> since we're now also dependent on it for enforcement
This, I think, is the root of the problem. In the case that Amazon takes control of the situation (you don't really have a relationship with the third party seller; you have a relationship with Amazon), then despite what they claim, they should be held legally responsible.
In the UK we have a legal concept of "vicarious liability". An employer is liable for an employee's actions, regardless of culpability. The employee could be in breach of all agreements and instructions from its employer, yet the employer is still liable. We also have harassment laws. These should be extended to allow victims to hold Amazon liable as if they're a first party in the case that their "third party" sellers are untouchable (as they usually are). Amazon (and other companies) shouldn't be allowed to act as a middleman without also taking on that liability. It should be up to them to recover their costs from the third party, not the consumer.
This would correctly incentivize the big players to ensure that their third party sellers behave. Instead, what we have right now is a legal system that allows them to effectively collude to shirk that responsibility entirely.
> then despite what they claim, they should be held legally responsible.
I fully agree with this. There is a great deal of distrust in contemporary society, because those who hold the power do everything they can to avoid being held responsible. And because they hold the power, they are able to do it. If these parasites want a civilisation to be parasitical off, they will need to shape up.
However, it needs to be careful legal responsibility. Otherwise you just end up with the Google problem. Google will arbitrarily shut down an account for no apparent reason and no clear possibility of appeal or even explanation. So aside from being responsible for the bad actors they choose not to exclude, they should also be responsible for the actors they unfairly or disproportionately exclude. Probably it means their current business models become unviable, but that's fine.
> So aside from being responsible for the bad actors they choose not to exclude, they should also be responsible for the actors they unfairly or disproportionately exclude.
I entirely agree. I think that this could be made quite general: when a private entity is in a position of gatekeeping a large proportion of a market (say, 30%), then it should automatically have a universal service obligation - unable to arbitrarily choose not to do business with those it finds inconvenient. "Fired" customers should have legal recourse under the universal service obligation. Abuse (by a fired customer) would be an acceptable reason to fire that customer, but the business would have to demonstrate abuse to a legal standard of proof.
Business owners might consider this to be an unfair burden. I see it from a socialist perspective: if you're a big player, that's the burden you must bear in order for the market to remain a fair place to do business.
This, I think, is the root of the problem. In the case that Amazon takes control of the situation (you don't really have a relationship with the third party seller; you have a relationship with Amazon), then despite what they claim, they should be held legally responsible.
In the UK we have a legal concept of "vicarious liability". An employer is liable for an employee's actions, regardless of culpability. The employee could be in breach of all agreements and instructions from its employer, yet the employer is still liable. We also have harassment laws. These should be extended to allow victims to hold Amazon liable as if they're a first party in the case that their "third party" sellers are untouchable (as they usually are). Amazon (and other companies) shouldn't be allowed to act as a middleman without also taking on that liability. It should be up to them to recover their costs from the third party, not the consumer.
This would correctly incentivize the big players to ensure that their third party sellers behave. Instead, what we have right now is a legal system that allows them to effectively collude to shirk that responsibility entirely.