3 ms·

That’s more of an issue with the US financial infrastructure. There are plenty of poorer countries where mobile payments are more the norm than in the US.

mindslight 2y ago
Great idea. We should endeavor to be a poorer country with even less ability to escape corporate surveillance. </s>
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Yes, I’m really worried about what exactly? The places where cash are feasible to be used - in person transactions - aren’t the places where I would worry about government funding out what I’m doing. Yes I know about regressive states and tracking women who might be pregnant to “protect the unborn”.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Denial is a common coping mechanism about the ever growing corporate surveillance state and all the ways its power may (and thus eventually will) be wielded to further economically disenfranchise most people.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      So yes big corp is going to go out of its way to make it harder for people to give it money?
      - mindslight 2y ago
        I have no idea what you're alluding to. Perhaps you need to increase the scope of your analysis?
        scarface_74 2y ago
        > be wielded to further economically disenfranchise most people Is Big Corp really going out of its way to “disenfranchise” consumers to make it harder to give them money?
        mindslight 2y ago
        First, yes companies make it directly harder for customers to give them money all the time with repeating high-discount sales, bespoke proprietary web/mobile store apps, captchas, loyalty/sunk cost programs, etc. These all frustrate market efficiency, so the company can then capture some of the surplus value accumulating due to friction. "Creating a moat" (aka market inefficiency) is like business school 101. But the longer term disenfranchisement trend I see is making the numeric value of money itself ever more depreciated in favor of fine grained price discrimination. So it's not that it will be "harder to give them money", but rather that you will be paying twice as much (ie not receiving coupons/vouchers to obtain the real competitive price) based on them knowing that you personally will still buy.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        > it's not that it will be "harder to give them money", but rather that you will be paying twice as much (ie not receiving coupons/vouchers to obtain the real competitive price) based on them knowing that you personally will still buy. JCPenney has been doing that for decades. When Ron Johnson - the former CEO of Apple retail - came in as CEO and tried to get rid of the constant coupons and “sales” and implement everyday low prices, consumers rebelled and he was rapidly fired. Even with cash, stores have loyalty programs that consumers gladly sign up for. In the mid 90s, I worked at Radio Shack which was infamous for tracking how often employees asked for names and addresses just to buy batteries
        mindslight 2y ago
        I don't see how that addresses what I said. Sure, similar dynamics have existed for a while. And sure, many consumers are happy with simulated achievement. That doesn't mean they aren't getting taken advantage of, or that the dynamic won't continue to get ever worse as the corporate surveillance machine gains more capabilities.

mindslight 2y ago

Great idea. We should endeavor to be a poorer country with even less ability to escape corporate surveillance. </s>

scarface_74 2y ago
Yes, I’m really worried about what exactly? The places where cash are feasible to be used - in person transactions - aren’t the places where I would worry about government funding out what I’m doing. Yes I know about regressive states and tracking women who might be pregnant to “protect the unborn”.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Denial is a common coping mechanism about the ever growing corporate surveillance state and all the ways its power may (and thus eventually will) be wielded to further economically disenfranchise most people.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    So yes big corp is going to go out of its way to make it harder for people to give it money?
    - mindslight 2y ago
      I have no idea what you're alluding to. Perhaps you need to increase the scope of your analysis?
      - scarface_74 2y ago
        > be wielded to further economically disenfranchise most people Is Big Corp really going out of its way to “disenfranchise” consumers to make it harder to give them money?
        mindslight 2y ago
        First, yes companies make it directly harder for customers to give them money all the time with repeating high-discount sales, bespoke proprietary web/mobile store apps, captchas, loyalty/sunk cost programs, etc. These all frustrate market efficiency, so the company can then capture some of the surplus value accumulating due to friction. "Creating a moat" (aka market inefficiency) is like business school 101. But the longer term disenfranchisement trend I see is making the numeric value of money itself ever more depreciated in favor of fine grained price discrimination. So it's not that it will be "harder to give them money", but rather that you will be paying twice as much (ie not receiving coupons/vouchers to obtain the real competitive price) based on them knowing that you personally will still buy.
        scarface_74 2y ago
        > it's not that it will be "harder to give them money", but rather that you will be paying twice as much (ie not receiving coupons/vouchers to obtain the real competitive price) based on them knowing that you personally will still buy. JCPenney has been doing that for decades. When Ron Johnson - the former CEO of Apple retail - came in as CEO and tried to get rid of the constant coupons and “sales” and implement everyday low prices, consumers rebelled and he was rapidly fired. Even with cash, stores have loyalty programs that consumers gladly sign up for. In the mid 90s, I worked at Radio Shack which was infamous for tracking how often employees asked for names and addresses just to buy batteries
        mindslight 2y ago
        I don't see how that addresses what I said. Sure, similar dynamics have existed for a while. And sure, many consumers are happy with simulated achievement. That doesn't mean they aren't getting taken advantage of, or that the dynamic won't continue to get ever worse as the corporate surveillance machine gains more capabilities.