[adimitrov]

That's perverse. You shouldn't have to self-censor out of fear. The fact that Amazon (Doordash, Google, ...) can get away with just cancelling people's accounts willy nilly and they'd have no recourse is a gaping hole in regulations.

BTW, it's off-topic, but this right here is the among best arguments we can make for strong privacy, and against mass surveillance. If people are willing to swallow monetary damage out of fear to upset an algorithm that may cut back their privileges, imagine what happens to political free speech when you have to fear govt surveillance and black vans.

[Ekaros]

Why companies should not have right to cancel their relationship with person for non-discriminatory reasons? And constant complaints and errors on aggregate sounds entirely reasonable reason.

If same thing kept happening inside non-online business I think we would find it pretty okay...

[Dayshine]

So, say you live in a rural area but have one local supermarket (5-10 mins away), and the next supermarket is 30-45 minutes away.

You keep finding the food you're buying is mouldy so you complain/return it.

They ban you.

So, now you need to spend significantly more money and time on petrol and driving in order to do you weekly shop.

That's OK?

[ALittleLight]

It's a cost of doing business, not really a fear. I can't recall this happening to me, but if Amazon did make an error or damage a minor thing or whatever I wouldn't object because I would object if it were a major thing and I want to maintain a good record to make it more likely I automatically win any major objections in future. The cost of this strategy is accepting any minor loss from Amazon and the benefit is an increased likelihood of good service for major items.

The only error I can recall from Amazon is they once included an exacto knife I didn't order in a package to me.

[Dma54rhs]

You don't have the right to expect company to do business with you. Shop elsewhere or start your own.