7 ms·

It's not too far fetched. I have been discriminated with Revolut. With corps it's as simple as who's on the other end of the line. Not very different from TSA s

It's not too far fetched. I have been discriminated with Revolut. With corps it's as simple as who's on the other end of the line. Not very different from TSA singling out person of certain colors. I approached the state to intervene and was simply told it's out of their remit because even though Revolut can operate in the state, it doesn't have the license. By the time you reach to the other end of rabbit hole, it's not worth the hassle. Voting with dollars works with corps so they are self correcting, in the sense of they want to keep their customer base. But what happens when someone is poor enough to not be their customer? Or they are rich enough to overlook discriminatory behavior of their employees? In the end invisible hand of capitalism sorts out corporations. But OPs example of a ruined life is totally possible. Yes, state can be more powerful but by the time it reacts, it might be too late.

robertlagrant 4y ago
The state can also send you off to die in a war. It's not as though it is better than corporations. Just different. And it is no more likely to cater for small minorities than a corporation; it just claims it will. If there's political will then it might happen, just as businesses are started to cater for emerging markets. But there's no guarantee.
dalbasal 4y ago
>> Voting with dollars works with corps It does not. This is a silly myth. It works in the sense that if people don't buy, companies change. There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. It just doesn't work IRL.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. Nonsense. As a prominent example in tech, Microsoft has become a very different company thanks to seeing their customer base eroding under their old ways. They had to shape up to remain relevant, and I'd say did a decent job of doing so. As a farmer, the market voted that they want non-GMO soybeans for food consumption, and now that makes the biggest crop grown on my farm. GMO soys would be a lot easier, but I am ultimately beholden to what the customer will pay for. If I don't grow them my neighbour will and with his profits he'll improve his overall efficiency until I can no longer compete with any crop. Voting with your wallet works just fine. But that, of course, does not mean your vote will win. Like in governmental elections, just because you believe in something doesn't mean anyone else does.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    If by "voting with your wallet" you mean passively buying whatever is the best option available to you, sure. Consumer action doesn't mean that. It means some sort of organised campaign to influence companies/industries by boycotting products or otherwise "voting with dollars. These campaigns never succeed directly.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      I really don't think that a large population of the world independently woke up one day and decided, "You know, I don't want to eat GMO soybeans." Those choices have come as a result of consumer action pushing a non-GMO message. It fails when most people are apathetic to or disagree with the message, sure. That's the nature of voting. You won't always win. You might never win.
      - dalbasal 4y ago
        People have lots of food choices available, a decent understanding of food, reasonably legible information about ingredients, nutrition, etc. Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes. Network effects and such funnel usage. Most users don't know policies, nor understand their implications if they are. I think it's extremely disingenuous, at this point to argue that AMZN, MSFT, GOOG or whatnot are merely a popular consumer choice. In any case, you accept the outcome of elections in a democracy, or maybe even a sports league committee. "Voting" with dollars is an analogy. The people affected often aren't even google's customers. The actual dollars come from elsewhere. In conventional, industrial terms, most users are a resource being transformed into a product with technology. For example, Apple receives money for setting users defaults to Google. Google receives money for advertising to these users. There is no "sour grapes, move on" here. No actual election to adhere to. Whatever about theoretical voting with dollars, we all know how "voting with votes" would turn out.
        randomdata 4y ago
        > a decent understanding of food You wonder sometimes, the things they say. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they have an active interest in food? Which goes to show that when people want something to change, they'll take an interest and make change happen. If they are content with the way things are and vote for the status quo, that's their vote to make. Just because you didn't get your way with your inane pet ideas doesn't mean voting doesn't work. > Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes. TV, radio, billboards, flyers... There are all kinds of substitutes. Some of which can command a lot of money from their customers because of them providing a proven valuable service. Google and the like may be the best in the biz, but there are a lot of other choices which are quite viable substitutes. Google even suffered through the "adpocalypse", a period when customers did flee when they weren't happy with what Google was doing. We don't have to invent hypotheticals. It literally happened to them and it forced them to change things about their business to start to win customers back. Voting works. That doesn't mean you will win.

robertlagrant 4y ago

The state can also send you off to die in a war. It's not as though it is better than corporations. Just different. And it is no more likely to cater for small minorities than a corporation; it just claims it will. If there's political will then it might happen, just as businesses are started to cater for emerging markets. But there's no guarantee.

dalbasal 4y ago

>> Voting with dollars works with corps It does not. This is a silly myth. It works in the sense that if people don't buy, companies change. There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. It just doesn't work IRL.

randomdata 4y ago
> There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. Nonsense. As a prominent example in tech, Microsoft has become a very different company thanks to seeing their customer base eroding under their old ways. They had to shape up to remain relevant, and I'd say did a decent job of doing so. As a farmer, the market voted that they want non-GMO soybeans for food consumption, and now that makes the biggest crop grown on my farm. GMO soys would be a lot easier, but I am ultimately beholden to what the customer will pay for. If I don't grow them my neighbour will and with his profits he'll improve his overall efficiency until I can no longer compete with any crop. Voting with your wallet works just fine. But that, of course, does not mean your vote will win. Like in governmental elections, just because you believe in something doesn't mean anyone else does.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  If by "voting with your wallet" you mean passively buying whatever is the best option available to you, sure. Consumer action doesn't mean that. It means some sort of organised campaign to influence companies/industries by boycotting products or otherwise "voting with dollars. These campaigns never succeed directly.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    I really don't think that a large population of the world independently woke up one day and decided, "You know, I don't want to eat GMO soybeans." Those choices have come as a result of consumer action pushing a non-GMO message. It fails when most people are apathetic to or disagree with the message, sure. That's the nature of voting. You won't always win. You might never win.
    - dalbasal 4y ago
      People have lots of food choices available, a decent understanding of food, reasonably legible information about ingredients, nutrition, etc. Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes. Network effects and such funnel usage. Most users don't know policies, nor understand their implications if they are. I think it's extremely disingenuous, at this point to argue that AMZN, MSFT, GOOG or whatnot are merely a popular consumer choice. In any case, you accept the outcome of elections in a democracy, or maybe even a sports league committee. "Voting" with dollars is an analogy. The people affected often aren't even google's customers. The actual dollars come from elsewhere. In conventional, industrial terms, most users are a resource being transformed into a product with technology. For example, Apple receives money for setting users defaults to Google. Google receives money for advertising to these users. There is no "sour grapes, move on" here. No actual election to adhere to. Whatever about theoretical voting with dollars, we all know how "voting with votes" would turn out.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        > a decent understanding of food You wonder sometimes, the things they say. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they have an active interest in food? Which goes to show that when people want something to change, they'll take an interest and make change happen. If they are content with the way things are and vote for the status quo, that's their vote to make. Just because you didn't get your way with your inane pet ideas doesn't mean voting doesn't work. > Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes. TV, radio, billboards, flyers... There are all kinds of substitutes. Some of which can command a lot of money from their customers because of them providing a proven valuable service. Google and the like may be the best in the biz, but there are a lot of other choices which are quite viable substitutes. Google even suffered through the "adpocalypse", a period when customers did flee when they weren't happy with what Google was doing. We don't have to invent hypotheticals. It literally happened to them and it forced them to change things about their business to start to win customers back. Voting works. That doesn't mean you will win.