3 ms·

luddites were not skeptical of technology, or even against it. They were against the way in which factory owners used technology to illegally displace them (as

luddites were not skeptical of technology, or even against it. They were against the way in which factory owners used technology to illegally displace them (as workers) and to falsely advertise the resulting textiles (selling low quality goods while claiming they were of higher quality) in order to undercut them and put them out of business.

chii 3y ago
The customer is responsible for accepting the level of quality of said goods. And it seems overwhelmingly that they (thru their action, rather than words), prefer to have cheaper, lower quality goods as long as it passes some threshold. Therefore, if a machine surpasses this threshold, they will win marketshare.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  It's fascinating to me how capital owners are never ever responsible for anything despite having maximal agency.
  - chii 3y ago
    > maximal agency how are the capital owners deciding what a consumer would choose to spend their money on?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Billions of dollars in my bank accounts, the nerves of national infrastructure run through my hands, my face plastered across the infosphere, yet I am but a helpless pawn of the median consumer!
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  If I understand you correctly, selling counterfeit/falsely marketed goods is only a problem if enough buyers can tell the difference?
  - selestify 3y ago
    No, they never said anything about lying. That would be selling something the customer didn’t paying for. Selling lower quality goods like the article mentions is not a problem if the customers are fine with it given the lower price of the goods. The customer is responsible for making their own decisions about whether to prioritize cost or quality. As the person you were replying to says, by their actions (purchasing the cheaper, automated cloth), you can tell that the customers to appear to vastly prefer the cheaper, poor quality cloth. Who are we to tell them their preferences are wrong? Edit: I see your original comment. Where the heck did you get that factory owners were doing illegal worker displacement or doing false advertisement? I don’t see that claim in the article.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      Hmm. You’re right. This article does not have that claim, I was misremembering it from a similar article written by Cory Doctorow [0]. Also written today, also written on the same book. He has a long sections: > The true tale of the Luddites starts with workers demanding that the laws be upheld. When factory owners began to buy automation systems for textile production, they did so in violation of laws that required collaboration with existing craft guilds – laws designed to ensure that automation was phased in gradually, with accommodations for displaced workers. These laws also protected the public, with the guilds evaluating the quality of cloth produced on the machine, acting as a proxy for buyers who might otherwise be tricked into buying inferior goods. > > Factory owners flouted these laws. Though the machines made cloth that was less durable and of inferior weave, they sold it to consumers as though it were as good as the guild-made textiles. Now. The New Yorker article simply states the factories sold worse goods cheaper. Other articles I’ve found published today on it are as vague, or say nothing at all about this specific thing. The ebook is only sold with Adobe’s DRM, so I won’t be buying that. So I’ll have find another way to see what’s true. [0]: https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#more-6752 https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#more-6752
- imchillyb 3y ago
  People with money purchase quality goods, people without money do not. People don't 'prefer cheap low quality' they can't afford anything else. > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

chii 3y ago

The customer is responsible for accepting the level of quality of said goods. And it seems overwhelmingly that they (thru their action, rather than words), prefer to have cheaper, lower quality goods as long as it passes some threshold. Therefore, if a machine surpasses this threshold, they will win marketshare.

anigbrowl 3y ago
It's fascinating to me how capital owners are never ever responsible for anything despite having maximal agency.
- chii 3y ago
  > maximal agency how are the capital owners deciding what a consumer would choose to spend their money on?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Billions of dollars in my bank accounts, the nerves of national infrastructure run through my hands, my face plastered across the infosphere, yet I am but a helpless pawn of the median consumer!
_aavaa_ 3y ago
If I understand you correctly, selling counterfeit/falsely marketed goods is only a problem if enough buyers can tell the difference?
- selestify 3y ago
  No, they never said anything about lying. That would be selling something the customer didn’t paying for. Selling lower quality goods like the article mentions is not a problem if the customers are fine with it given the lower price of the goods. The customer is responsible for making their own decisions about whether to prioritize cost or quality. As the person you were replying to says, by their actions (purchasing the cheaper, automated cloth), you can tell that the customers to appear to vastly prefer the cheaper, poor quality cloth. Who are we to tell them their preferences are wrong? Edit: I see your original comment. Where the heck did you get that factory owners were doing illegal worker displacement or doing false advertisement? I don’t see that claim in the article.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    Hmm. You’re right. This article does not have that claim, I was misremembering it from a similar article written by Cory Doctorow [0]. Also written today, also written on the same book. He has a long sections: > The true tale of the Luddites starts with workers demanding that the laws be upheld. When factory owners began to buy automation systems for textile production, they did so in violation of laws that required collaboration with existing craft guilds – laws designed to ensure that automation was phased in gradually, with accommodations for displaced workers. These laws also protected the public, with the guilds evaluating the quality of cloth produced on the machine, acting as a proxy for buyers who might otherwise be tricked into buying inferior goods. > > Factory owners flouted these laws. Though the machines made cloth that was less durable and of inferior weave, they sold it to consumers as though it were as good as the guild-made textiles. Now. The New Yorker article simply states the factories sold worse goods cheaper. Other articles I’ve found published today on it are as vague, or say nothing at all about this specific thing. The ebook is only sold with Adobe’s DRM, so I won’t be buying that. So I’ll have find another way to see what’s true. [0]: https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#more-6752 https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#more-6752
imchillyb 3y ago
People with money purchase quality goods, people without money do not. People don't 'prefer cheap low quality' they can't afford anything else. > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]