Doctorow: American tech cartels use apps to break the law(lithub.com)
lithub.com
Doctorow: American tech cartels use apps to break the law
https://lithub.com/how-american-tech-cartels-use-apps-to-break-the-law/
223 comments
They also punish you by charging wildly higher prices without the app. You have to use the app just to get prices around what they "should" be, compared with the pre-app era and adjusting for the broader inflation rate.
Like clearly they're OK with forcing a choice between "use the app" and "never eat McDonalds again", because that's effectively what they're doing, and they have to know it.
Like clearly they're OK with forcing a choice between "use the app" and "never eat McDonalds again", because that's effectively what they're doing, and they have to know it.
There's also the price discrimination angle of it. McDonald's has at least two sizeable groups of customers: people who frequently eat there, and are thus a change in the McDonald's pricing is significant in their total budget, and people who will occasionally eat there.
Presumably, some analyst at McDonald's found that the latter group wasn't particularly price sensitive, so they found a way to divide the two groups, and charge them different prices. The occasional McDonald's customer isn't going to jump through hoops, they just want to roll up, get their burger, and leave. The frequent customer is more likely to respond to changes in pricing in both directions. Having a system to actively prompt the frequent consumers to go more often, and then charge them a price that they are willing to pay, while still getting the full benefit of the people who don't really care how much food costs is a win-win from their perspective.
The surveillance is just a sweetener.
Presumably, some analyst at McDonald's found that the latter group wasn't particularly price sensitive, so they found a way to divide the two groups, and charge them different prices. The occasional McDonald's customer isn't going to jump through hoops, they just want to roll up, get their burger, and leave. The frequent customer is more likely to respond to changes in pricing in both directions. Having a system to actively prompt the frequent consumers to go more often, and then charge them a price that they are willing to pay, while still getting the full benefit of the people who don't really care how much food costs is a win-win from their perspective.
The surveillance is just a sweetener.
I fall squarely in the second camp, but what ended up happening was that I went from going occasionally, to not going at all.
McDonald's app-free pricing is now butting against actual sit-down restaurants, or a good local shop. I'm not price sensitive per se, but I don't want a raw deal, so I'll pick the better option. McD's used to be cheap and fast, now it's neither really.
Their sales are falling, and they're doing $5 deals now, so I'm definitely not the only one picking other options.
McDonald's app-free pricing is now butting against actual sit-down restaurants, or a good local shop. I'm not price sensitive per se, but I don't want a raw deal, so I'll pick the better option. McD's used to be cheap and fast, now it's neither really.
Their sales are falling, and they're doing $5 deals now, so I'm definitely not the only one picking other options.
Yeah, they definitely got greedy with it. My go-to example is to point out the fact that In-N-Out used to be the fast food option for when you were willing to pay a few extra bucks to be served a better burger by someone who didn't look like they wanted to kill themselves. Now they're the cheapest option, by a substantial margin, and they didn't change a damn thing.
In my city we have a McDonalds and a Shake Shack on the opposite of the same block, and given they cost about the same, guess which one does volume? Ridiculous.
I always hear this but I've never found this. The couple of times a year I eat McDonald's I check and it's the same. There are specific deals they'll have in the app like "2 filet of fish for $7 instead of $4 each" or something but by and large the prices are the same.
If you are in the 'couple of times a year' consumer type bucket you might not be valuable enough to do the deep discounting to. They offer the better deals to the 'couple of times a month' or more frequent users to keep them hooked.
I don't know for sure but it may be regional. In my area, they always have a $5 off $20 deal that makes things slightly more palatable but even still, it's just bringing the prices back to what they really should be as others have said. I've uninstalled the app and completely stop going there entirely, the quality (not that it was ever great to be clear) is pretty terrible and there are so many better local places with way better value.
I'm more okay with never eating from what are, by my use anyway, public restrooms than installing some app.
...which is why I don't eat McDonald's. Also, don't forget, the app limits your legal rights as well. No lawsuit or class action for you, bub.
