9 ms·

Sure, until that information is used to give individualized prices and other things. Or used to hide things or show you only things the algorithms decide you li

Sure, until that information is used to give individualized prices and other things. Or used to hide things or show you only things the algorithms decide you like....or should have according to them. Already i've read things about hotel websites and stuff altering prices based on which device you're using to browse their site. In a world where your personal shopping information is bought and sold and things become increasingly online, it'll become a game of individualized shopping lists and prices, individual sales. Another perfectly crafted corporate bubble for people to live under where prices, suggestions and sales are individually tailored and at the whims of people siphoning all your personal information. I don't need my own personal omnipotent digital god dictating everything in my life. Even if it saves me a few bucks.

viraptor 6y ago
It's much easier to do that for hotels than for groceries since comparison is harder. It will be quite widely known and sightly abused if your grocery chain starts doing that. The shops will always have the reference price in public after all. The pricing difference that actually matters (moving old stock) is already mostly done without personalised data. Sales are a standard.
- grawprog 6y ago
  For now, with brick and mortor businesses because it's hard to do that in a physical place. With people increasingly ordering things online it becomes easier and more profitable to do that. If someone has your spending history, sees you buy something frequently, they have no incentive to put it on sale. Likewise, if they see something you've maybe looked at but not bought, they can put it in sale and tempt you. This is just one example. I'm sure marketers can come up with all sorts.
an_opabinia 6y ago
> Sure, until that information is used to give individualized prices and other things. Or used to hide things or show you only things the algorithms decide you like....or should have according to them. If anything, prices would rise for richer people, and decline for poorer people. Is that bad?
- rytill 6y ago
  Perhaps, but if/when word got out that this was occurring, an arbitrage opportunity would be available. Unless it were only a very marginal amount cheaper that would not cover the cost of arbitrage.
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    I got news for you, this already happens all the time, without nominally different pricing, just pricing for different SKUs. The arbitrage is realized by producers.
    - qazxcvbnmlp 6y ago
      Yeah. And the rich don’t mind, because status signaling is a a thing.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  I don't think it's that simple. Often it would be the reverse because the richer people have more options of other places to buy.
imgabe 6y ago
Thank you for providing an actual, tangible downside to this. I've never really seen one before. So many articles like this end up with people coming up with scenarios like "But what if there's a dictator and he wants to round up everyone who bought a 12-pack of Charmin' last week?" It would be interesting to see the arms race that could arise, though. If individualized prices became enough of a thing, there would probably be personal shoppers who would buy things for you at a lower price with their "poor person" data profile and pocket a percentage of the difference. Or more likely, there will probably be a way to run a browser with the right cookies to give you the lowest price.
- taneq 6y ago
  If you want a really evil example, consider a version of Android Auto which knows when you’re low on fuel and auctions your “nearby fuel stations” search result slots to the highest bidders, in exchange for which the bidders get notified that they can jack up their prices on you.
  - gretch 6y ago
    But in real life examples, the exact opposite has been playing out. Instead of you being sold to the richest, hungriest gas station, it's more like all of the gas stations racing to the lowest price to serve you, and consumers having no brand relationships with gas stations anymore. If Android auto was always serving up expensive gas, users would start using bing or apple maps - I certainly would if there was such a tangible cost difference
    - taneq 6y ago
      How many people would do so, though? How many non-technical people are capable of untangling themselves from Google’s services? How many non-technical people are even aware that “Google” isn’t the only search engine?
      - oarsinsync 6y ago
        I learnt about Waze many years ago from non technical folks. Drivers have niche communities of their own too, where stuff like this gets disseminated. “Waze is better than google maps for directions” for a long time was true. Then google bought it. If Waze can rise up, so can another. Especially where it’ll save drivers some % on their fuel bills. Even more so in European countries with high fuel duties.
abhinav22 6y ago
Great insight - thanks
Scoundreller 6y ago
> I don't need my own personal omnipotent digital god dictating everything in my life. Even if it saves me a few bucks. You can opt-out/not opt-in all you want, but as long as enough people opt-in (or don't opt-out), they can just apply an existing model against you, get good-enough results and you're almost as screwed.

viraptor 6y ago

It's much easier to do that for hotels than for groceries since comparison is harder. It will be quite widely known and sightly abused if your grocery chain starts doing that. The shops will always have the reference price in public after all. The pricing difference that actually matters (moving old stock) is already mostly done without personalised data. Sales are a standard.

grawprog 6y ago
For now, with brick and mortor businesses because it's hard to do that in a physical place. With people increasingly ordering things online it becomes easier and more profitable to do that. If someone has your spending history, sees you buy something frequently, they have no incentive to put it on sale. Likewise, if they see something you've maybe looked at but not bought, they can put it in sale and tempt you. This is just one example. I'm sure marketers can come up with all sorts.

an_opabinia 6y ago

> Sure, until that information is used to give individualized prices and other things. Or used to hide things or show you only things the algorithms decide you like....or should have according to them. If anything, prices would rise for richer people, and decline for poorer people. Is that bad?

rytill 6y ago
Perhaps, but if/when word got out that this was occurring, an arbitrage opportunity would be available. Unless it were only a very marginal amount cheaper that would not cover the cost of arbitrage.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  I got news for you, this already happens all the time, without nominally different pricing, just pricing for different SKUs. The arbitrage is realized by producers.
  - qazxcvbnmlp 6y ago
    Yeah. And the rich don’t mind, because status signaling is a a thing.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
I don't think it's that simple. Often it would be the reverse because the richer people have more options of other places to buy.

imgabe 6y ago

Thank you for providing an actual, tangible downside to this. I've never really seen one before. So many articles like this end up with people coming up with scenarios like "But what if there's a dictator and he wants to round up everyone who bought a 12-pack of Charmin' last week?" It would be interesting to see the arms race that could arise, though. If individualized prices became enough of a thing, there would probably be personal shoppers who would buy things for you at a lower price with their "poor person" data profile and pocket a percentage of the difference. Or more likely, there will probably be a way to run a browser with the right cookies to give you the lowest price.

taneq 6y ago
If you want a really evil example, consider a version of Android Auto which knows when you’re low on fuel and auctions your “nearby fuel stations” search result slots to the highest bidders, in exchange for which the bidders get notified that they can jack up their prices on you.
- gretch 6y ago
  But in real life examples, the exact opposite has been playing out. Instead of you being sold to the richest, hungriest gas station, it's more like all of the gas stations racing to the lowest price to serve you, and consumers having no brand relationships with gas stations anymore. If Android auto was always serving up expensive gas, users would start using bing or apple maps - I certainly would if there was such a tangible cost difference
  - taneq 6y ago
    How many people would do so, though? How many non-technical people are capable of untangling themselves from Google’s services? How many non-technical people are even aware that “Google” isn’t the only search engine?
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      I learnt about Waze many years ago from non technical folks. Drivers have niche communities of their own too, where stuff like this gets disseminated. “Waze is better than google maps for directions” for a long time was true. Then google bought it. If Waze can rise up, so can another. Especially where it’ll save drivers some % on their fuel bills. Even more so in European countries with high fuel duties.

abhinav22 6y ago

Great insight - thanks

Scoundreller 6y ago

> I don't need my own personal omnipotent digital god dictating everything in my life. Even if it saves me a few bucks. You can opt-out/not opt-in all you want, but as long as enough people opt-in (or don't opt-out), they can just apply an existing model against you, get good-enough results and you're almost as screwed.