4 ms·

> That never worked and will not work now. You can't choose something that's not being offered. Why do you think you're entitled to something that's not being

by growse 4y ago

> That never worked and will not work now. You can't choose something that's not being offered. Why do you think you're entitled to something that's not being offered? I think there's a general point here about how retail banking is not really an ideal free market, because the barrier to entry is too high. If no bank is providing a set of services that fit the compromises you want to make, then either your problem is with the government (who arguably over-regulate the space) or not enough people share your values to warrant creating a banking business around it. > Well, sort of; a service agreement is a relationship, and TPM/remote attestation is a huge overreach by the corporate party. It's only fair to want to push back on what's becoming an abusive relationship. On the flip side, the bank has to manage a complicated series of risks, and their investors might not want to pay the mitigation costs of the risks created by allowing anyone to use their service however they like. Hence the ToS.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> Why do you think you're entitled to something that's not being offered? It's not that I feel entitled, and more that I'm required to use a bank to not starve, or at least to participate in the modern society. I'm not in this relationship by choice, I'm forced into it at metaphorical gunpoint by the economy. And, it still means the advice to "vote with your feet" is invalid. I have no one to vote for. > there's a general point here about how retail banking is not really an ideal free market, because the barrier to entry is too high. There's an even more general point here, that this applies to pretty much every good and service. Not just banking, not just phones, not just computing. It applies to cars and clothes and food and housing just as well. Hence me saying that voting with your feet/wallet doesn't work in general. Mature markets end up supply-driven - vendors collectively decide what choices are available; the only way to have a vote is to become a vendor yourself, which is a long, hard and risky process. > On the flip side, the bank has to manage a complicated series of risks, and their investors might not want to pay the mitigation costs of the risks created by allowing anyone to use their service however they like. Hence the ToS. Sure. There are conflicting interests here. But the right answer isn't one party dictating how the entire relationship works. That's abuse.
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  > It's not that I feel entitled, and more that I'm required to use a bank to not starve, or at least to participate in the modern society. I'm not in this relationship by choice, I'm forced into it at metaphorical gunpoint by the economy. At my last job, it was impossible to be paid except by direct deposit into a bank account. At certain times during the past couple years, it was impossible to go into my bank to do any transacting. I feel like I should be able to have a job without needing a smart phone and an app.

by growse 4y ago

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> Why do you think you're entitled to something that's not being offered? It's not that I feel entitled, and more that I'm required to use a bank to not starve, or at least to participate in the modern society. I'm not in this relationship by choice, I'm forced into it at metaphorical gunpoint by the economy. And, it still means the advice to "vote with your feet" is invalid. I have no one to vote for. > there's a general point here about how retail banking is not really an ideal free market, because the barrier to entry is too high. There's an even more general point here, that this applies to pretty much every good and service. Not just banking, not just phones, not just computing. It applies to cars and clothes and food and housing just as well. Hence me saying that voting with your feet/wallet doesn't work in general. Mature markets end up supply-driven - vendors collectively decide what choices are available; the only way to have a vote is to become a vendor yourself, which is a long, hard and risky process. > On the flip side, the bank has to manage a complicated series of risks, and their investors might not want to pay the mitigation costs of the risks created by allowing anyone to use their service however they like. Hence the ToS. Sure. There are conflicting interests here. But the right answer isn't one party dictating how the entire relationship works. That's abuse.

checkyoursudo 4y ago
> It's not that I feel entitled, and more that I'm required to use a bank to not starve, or at least to participate in the modern society. I'm not in this relationship by choice, I'm forced into it at metaphorical gunpoint by the economy. At my last job, it was impossible to be paid except by direct deposit into a bank account. At certain times during the past couple years, it was impossible to go into my bank to do any transacting. I feel like I should be able to have a job without needing a smart phone and an app.