>They also punish you by charging wildly higher prices without the app.
I don't think we have this problem in Australia, so I haven't noticed...however the converse way of looking at this is they DISCOUNT your meal using the revenue from selling data on you! Win win, right?
...right?
I don't think we have this problem in Australia, so I haven't noticed...however the converse way of looking at this is they DISCOUNT your meal using the revenue from selling data on you! Win win, right?
...right?
>Finally I understand why when the McDonalds app was introduced it asked for permission to access my contacts
Maybe it did at some point but it's not in the list of permissions on Android
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mcdonalds....
Maybe it did at some point but it's not in the list of permissions on Android
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mcdonalds....
Interesting. But emails is still there. Wonder what that means.
"Financial information " is on the list...
...I am thinking that does not include payslips....
...I am thinking that does not include payslips....
Where do you see "financial information"? It's not on the permissions list
Its under data shared: https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.mcdonal...
In that case it's obviously payment info since you can order through the app.
One good response to that question is "I don't and I never will, sorry", some people think you can only vote with your wallet but that's not true, they really don't like the hostile atmosphere such kind of answers give, so if it became a common answer I bet they would stop asking so directly.
This is such a weird mindset. How much interaction do you think the person hearing your response has with the person in corporate that made them all ask that question?
Being rude or hostile to service people, even just mildly, because of corporate decisions is not only ineffective, but it's also cruel.
Being rude or hostile to service people, even just mildly, because of corporate decisions is not only ineffective, but it's also cruel.
Rudeness in hostility is in how you state your position. Having a position (that you dislike and won't participate in a corporate sales funnel is always OK, and it's always OK to politely express that to representatives of the corporation. Even if they happen to be employees of the franchise owner, they're wearing the uniform and promoting the brand, rather than representing 'local burger restaurant.' Of course, you can just not eat there at all (I don't) but in that case no communication is taking place. Many people are OK with McDonalds' food offerings but not with their invasive app marketing.
Trust me, no communication is happening in either situation. Your complaint is not being run up the corporate ladder. All you're doing is making someone's day a bit worse in order to get some fleeting feeling of self-satisfaction for voicing your opinion. You're of course free to be that person, but the rest of us are free to judge you for it.
In the modern corporate world that leadership has entirely insulated itself from customer feedback - if it was plausible to voice your opinion through more appropriate channels I'd advocate for that but many companies have purposefully shut those channels down.
What is the better option to pass along that message than modestly increasing retraining costs for that position?
I treat service workers with respect, personally, but I am struggling to see what other venues of communication are still available.
What is the better option to pass along that message than modestly increasing retraining costs for that position?
I treat service workers with respect, personally, but I am struggling to see what other venues of communication are still available.
1) Stop using the service.
2) Directly email them anyone who might have some say in the matter.
3) Make public posts on social media about your position.
You still may not get heard, but all of these have better odds than complaining to the front-line service workers.
2) Directly email them anyone who might have some say in the matter.
3) Make public posts on social media about your position.
You still may not get heard, but all of these have better odds than complaining to the front-line service workers.
Like I said in my other comment, this is missing the point. This approach won’t be effective. Nothing is actually being communicated to the people making decisions. The difficulty in finding another more effective approach doesn’t change that fact. If you feel passionate about this issue, you should try some of the suggestions by the other commenter.
I do not trust you, because I have been a food service worker and actually know what I'm talking about. A customer expressing a preference has never bothered me if they weren't rude about it. If it happens often enough it does get passed on, even though the individual impact of any counter conversation is low. You are trying to turn normal amicable commercial interactions into some kind of moral purity test.
> I have been a food service worker and actually know what I'm talking about.
Same here.
> A customer expressing a preference has never bothered me if they weren't rude about it.
A lot of people are seemingly skipping over OP describing their behavior as creating a “hostile atmosphere”. That is inherently rude.
> If it happens often enough it does get passed on
But we aren’t talking about just telling your manager. There are so many layers of management and bureaucracy with larger corporations, especially ones with a structure like McDonalds’ franchise model, that these complaints will not make it to the decision makers.
