5 ms·

It’s possible to violate all sorts of social norms. Societies that celebrate people that do so are on the far opposite end of the spectrum from high trust ones.

It’s possible to violate all sorts of social norms. Societies that celebrate people that do so are on the far opposite end of the spectrum from high trust ones. They are rather unpleasant.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
Just the Silicon Valley ethos extended to it's logical conclusions. These companies take advantage of public space, utilities and goodwill at industrial scale to "move fast and break things" and then everyone else has to deal with the ensuing consequences. Like how cities are awash in those fucking electric scooters now. Mind you I'm not saying electric scooters are a bad idea, I have one and I quite enjoy it. I'm saying we didn't need five fucking startups all competing to provide them at the lowest cost possible just for 2/3s of them to end up in fucking landfills when the VC funding ran out.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  My city impounded them and made them pay a fee to get them back. Now they have to pay a fee every year to be able to operate. Win/win.
  - account42 1y ago
    Do those fees actually improve anything for the citizens who now have to deal with vehicles abandoned on sidewalks everywhere or does it just buy the major a nicer yacht?
sublinear 1y ago
[flagged]
- bradleyjg 1y ago
  A place where you can lose you wallet and get it back with all the cash inside. The horror!!
  - sublinear 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ghurtado 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - sublinear 1y ago
        [flagged]
        tempfile 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - fireflash38 1y ago
      That's a very sad and lonely way to live.
      - sublinear 1y ago
        I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
        account42 1y ago
        Obviously. You should heed the advice of other posters who told you to look up the meaning of the word.
    - arrowsmith 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - sublinear 1y ago
        [flagged]
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  Go spend some time in Brazil or South Africa or other places where no-one trusts anyone (for good reasons), then report back.
- immibis 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sublinear 1y ago
    Why bring up capitalism? I don't get it. What's stopping people from lying and cheating under any other system?
    - dgshsg 1y ago
      When lying and cheating doesn't get you ahead, there is no reason to do it.
      - Ray20 1y ago
        The problem is that without capitalism ONLY lying and cheating will get you ahead. Look at ANY country that builds its economy on the restriction of people's economic freedom, on the absence of private property rights - these are the most deceitful and disgusting regimes in the world with zero level of public trust.
      - ghurtado 1y ago
        You seriously think that mankind wasn't lying and cheating long before inventing capitalism?
        dgshsg 1y ago
        Sure, but the risk/reward ratio was different.
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        If we look at any communist society, the only way to get ahead was lying and cheating. China was forced to adopt capitalist markets to deal with this, hence why modern China hardly resembles the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, or Laos.
        1y ago
pixl97 1y ago
[flagged]
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - _proofs 1y ago
    this is such a wild comment -- there are countless products where regardless of purchase -- the user is still served advertisements. i have no idea what reality, or timeline, this comment belongs in. broadcast television, paid streaming entertainment is just straight up the most glaringly obvious example of a paid service overflowing with advertisements. paid radio broadcasts (xm/Sirius). operating systems (windows serves you ads any chance it gets). monthly subscriptions to gyms where youre constantly hit with ads, marketing, and promotions be it at the gym or via push notification (you got opted into and therefore have to opt out of intentionally after the service is paid). mobile phones, especially prepaid come LOADED with ads and bloatware. i mean the list goes on -- you cannot be serious.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      > pay for services in full directly Those are hybrid subscriptions/subsidies. Not paid in full. If you are being exposed to ads in something you paid for, you are almost certainly being charged less money. Companies can compete on cost by introducing ads, and it's why the cheaper you go, the more ad infested it gets. Pure ad-free things tend to be much more expensive then their ad subsidized counterparts. Ad subsidized has become so ubiquitous though, that people think that price is the true price.
      - _proofs 1y ago
        this seems like semantics and corporate hand-waving -- that's not what is conveyed to the user in what i have observed as the context of paid services and the promises asserted around what a purchase gets a customer. in the subsidized example, xm/Sirius is marketed to users as an "ad-free paid radio broadcast"; the marketing literally attempts to leverage the notion of it being ad-free as a consequence of your purchase (power) in order to highlight its supposed competitive edge and usefulness, and provide the user an incentive to spend money, except for the fact that the marketing is false. you still get served promotions and ads, just less "conventional" ads. i go to a football game and im literally inundated with ads -- the whole game has time stoppage dedicated to serving ads. i guess my season ticket purchase with the hopes of seeing football in person is.. apparently not spending enough money? i see this as attempting to move the goalposts and gaslight users on their purchase expectations, as a way to offload the responsibility and accountability back onto the user -- "you don't pay enough, you only think that you pay enough, so we are still going to serve you ads because <insert financial justification here around the expectations we'e undermined>. why then is there any expectation of a service being ad-free upon purchasing? who the hell actually enjoys sitting through 1.5 hours of advertisements and play stoppage? over time users have been conditioned to just tolerate it, and over time, the advertising reclaims ground it previously gave up one inch at a time in the same way people are price-gouged in those stadiums -- they don't have much alternative, but apparently the problem is the user should fork up more money for tickets so as to align their expectations with reality? while they're getting strong-armed at the concession stand via proximity and circumstance and lack of competition, no less. are you really trying to tell me the problem there is, they need to make... more money? and THEN and only THEN we can have ad-free, paid for entertainment otherwise known as american football? is this really about user expectations, or is this about companies wanting their cake and eating it, too?

