时间:2025-04-03 10:44:51 来源:网络整理编辑:焦點
Want to understand the problem of fake news? Want to do it while seeing how much money you just got
Want to understand the problem of fake news? Want to do it while seeing how much money you just got schemed out of by Google, Amazon, or Facebook? Then take one look at the online holiday shopping bonanza: Massive corporations, peddling questionable information, to a public without sufficient tools to help separate the good from the bad.
Black Friday just gave way to Cyber Week, and now, the internet's lousy with "deals." Consumers have already spent over $5.3 billion online this shopping season, according to Adobe (which doesn't even account for weekend or Monday spending, which Adobe expects to add on another $3.4 billion). But how many people spent that money under the guise of getting a "great" deal, only to get an average (or even downright bad) deal?
Well, among the 22,000 deals the editors of consumer report site The Wirecutter looked at, only 100 of them qualified as "good."
That's around 0.5 percent.
Tweet may have been deleted
The sheer number of "deals" is mind-boggling, but consumers have different needs, and the internet's rush to meet them can be considered a good thing. The problem, however, is that ratio: 0.5 percent. Less than one-one hundredth. Barely a blip.
The average consumer is pretty much powerless to sort out good deals from bad buys when faced with those odds. And just like fake news, "deals" cost almost nothing to make, and have a huge upside: Profit. It's arguably better for the companies you're buying from on Black Friday or Cyber Monday to create 10 non-deals, than a single halfway decent one.
The ratio of quality news to fake news? Maybe better, but not by much. For every New York Timesor Washington Poststory, there are dozens more from the myriad of blogs (fake and legitimate) that have sprung up over the last few years of questionable value, and that's being kind.
Mirroring the fake news problem even further, tools have emerged to help steer consumers away from bad deals—sites like camelcamelcamel.com and The Wirecutter have become destinations for legitimate deal seekers, just like Politifact has for news readers pursing legitimate news. Yet, these tools can't compete with the power that Google, Amazon, and Facebook wield to fuel these bad deals. These giant platforms are easily gamed, and with it, the entire online shopping playing field.
Taken together, none of it's good for consumers. Even worse, none of it looks to be changing any time soon.
A recent study found that Google and Facebook accounted for all of the growth in online spending—with the rest of the industry seeing a small decline. A survey found Google and Amazon together are the starting point for 83% of product searches, while searches starting at retailers' own sites fell.
These tech titans aren't just spectators, here. They're actively shaping what you're shopping for, and then, when and where you're buying it. Just like the way Facebook and Google own a massive piece of digital news by directing users and monetizing content through ads, Google and Amazon together dominate online commerce with their search functions.
What unites the Facebook, Google, and Amazon the most, however, are their respective algorithms, through which they each carry out their own aims. These tech giants claim that their interests align with their users.
Let's be clear: They don't. At least, not by design. These companies have their own interests—and their shareholders' interests—at heart, first and foremost.
And those interests are directly served by algorithms that either keep your attention hostage, or direct you to what to buy. Tweak the algorithm, and people are spending more time, and more money. Which would be fine, if it produced a good result for consumers.
Which, clearly, it doesn't.
There's even a key psychological similarity between fake news and bad deals: They tell us what we want to hear.
Let's say I'm in the market to buy a camera. I've been shopping around for a while. Now, when I show up to Amazon, the first thing I see are cameras. Then, Amazon's Cyber Monday deal link for cameras serves up a Nikon COOLPIX B700 as the first option. Click on it, and it shows the price a $446.95, $50 lower than its "list price."
Without any outside knowledge, I'm supposed to think: Amazon is giving me the best deal for a camera on Cyber Monday, as of about 1 p.m. EST. According to the price tracker at camelcamelcamel.com, though? That's the same price the camera's been at for weeks.
Does that make it a fake deal? Amazon would argue that it isn't. But from where I stand, I surfed on to their Cyber Monday deals section, looking for what I wanted, and got an offer to buy it for $50 less than the "list price." In other words: Amazon told me exactly what I wanted to hear, in the language they know could get me to buy it.
Your Facebook feed works in a relatively similar fashion. You go to Facebook, and it knows what you like to read. It shows you whatever might be hot that day, and you'll usually give something on it a click. On Facebook, every day is Cyber Monday.
The good news? We know about these problems, and they're not unfixable. Smart, honest people are creating tools that give users with the information necessary to make informed decisions about what news they read, and what deals they buy into.
The bad news? None of these fixes even come close to the scale Amazon, Google and Facebook have. These companies have become so good at attracting, retaining and monetizing users that most of their users aren't even aware there's a problem—or they don't believe it when they're told.
This is why there's a growing fear that things will only get worse—and why public ire and government scrutiny's being directed at these companies. Unless there's a dramatic change on the internet, it's never going to stop being worth it for these companies to exploit massive numbers of users, by simply drowning out anything worthwhile.
The reason for optimism is that drastic change is something that the internet does reasonably well thanks in part to, as Ben Thompson puts it, "aggregation theory," which reasons that on the internet, "the most important factor determining success is the user experience: the best distributors/aggregators/market-makers win by providing the best experience, which earns them the most consumers/users, which attracts the most suppliers, which enhances the user experience in a virtuous cycle."
That's how Facebook, Google and Amazon came to be what they are, and why they continue to grow. And it's why, hopefully, something better will come along once this problems get sufficiently bad.
TopicsAmazonFacebookGoogle
How Hyperloop One went off the rails2025-04-03 10:30
厄瓜多爾媒體:布萊頓為凱塞多標價1億鎊,此前利物浦曼聯均有意2025-04-03 10:25
廣州隊海報展示夏窗新援:鄭智C位 多名前國腳在列2025-04-03 10:24
馬卡 :馬競不接受熱刺講價卡拉斯科,不掏6000萬歐解約金就免談2025-04-03 10:19
WhatsApp announces plans to share user data with Facebook2025-04-03 10:11
勝負彩22100期推薦:曼城巴黎輕取三分2025-04-03 09:59
馬卡:馬競不接受熱刺講價卡拉斯科 ,不掏6000萬歐解約金就免談2025-04-03 09:34
邁尼昂 :皮奧利每天都跟球員交流,他給我們傳遞積極的感覺2025-04-03 09:03
This company is hiring someone just to drink all day2025-04-03 08:59
隊報記者 :摩納哥中衛迪薩西不會在今夏加盟巴黎2025-04-03 08:14
There's a big piece of fake chicken stuck to this phone case2025-04-03 10:22
主帥終結者!英超首位下課主帥誕生 ,利物浦6年讓6位主帥遭解雇2025-04-03 10:13
廣州隊還將帶來驚喜?鄭智已經說服數位老將回到球隊工作2025-04-03 10:00
阿賈克斯主教練:梅西是絕對領袖!當他賽前說話時所有人都聽著 !2025-04-03 09:54
Slack goes down again, prompting anxiety everywhere2025-04-03 09:53
意甲:森索羅vsAC米蘭2025-04-03 09:48
從阿森納VS熱刺,到水晶宮VS布倫特 ,這就是英超你死我活的倫敦德比!2025-04-03 08:58
梅西這一數據冠絕五大聯賽 :4輪聯賽16次過人成功,成“過人王”2025-04-03 08:41
Chinese gymnastics team horrifies crowd with human jump rope2025-04-03 08:28
AC米蘭隊史今天:1992年8月30日巴斯滕+馬薩羅破門 ,第2次獲得意大利超級杯2025-04-03 08:24