Same here.
> A customer expressing a preference has never bothered me if they weren't rude about it.
A lot of people are seemingly skipping over OP describing their behavior as creating a “hostile atmosphere”. That is inherently rude.
> If it happens often enough it does get passed on
But we aren’t talking about just telling your manager. There are so many layers of management and bureaucracy with larger corporations, especially ones with a structure like McDonalds’ franchise model, that these complaints will not make it to the decision makers.
This read to me like a poorly-chosen phrase from a non-native speaker. I had no impression OP intended to communicate hostility, just rejection of the corporate practice.
But we aren’t talking about just telling your manager. There are so many layers of management and bureaucracy with larger corporations, especially ones with a structure like McDonalds’ franchise model, that these complaints will not make it to the decision makers.
They will eventually. Years ago Starbucks used to insist that customers specify 'tall, grande, or venti' for their medium, large, and x-large cups, to the point of arguing with the customer if they just asked for the large. They abandoned the practice some years ago, presumably due to feedback from their counter staff.
But we aren’t talking about just telling your manager. There are so many layers of management and bureaucracy with larger corporations, especially ones with a structure like McDonalds’ franchise model, that these complaints will not make it to the decision makers.
They will eventually. Years ago Starbucks used to insist that customers specify 'tall, grande, or venti' for their medium, large, and x-large cups, to the point of arguing with the customer if they just asked for the large. They abandoned the practice some years ago, presumably due to feedback from their counter staff.
>This read to me like a poorly-chosen phrase from a non-native speaker. I had no impression OP intended to communicate hostility, just rejection of the corporate practice.
This is also incredibly weird to me. There is nothing in that post that shows any indication of them not being a native speaker. You just agree with their underlying point so you're giving yourself leeway to ignore the parts of what they said with which you disagree. However, you can't actually admit that bias to yourself or to me, so now you're completely fabricating stories about them being a non-native speaker. It doesn't matter to you that this justification is entirely circular, they didn't mean "hostile" because they're a non-native speaker and they're a non-native speaker because they said "hostile" when they didn't mean it.
This is also incredibly weird to me. There is nothing in that post that shows any indication of them not being a native speaker. You just agree with their underlying point so you're giving yourself leeway to ignore the parts of what they said with which you disagree. However, you can't actually admit that bias to yourself or to me, so now you're completely fabricating stories about them being a non-native speaker. It doesn't matter to you that this justification is entirely circular, they didn't mean "hostile" because they're a non-native speaker and they're a non-native speaker because they said "hostile" when they didn't mean it.
Wrong on all accounts: I am indeed a non-native speaker, and reading it again I do see a few indications myself, and my definition "hostility" (and I'm sure I am not alone on this) is a spectrum so you are also giving yourself leeway to interpret things in your preferred way, for example furrowing your brow for a couple of seconds and then looking away is a hostile behavior, if you get on the train and look a stranger like that they would likely describe you as "a bit hostile", maybe I am using it too much as a synonym of "aggressive", which according to the dictionary it is, if instead I were talking about war or politics it would be crystal clear we are talking about the "hard" flavor of hostility but here we are talking about a simple client-customer interaction to get some food.
Well way back in the day, I worked at Radio Shack in college. We were suppose to ask for a phone number and address as part of the payment flow. People complained, I said it was corporate policy. I really didn’t give a shit about their complaints. I got my little minimum wage, sold useless warranties and got a $5 spiff and went on with my day.
Whether it bothered you, it was useless for the customer to complain
Whether it bothered you, it was useless for the customer to complain
No. I call bullshit on your oddly protective stance in favor of how corporations do things.
The pushback has to start somewhere and if it means being mildly rude to some poor cashier for a second, well, that's part of their job and you're not some kind of asshole for making your dislike obvious. You came in there to buy something specific and simple after all, and being pushed on something else is rude too.
