The problem really seems to be in the nature of the platform. What a market needs to address issues like this is accurate reviews (i.e. informed consumers), but here we have a platform which both maintains the reviewing system and profits when listings are filled -- a clear conflict of interest.
This really stems from the regulations on payment processors. In theory there should be the digital equivalent of cash, where the buyer can easily and directly pay the seller without any third party middle man in between them imposing conditions and taking a cut.
But since regulatory requirements make processing payments, to use the technical term, a giant pain in the butt, it takes a sizeable bureaucracy to do it. Then you get a perverse incentive to have the company that handles listings and reviews also do the payment processing -- and get a cut of every transaction -- which is what creates this conflict of interest. The company whose business is reviews should not be turning a profit from filling listings, or they won't want bad reviews even when they're deserved, and then you don't have accurate reviews.
This really stems from the regulations on payment processors. In theory there should be the digital equivalent of cash, where the buyer can easily and directly pay the seller without any third party middle man in between them imposing conditions and taking a cut.
But since regulatory requirements make processing payments, to use the technical term, a giant pain in the butt, it takes a sizeable bureaucracy to do it. Then you get a perverse incentive to have the company that handles listings and reviews also do the payment processing -- and get a cut of every transaction -- which is what creates this conflict of interest. The company whose business is reviews should not be turning a profit from filling listings, or they won't want bad reviews even when they're deserved, and then you don't have accurate reviews.