> Amazon is only able to sell these ads because sellers get value out of them through increasing sales using the infrastructure that Amazon built. That only wo

> Amazon is only able to sell these ads because sellers get value out of them through increasing sales using the infrastructure that Amazon built. That only works if there is competition. If there were another way to search amazon which did not show advertisements, people would use that instead. Because we have to use their search to find anything then they can extract value without returning it. > The fact that they capitalize on that by creating a market for those ad-buyers to compete in (rent-seeking, as you'd call it) is not remotely surprising, they should be able to profit using the systems they built up. You aren't taking into account that by getting to this position they displaced any alternatives along the way. The customer centric behavior and low prices removed any competition, and now there is no one to offer a better deal. Thus their ability to extract value shouldn't be limitless. > As far as a conflict of interest, Amazon is still incentivized to get a potential customer to make a purchase Again, this is not the case where they have no competition. > monopolies- Amazon is not hiding alternative products to those in the ads; customers are people with the autonomy to find the product that best suites their needs, and they still have full capability of doing that. There are also plenty of other ways to purchase products, I'd guess that 95%+ of products available on Amazon can be sold/purchased elsewhere What is your definition of a monopoly?