• EastofEdson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    17 days ago

    Socialism isn’t a dirty word anymore. I would gladly take socialism over the late stage capitalism that allows surveillance pricing to exist.

  • eightpix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    17 days ago

    Correction: charging two people…

    — in the same store, in the same plaza, on the same day, at the slightly different times (or not!), discriminating between them algorithmically —

    different prices for the same item…

    • So much for early 2000s “price matching.”

    • So much for benefits to loyal customers.

    • So much for knowing your grocery budget.

    • So much for the “neighbourhood store.”

    • So much for people being anything other than another resource to mine.

    Everyone, everywhere is just a “rational consumer” guided by the “invisible hand” and “voting with their dollars” so that “the best products” emerge.

    All of these axioms have, in the fullness of time, proven false.

  • wampus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    People aren’t generally opposed to the idea of differential algorithmic pricing, they’re against the way it’ll almost inevitably get implemented if allowed to be done without regulation / public involvement and oversight.

    Ask a lefty if they’re in favour of charging people fines based on net worth/income, rather than based on a flat rate. Speeding ticket? That’ll be 0.5% of your annual salary, or 0.5% of your net worth, or a baseline minimum amount, whatever’s higher.

    The way it’ll get implemented though, is more like “It’s hot, so you gotta pay x2 for water if you’re poor already”. And “you’re a privileged race/gender, you get X pricing, it’s not discrimination if it’s an algorithm doing it!”.

    • MadBigote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      17 days ago

      You’re comparing examples where the entity establishing the rate of a speeding ticket or a fine is the government as a consequence of you violating the law, to a company deciding how much they know you’re willing to pay for a product or a service that may or may not a basic necessity such as water or food. Not quite the correct comparison.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Ask a lefty if they’re in favour of charging people fines based on net worth/income, rather than based on a flat rate. Speeding ticket? That’ll be 0.5% of your annual salary, or 0.5% of your net worth, or a baseline minimum amount, whatever’s higher.

      As a Finn, I’m perpetually amazed when that’s not how it works in every country. I’m not a lefty, nor poor, and I think that’s the only reasonable way to handle fines.

      • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 days ago

        every where else it’s only about punishing poor people, fairness has nothing to do with it.

  • khannie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    17 days ago

    Could one of you good folks explain to an outsider how this Muppet is still in elected office?

    Like he’s infamous on the far side of the Atlantic in the drugs and private jet and “fuck the poors” way. I haven’t seen anything that would justify voting for him.

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      17 days ago

      Many ontarians are really stupid. His “buck a beer” and literally no other platform to run on struck a chord with people who decided they got tired of the liberals

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        buck a beer

        It’s some slogan in fairness. Alliteration and everything.

        I presume buck is dollar in this context? Did he deliver on one dollar beers?

        • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          As far as I recall all he was doing was lowering the legal bottom limit beer could be sold for. And yes, we use a buck to refer to a loonie sometimes

        • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          17 days ago

          Did he deliver on one dollar beers?

          For a hot minute. Surprisingly it was really poorly made, and breweries couldn’t justify the cheap price for the cost of ingredients since none of it was subsidized by the provincial government.

          He just expected breweries to take the loss.

          • khannie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            17 days ago

            He just expected breweries to take the loss.

            Hahaha. I’m rolling around here. Genuinely. Hahahaha.

  • Reannlegge@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    17 days ago

    So he thinks this Capitalist hell scape we are entering is Socialism got it. Would love to know what he thinks Communism is, is it just a dirty word he does not know like Socialism?

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      No, he thinks the capitalist hellscape we are leaving behind is socialism, apparently.

    • Albbi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 days ago

      He’s a typical high school drug dealer that somehow failed upward. All he knows is that these are scary words that make people vote for him.