It’s possible to violate all sorts of social norms. Societies that celebrate people that do so are on the far opposite end of the spectrum from high trust ones. They are rather unpleasant.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago

Just the Silicon Valley ethos extended to it's logical conclusions. These companies take advantage of public space, utilities and goodwill at industrial scale to "move fast and break things" and then everyone else has to deal with the ensuing consequences. Like how cities are awash in those fucking electric scooters now. Mind you I'm not saying electric scooters are a bad idea, I have one and I quite enjoy it. I'm saying we didn't need five fucking startups all competing to provide them at the lowest cost possible just for 2/3s of them to end up in fucking landfills when the VC funding ran out.

SoftTalker 1y ago
My city impounded them and made them pay a fee to get them back. Now they have to pay a fee every year to be able to operate. Win/win.
- account42 1y ago
  Do those fees actually improve anything for the citizens who now have to deal with vehicles abandoned on sidewalks everywhere or does it just buy the major a nicer yacht?

sublinear 1y ago

[flagged]

bradleyjg 1y ago
A place where you can lose you wallet and get it back with all the cash inside. The horror!!
- sublinear 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ghurtado 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sublinear 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - tempfile 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - fireflash38 1y ago
    That's a very sad and lonely way to live.
    - sublinear 1y ago
      I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
      - account42 1y ago
        Obviously. You should heed the advice of other posters who told you to look up the meaning of the word.
  - arrowsmith 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sublinear 1y ago
      [flagged]
arrowsmith 1y ago
Go spend some time in Brazil or South Africa or other places where no-one trusts anyone (for good reasons), then report back.
immibis 1y ago
[flagged]
- sublinear 1y ago
  Why bring up capitalism? I don't get it. What's stopping people from lying and cheating under any other system?
  - dgshsg 1y ago
    When lying and cheating doesn't get you ahead, there is no reason to do it.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      The problem is that without capitalism ONLY lying and cheating will get you ahead. Look at ANY country that builds its economy on the restriction of people's economic freedom, on the absence of private property rights - these are the most deceitful and disgusting regimes in the world with zero level of public trust.
    - ghurtado 1y ago
      You seriously think that mankind wasn't lying and cheating long before inventing capitalism?
      - dgshsg 1y ago
        Sure, but the risk/reward ratio was different.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      If we look at any communist society, the only way to get ahead was lying and cheating. China was forced to adopt capitalist markets to deal with this, hence why modern China hardly resembles the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, or Laos.
      - 1y ago

pixl97 1y ago

[flagged]

Workaccount2 1y ago
[flagged]
- _proofs 1y ago
  this is such a wild comment -- there are countless products where regardless of purchase -- the user is still served advertisements. i have no idea what reality, or timeline, this comment belongs in. broadcast television, paid streaming entertainment is just straight up the most glaringly obvious example of a paid service overflowing with advertisements. paid radio broadcasts (xm/Sirius). operating systems (windows serves you ads any chance it gets). monthly subscriptions to gyms where youre constantly hit with ads, marketing, and promotions be it at the gym or via push notification (you got opted into and therefore have to opt out of intentionally after the service is paid). mobile phones, especially prepaid come LOADED with ads and bloatware. i mean the list goes on -- you cannot be serious.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    > pay for services in full directly Those are hybrid subscriptions/subsidies. Not paid in full. If you are being exposed to ads in something you paid for, you are almost certainly being charged less money. Companies can compete on cost by introducing ads, and it's why the cheaper you go, the more ad infested it gets. Pure ad-free things tend to be much more expensive then their ad subsidized counterparts. Ad subsidized has become so ubiquitous though, that people think that price is the true price.
    - _proofs 1y ago
      this seems like semantics and corporate hand-waving -- that's not what is conveyed to the user in what i have observed as the context of paid services and the promises asserted around what a purchase gets a customer. in the subsidized example, xm/Sirius is marketed to users as an "ad-free paid radio broadcast"; the marketing literally attempts to leverage the notion of it being ad-free as a consequence of your purchase (power) in order to highlight its supposed competitive edge and usefulness, and provide the user an incentive to spend money, except for the fact that the marketing is false. you still get served promotions and ads, just less "conventional" ads. i go to a football game and im literally inundated with ads -- the whole game has time stoppage dedicated to serving ads. i guess my season ticket purchase with the hopes of seeing football in person is.. apparently not spending enough money? i see this as attempting to move the goalposts and gaslight users on their purchase expectations, as a way to offload the responsibility and accountability back onto the user -- "you don't pay enough, you only think that you pay enough, so we are still going to serve you ads because <insert financial justification here around the expectations we'e undermined>. why then is there any expectation of a service being ad-free upon purchasing? who the hell actually enjoys sitting through 1.5 hours of advertisements and play stoppage? over time users have been conditioned to just tolerate it, and over time, the advertising reclaims ground it previously gave up one inch at a time in the same way people are price-gouged in those stadiums -- they don't have much alternative, but apparently the problem is the user should fork up more money for tickets so as to align their expectations with reality? while they're getting strong-armed at the concession stand via proximity and circumstance and lack of competition, no less. are you really trying to tell me the problem there is, they need to make... more money? and THEN and only THEN we can have ad-free, paid for entertainment otherwise known as american football? is this really about user expectations, or is this about companies wanting their cake and eating it, too?