3 ms·

Unlike an elected government, who the common people at least in theory have a chance to replace via elections, the public pretty much has no say in what these c

Unlike an elected government, who the common people at least in theory have a chance to replace via elections, the public pretty much has no say in what these companies and their leadership are allowed to do. Nobody voted for Meta. Nobody voted for Palantir. Nobody voted for Philip Morris. You can say that someone "voted with their wallet," but that doesn't point to a viable solution. "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods. Because there are no alternate companies that are ethical. Ethics have costs, and the nature of competition means that ethical companies will always be outcompeted and die to companies who don't care to pay those cost.

CPLX 7mo ago
The solution is to not allow concentration of corporate power at this level and to break it up when it happens anyways. The root cause under all this IS government policy. All the giant tech companies are the product of years of already illegal behavior that was not enforced.
Noaidi 7mo ago
> "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods. This is a total exaggeration and just gives power to these companies. You can start here: https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ YOU voted for Facebook when you use it, by not installing a hosts file that blocks it and all advertisements. We do not need to use these platforms, and the less people that use them the less you will need to use it. All we have to do is start making their profit fall and they will change. But it must be a strong and unified effort.
- ben_w 7mo ago
  Unfortunately, no hosts file on iOS, and it isn't reliably listened to on macOS. But with all the other stuff Apple's doing, I suspect my next machines won't be Apple…
  - satvikpendem 7mo ago
    It's a shame because their hardware and battery life are so good but then they ruin it with the software.
  - Noaidi 7mo ago
    How about a VPN with ad blocking?
cousin_it 7mo ago
The phrase "voting with your wallet" is hilarious to begin with, because it admits that rich people have more voting power and implies that's how it should be.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo ago
  Collectively “rich people” spend less than 50% of the total consumer spending so this isn’t actually true exactly. If you mean an individual person then it really depends.
  - mememememememo 7mo ago
    Consumer being the operative word. What about business spend?
- altmanaltman 7mo ago
  So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
  - Y-bar 7mo ago
    This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich: > The top 10% of American households in terms of income earned are driving nearly half of all U.S. consumer spending. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-rich-spending-2c34a571 https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri... Edit: An NPR episode on the concerning trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentiment-spending-wealth-gap https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
    - actionfromafar 7mo ago
giwook 7mo ago
I don't disagree with you entirely. But we're not powerless. I'd argue that we saw the impact we can have when we act collectively when Trump tried to pressure ABC into cancelling Jimmy Kimmel. It took ABC a few days maybe before they capitulated (again, except this time to their customers).
- 9991 7mo ago
  Who are their customers in this scenario?
  - giwook 7mo ago
    Disney+ subscribers. Google the story.
    - 9991 7mo ago
      Oh, refreshing that the people watching are simultaneously the customers.
jmye 7mo ago
> Nobody voted for Meta. Of course they did - they “voted” for them every time they signed on to Facebook or Instagram or used WhatsApp, and they doubled down every time they let their children use them. They vote for them every time they elect grifters and spineless toadies to office. These companies don’t have users by default. They have users because shitty people use shitty services made by even shittier people because they need their little hits of dopamine. None of that, at all, has a fucking thing to do with being a “hermit living in the woods” unless you’re determined to make the contrived, obviously bullshit argument that “everything, everywhere is terrible so it’s all pointless so just keep scrolling”. But that would be trivially asinine.
- Schmerika 7mo ago
  You're on HN; a platform where the founders and CEO are big cheerleaders of DOGE. Where talk of many third rail topics is quietly flagged into oblivion, and discussions on the flagging processes are explicitly banned. YC were best buds with Peter Thiel... And literally had Sam "scan everyone's eyeballs" Altman as Pres for 5 years. They are actively seeking out "defense" tech to invest in; even during a US sponsored genocide, and now-daily war crimes. The users here aren't tech-clueless like a lot of Facebookers would be. In theory we're better educated, better informed, more tech savvy, and higher paid. As a group, we're far more deeply connected and complicit with the tech bros than Whatsappers and Instagrammers. So, we have that much less of an excuse to be "shitty people [who] use shitty services made by even shittier people because they need their little hits of dopamine." I despise Meta. I also use their services sometimes. Maybe it's not simply a matter of voting for Zuckerberg, but there are network effects and captured systems and manipulation of addictive behaviors. Maybe things aren't as vanta-black and ultra-white as you're insisting. I'll put it like this - what you're doing with that comment above is a lot like blaming smokers for feeding the tobacco companies. Despite all the lies and ads and manipulation, despite all the dirty tricks, despite the hard-core science used to get people hooked from every possible angle. Despite the cancer, the lung disease, the heart problems suffered by the victims. Punch up dude.
  - superkuh 7mo ago
    >I'll put it like this - what you're doing with that comment above is a lot like blaming smokers for feeding the tobacco companies. Despite all the lies and ads and manipulation, despite all the dirty tricks, despite the hard-core science used to get people hooked from every possible angle. I have never used Facebook and I never will. What they have done is immoral and unethical and deserves regulation. What I fear is that regulation will be informed from the false and dangerous equivalence you've made there comparing addictive drugs to looking at an audio-visual screen. Drugs literally can make you want without there being any enjoyment. Screens are just a medium, like, a radio (which can also be used for random internal operant conditioning), the screens and the radio are not the problem and they are NOT LIKE DRUGS. You actually have to enjoy the experience and repeat it. And that's just normal learning. That drug comparison will lead to government's treating computers' like drugs which means heavy regulation of end users and violence against them. A far more dangerous scenario than the issues were facing from the corporations now. We need regulation of the corporations intentionally doing random interval operant conditioning. Not regulation of the medium they do it over and the people enjoying using that medium.
altmanaltman 7mo ago
The elected government can do something about these companies and their leadership if the people who elect them force it. It is not the job of the general public to regulate companies and their behavior; it's the job of the government in a regulated free market, and the common people elect the government.

