OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Amazon's Detailed Customer Dossiers Spark Privacy Debate

5 sources · updated 2026-10-09
Left 50% Center 0% Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right

What happened

Amazon maintains a customer-facing page called "About You" that lists inferences the company has drawn about shoppers from marketplace searches, purchase histories, saved lists, product reviews, and conversations with Alexa for Shopping. Amazon launched the page in May and says it exists to personalize product recommendations; shoppers can view it in account settings and edit or delete individual entries. The feature went viral after a Threads user posted that Amazon had recorded she "has flat buttocks," a post that drew more than a million views. Other users then shared similarly specific inferences, including "cannot keep real plants alive," "has no friends," and "treats cats as biological children."
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles

1 of 1 article cites a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to Dexerto. Most articles credit Dexerto rather than reporting it themselves.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 1
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Amazon and fangirlinmegan
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 1
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 1 of 1
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Dexerto
Unnamed sources 0 of 1
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 8, 15:43 UTC by Breitbart, crediting Dexerto, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage reports that a typical Amazon profile is a thick file of inferences, not a handful of jokes. Business Insider counted 30 to 45 observations on the staff profiles it checked. Right-leaning coverage never states how many claims sit on a page, so those readers meet only the viral punchlines and cannot tell a roast from a full dossier. Right-leaning coverage leads with how to open the page. Left-leaning coverage leads with what it infers about bodies. The Verge opened on Amazon guessing whether shoppers have a "flat butt and no friends," while the New York Post opened on a how-to. None of the coverage asks whether taking a line off the page actually stops Amazon from using that inference to rank products.
Bottom line

The New York Post walked readers to the page and never said how big it is. Business Insider counted 30 to 45 observations on the staff profiles it checked.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Business Insider found Amazon typically made 30 to 45 observations on each staff profile it checked numberin Business Insider · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • About You pulls information from marketplace searches and saved lists contextin Business Insider · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Inferences frequently got the transactions right, but the human conclusions were sometimes off contextin Business Insider · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The About You page can include details customers entered themselves, such as interests, dietary preferences, and sizing contextin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A Threads user guessed the flat-buttocks line came from a prior purchase of butt scrunch leggings individual casein Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treated the viral page as evidence of how extensively Amazon infers private traits from ordinary commerce. The Verge stressed the bluntness of the characterizations and told readers they can inspect and delete the list. Business Insider's newsroom survey found the system often correctly identified purchases, pets, and groceries but produced warped results on shared accounts and wrong counts of children and partners. A follow-up Business Insider article called the feature "just the tip of the iceberg in the AI era," citing a Wired reporter's 515-page McDonald's loyalty file and arguing that AI firms, pressed to monetize tools beyond subscriptions, are embedding agents in email, calendars, texts, and bank accounts and may use those data to usher users "toward certain brands."
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets framed the episode chiefly as a viral consumer spectacle. The New York Post said Amazon is "judging you harder than your mother ever could," quoted the company's aim to make every experience "feel like it was designed especially for you," and stressed that shoppers can edit the lists. Breitbart labeled the page "Jeff Bezos' Dossier on You," noted that some details are ones customers entered themselves, and treated family-account mix-ups as part of the joke. Both devoted substantial space to click-by-click instructions for viewing the page rather than to a critique of data collection as such.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that inferences about bodies, social lives, and personality — together with Business Insider's comparison to a 515-page McDonald's file and AI agents with access to mail, calendars, and bank accounts — show commercial profiling reconstructing private life at a scale most users did not expect, with revenue pressure creating an incentive to steer people toward brands. The right's strongest argument is that Amazon already used this data for recommendations, has now made the inferences visible and editable, and that the reaction documented in the New York Post's "field day" coverage is comic self-recognition more than a newly created surveillance power. The unresolved tension is whether "About You" is best read as overdue transparency about personalization, or as a rare public glimpse of a data-extraction model that AI is poised to deepen.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.