You can't be expected to write a strongly worded letter to corporate every one of the many times in an average day that you'll encounter some new, blandly packaged parasitic data harvesting or price gouging practice from some corporation.
On the other hand, if you and enough others create a pattern of responding with a bit of hostility at the customer service end of things, you're nearly guaranteed to fuck up some KPIs somewhere, and raise enough eyebrows to make the executives at X corporation reconsider a few things.
The pushback has to start somewhere and if it means being mildly rude to some poor cashier for a second, well, that's part of their job and you're not some kind of asshole for making your dislike obvious. You came in there to buy something specific and simple after all, and being pushed on something else is rude too.
You can't be expected to write a strongly worded letter to corporate every one of the many times in an average day that you'll encounter some new, blandly packaged parasitic data harvesting or price gouging practice from some corporation.
On the other hand, if you and enough others create a pattern of responding with a bit of hostility at the customer service end of things, you're nearly guaranteed to fuck up some KPIs somewhere, and raise enough eyebrows to make the executives at X corporation reconsider a few things.
Do you think the cashier even care or will remember at the end of the day
> but the rest of us are free to judge you for it.
FALSE.
In today's economy and politics of normalized and systemic dark pattern enshittification, fomenting discord toward the turtles all the way down is a responsible civic duty of a disgruntled public captured and corralled by corporate monopolies with no exits.
FALSE.
In today's economy and politics of normalized and systemic dark pattern enshittification, fomenting discord toward the turtles all the way down is a responsible civic duty of a disgruntled public captured and corralled by corporate monopolies with no exits.
We shouldn't be rude or hostile to people, but expressing your disapproval or displeasure definitely can (and in my experience, has) caused a chain reaction enough over time the corp makes changes.
disney just reinstated kimmel due to a shitstorm of angry twitter fans + cancelled memberships.
vote with your mouth and wallet
vote with your mouth and wallet
Fair enough, but where do you draw the line? What if they ask you for ID for a burger? What if they ask to see your browsing history? Or your medical history? At what point is "I will never give that to you" or "Ha ha, no" justified?
At some point you just buy your burger elsewhere. "Can I see ID!" is absolutely across that "go elsewhere" line. No need to be rude, just stopping giving your money to them.
These questions are missing the point. The person you're talking to has no control over the policy so any response directly to them is not going to impact that policy which means the objectionable nature of the policy and your desire to change it are irrelevant. If you're so deeply offended by the question, either stop patronizing the business or voice your criticism in a more constructive manner like trying to reach out to corporate or organizing some consumer action. Don't go the easy and lazy route of attacking the messenger.
No, I see the point, I just don't buy the argument that people working retail have been stripped of all agency, and so therefore your reaction to them must always be a calculated indifference. At some point, you've got to stick up for your dignity. Maybe it's not this case, but it's not far off.
[deleted]
The problem is that your response is precisely what the corporate decision-makers rely on to insulate themselves from criticism.
That doesn't mean that you are wrong: there is no point protesting to a cashier. My point is that there is no realistic or effective way for us to actually communicate to the corporate decision makers that rule our world. This becomes even more true as corporations consolidate power, which is precisely the "enshittification" that Cory Doctorow has been writing about.
That doesn't mean that you are wrong: there is no point protesting to a cashier. My point is that there is no realistic or effective way for us to actually communicate to the corporate decision makers that rule our world. This becomes even more true as corporations consolidate power, which is precisely the "enshittification" that Cory Doctorow has been writing about.
It's really evil that corporations closed all ways of giving feedback, and the ones that remained are considered bad manners because "think of poor employees".
No one said to be rude, let alone cruel, to service people. Talk about a weird mindset.
No one said anything that evenr remotely implied the cashier has the ear of the ceo. Talk about a weird mindset.
It's entirely valid, in fact it's positive, being helpful by being informative, to tell a business what you want or why you are not going to buy their product, instead of simply not buying their product.
It's for damned sure valid to tell them what you would preferr if for some reason you are forced by circumstances or priorities to buy their product under duress.