CPLX 7mo ago

The solution is to not allow concentration of corporate power at this level and to break it up when it happens anyways. The root cause under all this IS government policy. All the giant tech companies are the product of years of already illegal behavior that was not enforced.

Noaidi 7mo ago

> "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods. This is a total exaggeration and just gives power to these companies. You can start here: https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ YOU voted for Facebook when you use it, by not installing a hosts file that blocks it and all advertisements. We do not need to use these platforms, and the less people that use them the less you will need to use it. All we have to do is start making their profit fall and they will change. But it must be a strong and unified effort.

ben_w 7mo ago
Unfortunately, no hosts file on iOS, and it isn't reliably listened to on macOS. But with all the other stuff Apple's doing, I suspect my next machines won't be Apple…
- satvikpendem 7mo ago
  It's a shame because their hardware and battery life are so good but then they ruin it with the software.
- Noaidi 7mo ago
  How about a VPN with ad blocking?

cousin_it 7mo ago

The phrase "voting with your wallet" is hilarious to begin with, because it admits that rich people have more voting power and implies that's how it should be.

zeroonetwothree 7mo ago
Collectively “rich people” spend less than 50% of the total consumer spending so this isn’t actually true exactly. If you mean an individual person then it really depends.
- mememememememo 7mo ago
  Consumer being the operative word. What about business spend?
altmanaltman 7mo ago
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
- Y-bar 7mo ago
  This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich: > The top 10% of American households in terms of income earned are driving nearly half of all U.S. consumer spending. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-rich-spending-2c34a571 https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri... Edit: An NPR episode on the concerning trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentiment-spending-wealth-gap https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
  - actionfromafar 7mo ago

giwook 7mo ago

I don't disagree with you entirely. But we're not powerless. I'd argue that we saw the impact we can have when we act collectively when Trump tried to pressure ABC into cancelling Jimmy Kimmel. It took ABC a few days maybe before they capitulated (again, except this time to their customers).

9991 7mo ago
Who are their customers in this scenario?
- giwook 7mo ago
  Disney+ subscribers. Google the story.
  - 9991 7mo ago
    Oh, refreshing that the people watching are simultaneously the customers.

jmye 7mo ago

> Nobody voted for Meta. Of course they did - they “voted” for them every time they signed on to Facebook or Instagram or used WhatsApp, and they doubled down every time they let their children use them. They vote for them every time they elect grifters and spineless toadies to office. These companies don’t have users by default. They have users because shitty people use shitty services made by even shittier people because they need their little hits of dopamine. None of that, at all, has a fucking thing to do with being a “hermit living in the woods” unless you’re determined to make the contrived, obviously bullshit argument that “everything, everywhere is terrible so it’s all pointless so just keep scrolling”. But that would be trivially asinine.

Schmerika 7mo ago
You're on HN; a platform where the founders and CEO are big cheerleaders of DOGE. Where talk of many third rail topics is quietly flagged into oblivion, and discussions on the flagging processes are explicitly banned. YC were best buds with Peter Thiel... And literally had Sam "scan everyone's eyeballs" Altman as Pres for 5 years. They are actively seeking out "defense" tech to invest in; even during a US sponsored genocide, and now-daily war crimes. The users here aren't tech-clueless like a lot of Facebookers would be. In theory we're better educated, better informed, more tech savvy, and higher paid. As a group, we're far more deeply connected and complicit with the tech bros than Whatsappers and Instagrammers. So, we have that much less of an excuse to be "shitty people [who] use shitty services made by even shittier people because they need their little hits of dopamine." I despise Meta. I also use their services sometimes. Maybe it's not simply a matter of voting for Zuckerberg, but there are network effects and captured systems and manipulation of addictive behaviors. Maybe things aren't as vanta-black and ultra-white as you're insisting. I'll put it like this - what you're doing with that comment above is a lot like blaming smokers for feeding the tobacco companies. Despite all the lies and ads and manipulation, despite all the dirty tricks, despite the hard-core science used to get people hooked from every possible angle. Despite the cancer, the lung disease, the heart problems suffered by the victims. Punch up dude.
- superkuh 7mo ago
  >I'll put it like this - what you're doing with that comment above is a lot like blaming smokers for feeding the tobacco companies. Despite all the lies and ads and manipulation, despite all the dirty tricks, despite the hard-core science used to get people hooked from every possible angle. I have never used Facebook and I never will. What they have done is immoral and unethical and deserves regulation. What I fear is that regulation will be informed from the false and dangerous equivalence you've made there comparing addictive drugs to looking at an audio-visual screen. Drugs literally can make you want without there being any enjoyment. Screens are just a medium, like, a radio (which can also be used for random internal operant conditioning), the screens and the radio are not the problem and they are NOT LIKE DRUGS. You actually have to enjoy the experience and repeat it. And that's just normal learning. That drug comparison will lead to government's treating computers' like drugs which means heavy regulation of end users and violence against them. A far more dangerous scenario than the issues were facing from the corporations now. We need regulation of the corporations intentionally doing random interval operant conditioning. Not regulation of the medium they do it over and the people enjoying using that medium.

altmanaltman 7mo ago

The elected government can do something about these companies and their leadership if the people who elect them force it. It is not the job of the general public to regulate companies and their behavior; it's the job of the government in a regulated free market, and the common people elect the government.