If you are puzzled by the downvotes, it is because you apparently have overlooked that a few years ago, Buzzfeed hired a bunch of real journalists and spun off BuzzFeed News as a separate, legitimate news organization, which has gone on to win several awards for its reporting (National Magazine Award in the category of Public Interest, two National Press Foundation awards, a Sidney Award, a British Journalism Award, and a George Polk award), and were finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting twice, and for the Online Journalism Award twice, and once for the Goldsmith Prize of Investigation Reporting.
Rather, I assumed it was being (rightly) critical that Buzzfeed news spent such a lot of words and effort on a topic that wasn't especially newsworthy. In particular, it was a frustrating read, being padded out by too many examples and testimonials, when the real meat of the article could have been summed up in a sentence: "Amazon Choice recommendations are algorithmic and not very reliable."
(It seems to be trying to tap into the zeitgeist of looking for a critical angle in everything that Amazon does. Which is weak and clickbait-y.)
Honestly, it's a bad (or good?) example of what the internet has made "journalism" into - and I put journalism in quotes here not because I'm knocking Buzzfeed news as being able to sometimes produce good journalism, but because this isn't one of those times.
I'm downmodding your comment. It's very disingenuous to imply that other posters are shilling for Buzzfeed, even if you shield it behind phrases like "Interesting how...".
If you have evidence, then post it. Otherwise don't make such accusations.
