4 ms·

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

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.
    - dalbasal 4y ago
      This "existence proof" line or argument is, IMO, totally disingenuous when applied like this. If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. Adpocalypse was not something that happened to google. It was something Google did to it's vendors, content producers. Google just found a way to increase revenue. They are a monopsony in regards to content producers. So, they get to present a take-it-or-go-be-a-dentist proposition. In any case, there is no "vote." Actual voting would turn out very differently.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        > If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. It may not be competitive, but they are also pretty easy to walk away from. I've never been a customer of Google's, and haven't purchased anything from Amazon or Microsoft in many years. What do you really need from them? Not like what would be nice to have, but what do you really need? If you are buying from them it is because you like what they have to offer and are voting for it to continue. I have no doubt indirectly purchased things from all of those companies and I'm okay with my vote landing that way because the product offered was exactly what I wanted. If it wasn't what I wanted, why would I buy it? That would be silly. I could easily exert pressure on the vendors I do buy from to stop buying from the above if there was a problem. They don't offer anything I truly need either. That, of course, doesn't mean I'll win if I change my vote. If the problem is only in my mind, nobody else is going to care and the vote will land in their favour, not mine. Voting isn't about an individual. That is where it seems you are confused. > It was something Google did to it's vendors The changes Google had to make ultimately impacted its vendors, just as any business changing their ways no doubt impacts its vendors. My transition to non-GMO soybeans in response to consumer demand meant I was no longer buying the equivalent seed from GMO seed vendors. However, the situation all started because Google's product was no longer pleasing to the customers, which prompted the customers to stop being Google's customers until they changed their ways. > In any case, there is no "vote." Indeed, there is a vote. You can vote yes (spend your dollar) or you can vote no (do not spend your dollar). The entire public, even children, are eligible participants in the election... Unless they've been voted out, in which case they need to change their ways to be voted back in. That doesn't mean your choice will win, of course. Voting is not about the individual.

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.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    This "existence proof" line or argument is, IMO, totally disingenuous when applied like this. If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. Adpocalypse was not something that happened to google. It was something Google did to it's vendors, content producers. Google just found a way to increase revenue. They are a monopsony in regards to content producers. So, they get to present a take-it-or-go-be-a-dentist proposition. In any case, there is no "vote." Actual voting would turn out very differently.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish. It may not be competitive, but they are also pretty easy to walk away from. I've never been a customer of Google's, and haven't purchased anything from Amazon or Microsoft in many years. What do you really need from them? Not like what would be nice to have, but what do you really need? If you are buying from them it is because you like what they have to offer and are voting for it to continue. I have no doubt indirectly purchased things from all of those companies and I'm okay with my vote landing that way because the product offered was exactly what I wanted. If it wasn't what I wanted, why would I buy it? That would be silly. I could easily exert pressure on the vendors I do buy from to stop buying from the above if there was a problem. They don't offer anything I truly need either. That, of course, doesn't mean I'll win if I change my vote. If the problem is only in my mind, nobody else is going to care and the vote will land in their favour, not mine. Voting isn't about an individual. That is where it seems you are confused. > It was something Google did to it's vendors The changes Google had to make ultimately impacted its vendors, just as any business changing their ways no doubt impacts its vendors. My transition to non-GMO soybeans in response to consumer demand meant I was no longer buying the equivalent seed from GMO seed vendors. However, the situation all started because Google's product was no longer pleasing to the customers, which prompted the customers to stop being Google's customers until they changed their ways. > In any case, there is no "vote." Indeed, there is a vote. You can vote yes (spend your dollar) or you can vote no (do not spend your dollar). The entire public, even children, are eligible participants in the election... Unless they've been voted out, in which case they need to change their ways to be voted back in. That doesn't mean your choice will win, of course. Voting is not about the individual.