on their servers for once? That's great. They're fucking heroes.

    I think the laws in the US really need to be changed. This idea that people can attach a server to the Internet, and then have no responsibility for what's on it, is insane. It's already caused tremendous damage to society, and it's not going to get any better without some laws and some enforcement.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think the laws in the US really need to be changed.

      Yeah, but you Democrats always say that. Regulate everything, make laws about everything.
      Never once consider solving the actual problem, but make damn sure there are unintended consequences.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Here's the thing though. Where you have profitable corporate misbehavior, if you don't regulate it, the public responds with litigation. The popularity of the anti-regulation ideology in the US is why the US has the highest litigation rate per capita in the world.

        You can't escape unintended consequences. Either you regulate, and face the unintended consequences of government meddling, your de-regulate, and face the unintended consequences of corporate misbehavior. So neither regulation nor de-regulation s

      • How do you solve having a naive, uneducated population that believes any bullshit on the internet on short notice?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          So a fraudulent claim is the problem of an uneducated populous? And the fix is probably less school, right?

          Prosecute fraudulent claims as the crime they are, and you'll see fewer fraudulent claims.

          The problem is the government requires a consumer spend billions to prosecute a trillion dollar company in civil court, before they enforce the laws against corporations.

          • Nah, fraudulent claims can be made anywhere. They're not to blame on an educated populous.

            Believing them is. And the long term fix for that is a better education, but that's not going to help today.

            Also, prosecuting fraudulent claims is harder than you might think if they are made in Generistan, a country that laughs in your face if you ask them for aid in prosecution for crimes they actually consider crimes, let alone crimes that they don't even consider any because it doesn't even in the slightest affect

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AK Marc ( 707885 )
              Your argument is "fraud is good, dumb people deserve to die"

              In many countries, the company making the claim must be able to prove it, or it's considered a fraudulent claim. It's a real shame the US hates the truth so much.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        That's what the Republicans say as well. It's just "litigate everything". Both parties want to regulate everything. It's just that the Democrats want it regulated in an impartial way, where the government steps in when abuses exist. The Republicans want it regulated where the government decides the outcome through lawsuits, where the rich dictate the results.
    • Clearly false medical claims like this are one thing.

      But let's not go too far with banning stuff. Sometimes I want to buy stuff with sharp edges that have useful purposes even if they take some responsibility to use and certain people hurt themselves.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I'm not suggesting that anything is banned. I'm saying that Amazon and whoever else needs to be 100% responsible for what happens on their servers, whether it's child porn, people selling fraudulent products, or whatever.
        • So basically you want every single user submission on every single site prescreened for whether it violates local law?

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by DogDude ( 805747 )
            So basically you want every single user submission on every single site prescreened for whether it violates local law?

            Yes. Whether a site decides to take "user submissions" is up to them. Do you let any random person into your house, and allow them to do whatever they'd like inside your house, and expect no legal ramifications?

            • So are the site administrators then held to the local law where the server is located, or the laws local to the user who updated the content? Both? What if the laws in each locality are contradictory?

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by DogDude ( 805747 )
                Those are good questions. I don't know. People with more time and expertise than I have should do some thinking about it. I do know that the current system isn't working. We've got massive disinformation among regular people, that is literally collapsing governments, and of course, we have rampant crime and fraud that is largely uncontrollable.

                Again, the idea that "I can put a computer on the Internet and what people do with it is none of my concern" seems completely insane to me, yet that's what's

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AK Marc ( 707885 )
                In practice, a multi-jurisdictional system requires you be held to the most stringent law that applies. In general, this means that if your servers are in Saudi Arabia, your admins in Somalia, and your user in Germany, you must satisfy EU privacy protections, Somali and Saudi rules on content. So if you host girlie pictures, the Saudi Arabians may sentence you to death, and apply for extradition. You have some protections if you don't host a server, but instead use a service that moves stuff around, but

            • At least I don't have to take into account the laws of some backwards country that would have me stoned if two people fucked in my house that ain't married.