This whole comment is only 2 sentences yet manages to have like a dozen different facets of weird mindset if you unpack it all.
No one said anything that evenr remotely implied the cashier has the ear of the ceo. Talk about a weird mindset.
It's entirely valid, in fact it's positive, being helpful by being informative, to tell a business what you want or why you are not going to buy their product, instead of simply not buying their product.
It's for damned sure valid to tell them what you would preferr if for some reason you are forced by circumstances or priorities to buy their product under duress.
This whole comment is only 2 sentences yet manages to have like a dozen different facets of weird mindset if you unpack it all.
The original comment talked about intentionally creating a “hostile atmosphere”. Doing that for no other reason than making yourself feel better is rude and cruel to the people who have to deal with your hostility.
when you go through the drive-thru the question is asked by an automated voice with the same weird inflection every time you drive up, not a human service person.
I just say 'Im allergic to apps.'
The person mandating the question doesn't care if you sound hostile to the person at the window, they just care how many start using the app.
There are definitely some people who think that directing anger and unpleasantness at the person they talk to (who has no control over the situation other than choosing not to do their job) is a valid approach to providing "feedback".
Some sort of "trickle up" mechanism where if enough people are sufficiently nasty to frontline workers, it'll get back to decision makers who will then change course.
I think that's fantasy and/or rationalization for taking things out on others.
Some sort of "trickle up" mechanism where if enough people are sufficiently nasty to frontline workers, it'll get back to decision makers who will then change course.
I think that's fantasy and/or rationalization for taking things out on others.
I was a customer facing employee for a company whose underhanded policies caused me to face a lot of (legitimate) hostility.
I eventually quit for this reason, and I know at least one other employee who did. That company lost two otherwise good employees.
It works, it's just a question of how much collateral damage you're ok with.
If management want to use front facing employees to shelter them from customer grievance, what other target to people have?
Yes. But...
It is a bit off to attack the drones of a corporate, albethey the only available target?
Do you really need that burger? Better to boycot them entirety
(Easy for me to say, I dispise MacDonalds food)
It is a bit off to attack the drones of a corporate, albethey the only available target?
Do you really need that burger? Better to boycot them entirety
(Easy for me to say, I dispise MacDonalds food)
The particular problem here is there's no feedback as to why you boycott them.
You see, the following headline has more effect on CEO's and decision makers
"McD's sales drop 10% after customers refuse the app and other forms of spying" --Forbes
If it's a silent boycott then you see stupid headlines like
"Are millennials killing McD?"
Remember the entire purpose isn't so that one company doesn't track you with an app, is so every company figures out tracking you with an app is a bad idea.
You see, the following headline has more effect on CEO's and decision makers
"McD's sales drop 10% after customers refuse the app and other forms of spying" --Forbes
If it's a silent boycott then you see stupid headlines like
"Are millennials killing McD?"
Remember the entire purpose isn't so that one company doesn't track you with an app, is so every company figures out tracking you with an app is a bad idea.
So write to the news. The problem is not lack of publicity avenue, it's too few people seem to care enough about apps selling their data to make the headlines in the first place. They'd rather just get the burger and not care.
Did things change after you left?
Many people here seem to think a customer clearly stating their preference is inherently angry and unpleasant to front line workers. It isn't.
I think that reaction stems more from the comment outright seeking to create a hostile atmosphere about it, not from being clear on preferences in itself.
It's the same thing with customers who make a big scene about a missing fries or something. 99% of the time it's not a problem and nobody cares - here's your fries, have a nice day. 1% of the time the person cares less about the fries and more about being hostile about it on principle/for fun/for respect/because they are in a bad mood/whatever, and those are the ones that suck to deal with when you're there but not in charge.
It's the same thing with customers who make a big scene about a missing fries or something. 99% of the time it's not a problem and nobody cares - here's your fries, have a nice day. 1% of the time the person cares less about the fries and more about being hostile about it on principle/for fun/for respect/because they are in a bad mood/whatever, and those are the ones that suck to deal with when you're there but not in charge.
