4 ms·

Yeah right. Big business has done an excellent job of systematically destroying trust in the customer at every step of every process. I just assume any time I'

Yeah right. Big business has done an excellent job of systematically destroying trust in the customer at every step of every process. I just assume any time I'm dealing with a corporation, I'm getting fucked over. That's why I feel no remorse for fucking them over any chance I get.

jt2190 7y ago
> Big business has done an excellent job of systematically destroying trust in the customer at every step of every process. This is a really interesting point. Even though we should test our assumptions about the reasons for the price increase here against Hanlon's razor [1], it's very easy to _feel_ that we're being taken advantage of, and emotions matter a lot in purchasing decisions. A savvy competitor might be able to take advantage of this kind of pricing clumsiness. (For example, I recently bought a new car from a "no haggle" dealer for pretty similar reasons... Working with traditional dealers in the U.S. is a very painful experience for many.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  The thing is Hanlon's razor can't really be applied to a corporation. A corporation is inherently an immoral actor; it doesn't act maliciously, or at least it shouldn't. It acts rationally. The key note being that it's rationale therefore need not be ethical or moral at all. I don't think corporations are stupid at all, they're the collected intelligence of thousands of people being used with the moral and ethical consequences abstracted away to where they can act in horrifying ways and not feel any remorse. This is why probably the hundred or so people involved in denying a cancer patient's claim for insurance payment don't feel bad; none of them made the decision, it's just a process. So, with that in mind, I don't think Hanlon applies here, if you want a razor, use Occam's. And the theory here that requires the least assumptions is that corporations would sell their own mother if it made them one red cent, so when I hear "priceline changed it from $129 to $149" my prevailing assumption is the low price was to get you in the door, and they've found that a price increase of $20 at the point of sale isn't enough to deter customers. They're probably A/B testing a number of increases to see just how much they can squeeze from people.
  - Rooster61 7y ago
    Funny, I made this very same statement in a recent, unrelated post. In fact, I think corporations, at least in some cases, rely on the expectation that they won't fuck the customer over and are given the benefit of the doubt. That's especially prevalent with older generations that seem to trust what people say a bit more, at least from my observation.
  - noonespecial 7y ago
    A corporation is an amazing system that allows small amounts of evil to effectively sum up to large ones.
  - grumdan 7y ago
    This reminds me a lot of Charles Stross' talk at 34C3, where he described corporations and competition between them as "human-powered AIs" that maximize profit as their only goal, similar to how a neural network only blindly minimizes a loss function. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4
    - pwodhouse 7y ago
      A corporate is literally, legally, a "person", but not a "natural person". AI "unnatural person". And since it's "incorporated", it has a body too :-) Since a person has a body and an intelligence it's also a non-natural aka "artificial" intelligence.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Maximizing profit is not a simple, one-dimensional, short-sighted thing necessarily. It can involve building a brand, which means getting people to trust the organization as if it were a moral person. And once the brand is built, new management can come in and exploit it, breaking down that trust. So I think that it's obvious that the sort of behavior people are wont to declare is the norm these days has a large cyclical element, and perhaps a secular one as well, but it's not as simple as a universal race to the bottom or we never would have developed the society we have in the first place.
- whyaduck 7y ago
  I understand what you're saying, but in specific instances, this isn't about a "feeling". I won't generalize to all travel booking sites, but I will say that my former favorite booking site, Hotels.com, has clearly made a decision to embrace mendacity wherever they think it will benefit them. The most glaring example is their complicity in hiding "resort fees" for some properties by moving notice from the room selection page (which is misleading to start with) to the summary page under an opaque "mandatory fees" line item. Regarding car dealers, consider "doc fees" and "destination charges". It's not about feeling we're being taken advantage of - it's about an obvious attempt to mislead.
- fludlight 7y ago
  "No haggle" dealers exists? Where!?
hirundo 7y ago
> I just assume any time I'm dealing with a corporation, I'm getting fucked over. That's why I feel no remorse for fucking them over any chance I get. I don't think that's different from saying "most Elbonians are crooks, therefore I feel no remorse for fucking over Elbonians". Collective punishment isn't a good thing.
- minikites 7y ago
  There's a difference between individuals and profit maximizing organizations.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Corporations get to define themselves. They can also dissolve and reform. Can an "Elbonian" do the same? "Collective punishment" applied to a corporation is called a boycott and I see zero problem with consumers expressing their preference in this way. Zero.
  - JadeNB 7y ago
    > "Collective punishment" applied to a corporation is called a boycott I think that's not the usual meaning of 'collective punishment'. I believe that term is usually applied when many people are subjected to punishment in retaliation for the deeds of one person (or of only a few), not when one person (or corporation) is subjected to punishment by many people.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  Corporations are not entities born out of their control. They are constructed, deliberately, to maximize profit at a cost that does not exceed that profit. That's all. They are not people and they do not have any sort of rights, or at least they shouldn't.