          • So basically you want every single user submission on every single site prescreened for whether it violates local law?

            Of COURSE not -- just the ones I'd be offended by. Oh, and my mood occasionally changes as well.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        If I call lawn darts a personal protection device, can I still buy them?

    • And yet the law that says service owners aren't responsible for the actions of their users is the only thing that allows you to make stupid comments like this here.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I don't make comments that are illegal or would cause any liability to this web site's ownership. If the ability to post random comments on random websites without the web sites moderation would go away, I think it would be a massive improvement in the Internet. Massive.

        • All user generated content would go away. The web would finally become the dystopian nightmare our corporate overlords desire: a one-way pipeline to feed their products directly into our eyeballs. The new cable television.

          Thankfully shortsighted people like you aren't making the decisions yet.

          • All user generated content would go away.

            Huh? The entire Internet is "user generated content". Literally anybody can create web sites. I've got a few. My spouse has got one.
    • Yeah, the Russians need to be following U.S. law. Because Freedom....

  • for stopping all these frauds and misinformation. Right now the only real cure for COVID-19 is Forsythia. Big Farma wants to keep it secret so you buy their expensive shit, but you can still get it at my store [covid19-cure.me].

    • I've got that growing in my back yard, do I need to worry that someone might cut it all down and steal it? Damn I hope so, I hate it.

      Either that or I will be saved! and filthy rich!

      • Definitely watch out for the big pharma goons. I'd definitely consider purchasing life insurance!

  • Is This Price Gouging? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've got a few 3M N95 9211 Particulate Respirators left over from Burning Man. They are certified by the CDC/NIOSH for that purpose and appear on that organization's website. If I list them on Ebay for auction (not fixed price) with a starting price at their original purchase price and make no claims whatsoever about their efficacy for other purposes, is it price gouging if buyers, of their own volition, bid up the masks beyond their original purchase price?

    • > If I list them on Ebay for auction (not fixed price) with a starting price at their original purchase price and make no claims whatsoever about their efficacy for other purposes, is it price gouging if buyers, of their own volition, bid up the masks beyond their original purchase price?

      "Price gouging" is the term people use when they don't like the Law of Supply and Demand and they want to disincentiveize people from addressing the Demand side of the curve. So, yeah, it's "price gouging" if they don't

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Supply and demand only works when there is an equality of information on both sides, and in the absence of a monopoly.

        Supply and demand doesn't work for most things. Where it does "work", it still doesn't work. Milk is mostly inelastic. As the price rises, demand holds mostly steady. if the price dropped to $0.01 tomorrow, demand would not increase to near infinite, as supply and demand demands. It is perishable, and limited in consumption. So a lower price doesn't see a large increase in consumption
    • If the stupid hysteria is still prevalent when I return from holidays in 2 weeks I will be putting on ebay the ~40ish 3M N95 masks I have which are left over from the Australian Bushfires. I will also put them up at a starting price of what I paid for em. I won't intentionally gouge but if someone is stupid enough to pay excessively for them I am not going to stop them.

  • Oh Facebook... (Score:3)

    by phalse phace ( 454635 ) on Sunday March 01, 2020 @01:41PM (#59784626)

    The move comes during the same week that Facebook said it would ban advertisements on its platform for products purporting to cure or curtail the spread of the virus

    Facebook will take down ads for products that purport (lie) to cure or curtail the spread of coronavirus, but they won't take down political ads that lie [slashdot.org]. SMH

    • It makes sense from a point of reasonable expectations. Lying in a product ad means that the product doesn't work as a reasonable customer would expect. Lying in a political ad means that politics works as a reasonable voter would expect.

    • I think that's the right policy to take.

      It's relatively easy to point to a product's claimed medical benefits as likely bogus due to lack of having gone through the actual process we have for developing and testing drugs, and failing to do this causes a number of direct and measurable harms.

      Political lies, however, are a lot more murky. There's a very blurry line between each of true, mostly true, partially true, true in a sense, and outright false. There are often claims that are true from a certain

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close