1
7

[–] oddjob 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Seems eerily similar to this review: https://www. amazon .com/Cop-Under-Fire-Hashtags-Politics/product-reviews/1617958573/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_kywd?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=five_star&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews&pageNumber=1&filterByKeyword=podcast#reviews-filter-bar

Removing 1 star reviews makes sense in a corrupt business way. It convinces people to not buy a product you're selling. But removing 5 star reviews does not make sense. If Amazon was trying to push a liberal narrative, then they wouldn't bother selling the book in the first place.

Also, you expect me to believe that she took a screenshot of her review after she wrote it? This just reeks of fake and gay.

0
1

[–] nothingproud 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If the page was cached in her browsers allocated memory it is entirely possible she just opened it via her history to take the screenshot after noticing it did not come up in reviews.

However that other review is too similar, I wonder if PR companies are now offering services to inflate review scores. Fuck it, of course they are.

0
2

[–] SexMachine 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

they give out their products for free. You'll see some reviews that give a full disclosure that they were paid or given the product for free, but then if they rate the product 1 star, they won't be offered any more free products.

1
0

[–] 542345 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Why would it be cached? She posts the review, knowing it will be read and deleted, takes a screenshot and waits. They delete it, she tweets it.

There is no faking this. Reviews get posted in real time otherwise people would know the reviews are screened first which means they're fake and no-one would believe them. So she posts, screenshots and waits, she does not need to look in a chached page to take a screen shot.

0
0

[–] gazillions 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Jeff Bezos put politics before the almighty dollar in the most public and the largest way possible. He bought the Washington Post and ran it onto the ground. Taking the loss of a few dollars on some books would hardly bother him. He seems prepared to die for his beliefs, so I can't see why messing a book review would stop him.

Simon & Schuster broke their contract with Milo losing out on that revenue and knowing full well Milo would sue them.

2
-1

[–] 542345 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

The screen shot proves it's authentic. You can open the image yourself and tell it's not photo shopped by looking at the pixels.

1
0

[–] BlockMe 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Oh fuck not this shit here as well.

Take it to deddit, pleb.

0
3

[–] Eleutheria 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Spook Contract-Funded Shopping Mall Book Reviews

0
1

[–] GOMAD_OR_GFYAD 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Why would they delete non offensive reviews? Dont they want to make money by selling shit?

0
0

[–] DietCokehead1 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm sure they're making money from someone to delete these

0
0

[–] GOMAD_OR_GFYAD 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I dont disagree, but I think it must be more complex than that. Amazon is way too big for a straight bribe to move their needle at the corporate level. It probably has something to do with who they put in charge of that department or maybe they outsourced it to some jew-run indian sub contractor or something