Who Sees What
Awazon market onion addresses
awazonloedcyl2otgftfg7qm6e2klbgg2dhouyli3hdno6gdkueh6byd.onion
awazonozc4jwyrveu4473igv5ldt2hnccl2s7lerm2z27cvrc22e4uyd.onion
awazonth6ocz5cyos63czmhtsglqr7ydkdcc4lopux7nxbauoo2qmvyd.onion

Printed exactly as supplied, in the order supplied, with no labels and no ranking between them. This site runs no checks against any of them. It publishes no uptime figure, no status light and no date of last checking, because it never looks. An address that opens is not by itself evidence of anything.

Opening a dispute widens the audience on purpose

Something went wrong and you open a dispute. A conversation that had two participants now has three, and the third one arrives to read.

Who sees it

The vendor · A platform moderator · The market server

Every other card in this branch describes a two-party exchange with the platform sitting underneath as an infrastructure. A dispute is different in kind. It is the one action where a person from the platform is invited to look, and that invitation is the mechanism, not a side effect.

This is not an argument against disputes. A dispute process exists so that a disagreement has somewhere to go. It is an argument for understanding, before opening one, that the audience has grown and that what you write is written for a stranger as well as for the vendor.

What the third party reads

The exact scope depends on how a platform builds the feature, and this site does not claim to know the internals of any particular implementation. In general terms, a person adjudicating a dispute needs to see the thing being disputed, which means at minimum the following.

That last point is where encryption reappears with a twist. Messages the platform could not read remain unreadable to the moderator, which is consistent but inconvenient. So a common outcome is that one party pastes decrypted text into the dispute in order to make a case, and at that moment content that had been sealed becomes a plain record in a new place.

Nobody plans this. It emerges from wanting to be believed.

What you disclose to make a case

Arguing is a disclosure activity. The instinct in a dispute is to be complete, because incompleteness feels like weakness. Completeness means volunteering context that the dispute did not require.

The things that typically get added without being asked for are worth naming plainly.

The address, again
Restated to prove where something should have gone, into a thread with an extra reader.
A tracking number
Which is a handle on a postal record, discussed in a tracking number.
Delivery circumstances
Who was in, who signed, which neighbour took it, what the building is like.
Timing detail
When you checked, when you were out, what your week looked like.
A screenshot
Which carries whatever else was on the screen, see screenshots and photos.
Frustration
Which tends to lengthen a message and loosen what goes into it.

The delivery circumstances entry deserves a second look. Describing that somebody else took the parcel introduces a third person into a record that previously involved only you, which is the concern set out in a shared delivery address. They did not open the dispute and are not party to it.

WHY IT RUNS LONGA dispute is a written argument, and written arguments grow. The evidence that feels necessary at the time is the disclosure you review afterwards.

What a dispute does not establish

A resolution is an administrative outcome. It is not a finding of fact about the world, and reading it as one is a mistake in both directions.

The record afterwards

When a dispute closes, three parties hold something. The platform holds the thread. The vendor holds their own recollection and any notes they keep, with the retention properties described on the branch hub. You hold whatever your device kept.

Of those three, only the first has a defined shape, and even that is defined by operators rather than by you. The other two are people, and people file things in ways nobody documents.

What changes the answer

6 things change how much this action gives away. None of them takes it to zero, and none of them is a promise.

  1. The dispute is the widest audience in the branchEverything else here is written for one reader. This is written for at least two, one of whom you have never interacted with. That alone changes what belongs in it.
  2. Evidence pasted in becomes plaintext in a new placeText that was encrypted between two parties stops being encrypted the moment it is quoted into a dispute. That is a choice made under pressure, and it is worth recognising as a choice.
  3. The address rarely needs restatingIt already exists in the order flow. Repeating it into a thread with a new reader adds a copy rather than adding evidence.
  4. Other people do not consent to being describedAccounts of who was home, who signed and who lives nearby put third parties into a record they cannot see. Telling one person covers the general shape of that.
  5. Attachments carry more than their subjectA photograph or a screen capture includes whatever was in frame, and a file may include what a camera or an application recorded alongside it. Files you downloaded looks at the same property from the other direction.
  6. A closed dispute is not a cleared oneClosure is a status. The text of the argument stays where it was written for as long as the platform keeps it, which is not a period you control or can query.

What this card is not

This card is not advice on how to win a dispute or on when to open one. It describes who reads a dispute and what the process leaves undecided.

Questions that come up

Can a moderator read my encrypted messages?

Not while they remain encrypted. The practical exception is that either party can paste decrypted text into the dispute, and once that happens the text is readable in that thread.

Does a dispute outcome say anything about the vendor generally?

No. It concerns one order. This site does not publish assessments, ratings or comparisons of individual vendors and treats a single outcome as a single outcome.