jt2190 7y ago

> Big business has done an excellent job of systematically destroying trust in the customer at every step of every process. This is a really interesting point. Even though we should test our assumptions about the reasons for the price increase here against Hanlon's razor [1], it's very easy to _feel_ that we're being taken advantage of, and emotions matter a lot in purchasing decisions. A savvy competitor might be able to take advantage of this kind of pricing clumsiness. (For example, I recently bought a new car from a "no haggle" dealer for pretty similar reasons... Working with traditional dealers in the U.S. is a very painful experience for many.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

FussyZeus 7y ago
The thing is Hanlon's razor can't really be applied to a corporation. A corporation is inherently an immoral actor; it doesn't act maliciously, or at least it shouldn't. It acts rationally. The key note being that it's rationale therefore need not be ethical or moral at all. I don't think corporations are stupid at all, they're the collected intelligence of thousands of people being used with the moral and ethical consequences abstracted away to where they can act in horrifying ways and not feel any remorse. This is why probably the hundred or so people involved in denying a cancer patient's claim for insurance payment don't feel bad; none of them made the decision, it's just a process. So, with that in mind, I don't think Hanlon applies here, if you want a razor, use Occam's. And the theory here that requires the least assumptions is that corporations would sell their own mother if it made them one red cent, so when I hear "priceline changed it from $129 to $149" my prevailing assumption is the low price was to get you in the door, and they've found that a price increase of $20 at the point of sale isn't enough to deter customers. They're probably A/B testing a number of increases to see just how much they can squeeze from people.
- Rooster61 7y ago
  Funny, I made this very same statement in a recent, unrelated post. In fact, I think corporations, at least in some cases, rely on the expectation that they won't fuck the customer over and are given the benefit of the doubt. That's especially prevalent with older generations that seem to trust what people say a bit more, at least from my observation.
- noonespecial 7y ago
  A corporation is an amazing system that allows small amounts of evil to effectively sum up to large ones.
- grumdan 7y ago
  This reminds me a lot of Charles Stross' talk at 34C3, where he described corporations and competition between them as "human-powered AIs" that maximize profit as their only goal, similar to how a neural network only blindly minimizes a loss function. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4
  - pwodhouse 7y ago
    A corporate is literally, legally, a "person", but not a "natural person". AI "unnatural person". And since it's "incorporated", it has a body too :-) Since a person has a body and an intelligence it's also a non-natural aka "artificial" intelligence.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Maximizing profit is not a simple, one-dimensional, short-sighted thing necessarily. It can involve building a brand, which means getting people to trust the organization as if it were a moral person. And once the brand is built, new management can come in and exploit it, breaking down that trust. So I think that it's obvious that the sort of behavior people are wont to declare is the norm these days has a large cyclical element, and perhaps a secular one as well, but it's not as simple as a universal race to the bottom or we never would have developed the society we have in the first place.
whyaduck 7y ago
I understand what you're saying, but in specific instances, this isn't about a "feeling". I won't generalize to all travel booking sites, but I will say that my former favorite booking site, Hotels.com, has clearly made a decision to embrace mendacity wherever they think it will benefit them. The most glaring example is their complicity in hiding "resort fees" for some properties by moving notice from the room selection page (which is misleading to start with) to the summary page under an opaque "mandatory fees" line item. Regarding car dealers, consider "doc fees" and "destination charges". It's not about feeling we're being taken advantage of - it's about an obvious attempt to mislead.
fludlight 7y ago
"No haggle" dealers exists? Where!?

hirundo 7y ago

> I just assume any time I'm dealing with a corporation, I'm getting fucked over. That's why I feel no remorse for fucking them over any chance I get. I don't think that's different from saying "most Elbonians are crooks, therefore I feel no remorse for fucking over Elbonians". Collective punishment isn't a good thing.

minikites 7y ago
There's a difference between individuals and profit maximizing organizations.
chillwaves 7y ago
Corporations get to define themselves. They can also dissolve and reform. Can an "Elbonian" do the same? "Collective punishment" applied to a corporation is called a boycott and I see zero problem with consumers expressing their preference in this way. Zero.
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > "Collective punishment" applied to a corporation is called a boycott I think that's not the usual meaning of 'collective punishment'. I believe that term is usually applied when many people are subjected to punishment in retaliation for the deeds of one person (or of only a few), not when one person (or corporation) is subjected to punishment by many people.
FussyZeus 7y ago
Corporations are not entities born out of their control. They are constructed, deliberately, to maximize profit at a cost that does not exceed that profit. That's all. They are not people and they do not have any sort of rights, or at least they shouldn't.