Been duped on Facebook and Amazon’s platforms? Well, you’re not alone | John Naughton

Allowing third parties access to the online giants is as risky as it is profitable

Digital networks have two significant properties: they can expand very rapidly, given the right conditions, and, if they do grow, powerful network effects kick in very quickly. A network effect is the phenomenon whereby the value of a network increases according to the number of people using it. In the 1980s, Bob Metcalfe tried to quantify the multiplier effect of additional users with what became known as Metcalfe’s law, which says that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users. A network with 10 users has a value of 100, but one with a thousand users has a value of a million (1,000 squared).

Ever since the web arrived, the overriding mantra of online entrepreneurs has been “get big fast”: recruit users or customers as quickly as possible to get to the point where the network effect kicks in and discourages potential competitors. For most of the successful firms, the way to achieve this was to offer free services. This was the route chosen by Google and, later, Facebook and YouTube. For Amazon, growth was achieved by low prices, efficient dispatch, good customer service, prompt delivery and a colossal inventory.

But because capitalism never knows when to stop, eventually even the exponential growth rate promised by Metcalfe’s law wasn’t good enough for Google and co. They noticed Reed’s law, which said that if a network can have sub-groups then its utility can grow at an even more colossal rate. And so they began to turn themselves into platforms on which entrepreneurs could build services. A platform in this sense is a set of tools provided by the owner to enable third-party developers to create applications that interact with core features of the platform (thereby keeping users within the network to leave monetisable data trails).

The two companies that made the most of this idea were Amazon and Facebook. In 2000, Jeff Bezos launched Amazon Marketplace, a platform that enabled third-party sellers to sell goods on the company’s platform. In 2007, Facebook unveiled its “Facebook Platform for developers of social applications”.

Both of these initiatives prospered mightily. More than half of Amazon’s annual sales now come from third-party sellers. And because it’s easy to become a seller, huge numbers do. One report reckons that more than a million joined in 2017 alone. Facebook had only 20 million users when it launched its platform in 2007. It proved a turning point for the company; the resulting surge in third-party services (online games, quizzes, dating apps, etc) turbocharged user growth and took it to where it is today – with 2.4 billion users.

Three cheers for platforms, then? Er, not quite. For years, there have been reports of how scammers thrive on Amazon Marketplace. The formula was simple: sign on as a seller; list various items at bargain-basement prices; take the orders and claim that you have shipped the goods; receive payment from Amazon (always a prompt and efficient payer) within two weeks; then scamper before the angry feedback arrives. For years, Amazon has played whack-a-mole with these crooks, with limited success because it’s a truly sisyphean task.

But last week, a different challenge emerged. An investigation by the Wall Street Journal claimed that Amazon had “ceded control of its site” with the result that it was carrying thousands of banned, unsafe or mislabelled products. “Just like tech companies that have struggled to tackle misinformation on their platforms,” said the Journal, “Amazon has proven unable or unwilling to effectively police third-party sellers on its site.”

Sound familiar? It was Cambridge Analytica’s exploitation of Facebook’s platform, remember, that led to the current crises assailing the Zuckerberg empire. The company’s initial response to the Observer’s exposure of the scandal was that CA was simply a bad actor exploiting an innocent platform. Amazon has responded more maturely to the WSJ revelations saying that it’s doing its best, which I’m sure it is.

But in both cases the moral is the same. As the tech analyst Benedict Evans summarised it last week in his newsletter: when you let anyone on Earth on to your platform, that includes bad people. “Conceptually,” Evans says, “this is no different to what’s been happening on Facebook or YouTube, except now it’s lead in children’s toys instead of Jihadi videos”. He’s right: tech platforms are double-edged swords. The problem is that the companies that live by them don’t die by them.

What I’m reading

The science of sleaze
Why were so many scientists apparently charmed by Jeffrey Epstein? Katha Pollitt has an interesting essay in the Nation.

Search that
Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan do a terrific demolition job on Google’s excuses on tracking protection on the Freedom to Tinker blog .

Connecticut controversy
Palladium has a scarifying critique of Yale by Natalia Dashan. But I suspect it could apply to most Ivy League colleges, all of which are hedge funds with nice universities attached.


John Naughton

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
All I want for 2021 is to see Mark Zuckerberg up in court | John Naughton
The tech giants’ law-free bonanza is coming to an end on both sides of the Atlantic, but let’s speed up the process

John Naughton

02, Jan, 2021 @4:00 PM

Article image
Have the tech giants finally had their bubble burst? I’d hate to speculate | John Naughton
For the first time in the tech industry’s history, combined real revenue growth is negative rather than positive and some corporations may yet be facing an existential decline

John Naughton

06, Aug, 2022 @3:00 PM

Even Google won't be around for ever, let alone Facebook

In the world of internet technology a company can go from zero to hero in a very short time, writes John Naughton

John Naughton

03, Mar, 2013 @12:04 AM

Article image
Theresa May thinks Facebook will police itself? Some hope
The PM has joined the social media ‘techlash’, but only new laws, not pious aspirations, will make a difference

John Naughton

11, Feb, 2018 @7:00 AM

Article image
If you think Biden's administration would rein in big tech, think again | John Naughton
The US president-elect is reported to have appointed former employees of Facebook and Amazon to his transition team

John Naughton

21, Nov, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
If the UK really wants to be a sovereign nation, it should stand up to big tech | John Naughton
The government has come up with a clever new way of regulating the digital marketplace – but will it ever become law?

John Naughton

12, Dec, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
Jeff Bezos has his shops, so now Mark Zuckerberg wants a whole town | John Naughton
Strange how history repeats itself. Amazon is following the model of Sears Roebuck, and Facebook seems to have taken a page out of a railroad tycoon’s book

John Naughton

01, Oct, 2017 @6:00 AM

Article image
Software engineer David Auerbach: ‘Big tech is in denial about not being in control’
The writer says that meganets – the huge tech networks already part of daily life – have led to groupthink and the breakdown of public discourse and that we must exert more influence on them

Andrew Anthony

12, Mar, 2023 @2:00 PM

Article image
Bad news for online advertisers – you’ve been ’ad | John Naughton
Precision marketing through digital and social media aims to open our hearts and wallets. If only

John Naughton

05, Mar, 2017 @9:00 AM

Article image
Users, advertisers – we are all trapped in the enshittification of the internet | John Naughton
There is a new word for the degradation of the internet, but it’s been happening for years. Why do we tolerate it?

John Naughton

11, Mar, 2023 @4:00 PM