'Knockoff' Browser Extension Hides Sketchy Brands on Amazon 57%

By Jason Koebler44%

7/8/2026, 12:15:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.4% saturation with 204 hits. Analysis detected 1,606 faulty-reasoning hits from 649 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.4% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,108 of 21,164 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.00% of the article peer group.

A software developer made a Chrome and Firefox extension called Knockoff that automatically hides, grays out, or filters products from sketchy brands on Amazon, which highlights just how many shady brands are on the platform and how commonly they show up on searches for basic items. 
In just a few minutes of using the extension, Knockoff dimmed product listings for screwdrivers made by “SUNHZMCKP,” spoons made by “SACATR,” and a lamp made by “ROTTOGOON.” 
In a tweet announcing the extension, developer Josh Pigford wrote “Sorry to brands like WNPETHOME, EHEYCIGA, YXYL, LU&MN, JOYIN, TOMY, GODONLIF, YOOJEE, LINGTENG, LANEIGE, VISCOO, BIODANCE, COOFANDY, BALENNZ, TOSY, and LUENX.” 
The extension can also hide all sponsored product listings. 
The extension quickly went viral as a much-needed filter for people who still use Amazon and, for those who don’t use Amazon because of its horrendous labor practices and other concerns, it is evidence of what an incredible wasteland the platform has become. 
In a video call, Pigford told me that he had been thinking about making Knockoff for a while but that he finally decided to do it last weekend. 
“I was cutting the grass and about to get my trimmer out to do some weed eating, and it wouldn’t crank. 
So I decided to get some specific tools, and I searched for them and was like ‘What are these brands? 
Am I going insane?’ 
I just wanted something from a common brand or something I was familiar with,” he said. 
“I was like ‘man, I’ve gotta build something.’” 
Pigford said that Knockoff is essentially building a list of brands to allow or not allow, and that it uses several different criteria to do this, including looking at the names of the brands: “Basically number of consonants, number of vowels, how they are grouped together, whether they’re in all caps or not,” he said. 
This means that brands like “EHEYCIGA” will be automatically added to the filter list. 
But the list of blocked brands is intended to be determined by its community of users, and any user can ask the extension to allow or block any specific brand for themselves. 
The project builds on previous similar attempts to highlight sketchy brands on Amazon, including one called AmazonBrandFilter and The Markup’s Amazon Brand Detector . 
The extension also allows anyone who has downloaded it to report potentially sketchy brands and to report brands that have been accidentally flagged as knockoffs. 
The extension runs locally and doesn’t require an account to use, and doesn’t send data back to any server. 
It is free. 
“I stand to benefit nothing directly economically, it’s a nice little tool I wanted to make,” Pigford said. 
Knockoff is pretty useful whether you use Amazon or not. 
For those who don’t use Amazon, it highlights a problem repeatedly shown by Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission in an antitrust lawsuit against the company, which is that much of Amazon is pay-to-play, with brands needing to buy ads or placement boosts in order to be featured at the top of search results. 
The platform has also become an algorithmic and financial race to the bottom, with companies stealing others’ designs, jamming their product pages with keywords that will perform well in search, and creating fly-by-night brands to try to end up at the top of search results. 
“There was somebody who sent me a screenshot from using the extension and the first 20 items or something were all grayed out. 
Like there were all these knockoff brands before they could find a legitimate item,” Pigford said. 
“It’s like, OK, that about sums it up.” 
“I think people want control over what it is that they're seeing on the internet,” he added. 
“This sort of gives some control back to just getting everything shoved in your face. 
It’s like fighting back against the algorithm to some extent.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.7%Jason Koebler: 4.2%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.9%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Jason Koebler: 4.3%404 Media: 3.9%Availability Heuristic21.6%This article: 9.2%Jason Koebler: 2.4%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.5%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Jason Koebler: 2.5%404 Media: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 2.8%Jason Koebler: 4.6%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.5%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.5%This article: 2.5%Jason Koebler: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Jason Koebler: 1.2%404 Media: 2.7%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.1%404 Media: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%Jason Koebler: 13.1%404 Media: 11.6%Negativity Bias31.4%This article: 2.8%Jason Koebler: 1.5%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.8%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.7%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.7%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.6%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.4%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%Jason Koebler: 2.1%404 Media: 3.2%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 6.6%Jason Koebler: 1.2%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma6.6%This article: 6.9%Jason Koebler: 0.4%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope6.9%This article: 2.2%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.2%This article: 25.9%Jason Koebler: 10.1%404 Media: 8.0%Hasty Generalization25.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.6%Jason Koebler: 0.7%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon6.6%This article: 19.7%Jason Koebler: 2.9%404 Media: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion19.7%This article: 1.2%Jason Koebler: 0.6%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question1.2%This article: 8.2%Jason Koebler: 1.6%404 Media: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.6%404 Media: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.8%Jason Koebler: 4.2%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal16.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.8%Jason Koebler: 1.5%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.2%Jason Koebler: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%Jason Koebler: 2.2%404 Media: 2.7%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 1.9%404 Media: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.6%Jason Koebler: 12.2%404 Media: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice20.6%This article: 2.6%Jason Koebler: 1.6%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 8.2%Jason Koebler: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Koebler: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Jason Koebler: 4.2%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

649 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker45%attributed speech359writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Pigford • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Josh Pigford

90%flagged-word coverage
290 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.3 ptsWriter: 37.3%Josh Pigford: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%Josh Pigford: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+10.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Pigford: 10.7%10.7%Indoctrination+5.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Pigford: 5.9%5.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Josh Pigford: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.