The context of the comment I was replying was "The person mandating the question doesn't care if you sound hostile to the person at the window".
So the premise is "the customer is hostile".
So the premise is "the customer is hostile".
Indeed. I think anything short of tossing your drink at McDonalds workers probably doesn't phase them. They deal with much worse shit from the public than somebody snarking at the premise of having an app.
The teenager on the other end of the headset isn't the person you should be fighting this battle against.
“Well, I’ll tell you what, pal. I am not mad at you, okay? I am mad at the system. Okay, but unfortunately the system isn’t here for me to direct my frustrations at it—“ Dennis
It's usually asked by AI, at least at Taco Bell. There is no human that will feel the hostility.
[deleted]
Are you saying AI takes your order at Taco Bell drive through? If so, good thing to avoid.
No, just to ask you if you're using the app. After you say no a human comes on the intercom. The human doesn't have to suffer the abuse of asking about the app, wouldn't surprise me if part of that is because it's set lots of people in a rage so they let them just vent to a computer.
I have no idea what happens if you order through the app, maybe in that case it's 100% AI.
I have no idea what happens if you order through the app, maybe in that case it's 100% AI.
On the contrary, some Taco Bell locations are using an LLM for the entire order conversation. It's still a human that takes your card/cash, but they only state the price to be charged, and ask about hot sauce packets. I was so unsettled by the experience that I ended up not noticing the extra drink they handed me until I made it all the way home.
if ones tirade is of sufficient duration, [or volume] the human will hear at least part of it.
It did but I think they're rolling that back now.
like a glance at the menu wasn't enough ...
btw, i just now did glance at the menu online, i had no idea that this crap i wouldn't dare to call food (unless i were starving) is currently selling in spain. this is a tiny bit depressing but was actually to be expected, and i stand by my statement :-)
btw, i just now did glance at the menu online, i had no idea that this crap i wouldn't dare to call food (unless i were starving) is currently selling in spain. this is a tiny bit depressing but was actually to be expected, and i stand by my statement :-)
You can simply reply no, and be polite about it.
You’ll be asked the next time you visit, guaranteed. No matter your attitude so why be mean?
You’ll be asked the next time you visit, guaranteed. No matter your attitude so why be mean?
It's a good thing that decision-making executives are the ones who hear what you say into the squawk-box. And that the local employees get to decide how to answer, and aren't on a mandatory script.
[deleted]
It can be interesting to look at all the servers these apps try to reach after being installed
Unless one is using something like GrapheneOS, Android/iOS "app permissions" do not meaningfully impede data collection
As long as apps can connect to the internet, data can be collected. By design Android/iOS does not enable users to deny internet access to specific apps. That design is not a coincidence
Unless one is using something like GrapheneOS, Android/iOS "app permissions" do not meaningfully impede data collection
As long as apps can connect to the internet, data can be collected. By design Android/iOS does not enable users to deny internet access to specific apps. That design is not a coincidence
To me, the differences between iOS and Android are insignificant. Both corporate OS suck, and there are other corporate OS that suck, too
The fundamental similarity is that Apple does not protect the Apple computer owner^1 from Apple anymore than Google protects Android users from Google
Like Google, Apple collects data and profits from ad services. The Apple hardware buyer becomes the product after purchase. Apple profits from selling access to the hardware owner to myriad third parties. It's always making deals
Like the one with Google we learned about in the government's antitrust case. But I digress
There was a meme something like, "Unless you're paying, you are the product". But it's also possible to pay and be the product. For example, when someone purchases an individual Windows license from Microsoft, after purchase the company is still going to _require_ them to create an "account", connect to the internet and be subjected to data collection
Both iOS and Android have "app stores" (MS copies this, too), both expect and intend these "app stores" to earn them revenue from advertising, e.g., allowing apps to do surveillance, data collections and show ads
1. who is forced to use iOS. No "unlocked" bootloaders. No custom ROMs
The fundamental similarity is that Apple does not protect the Apple computer owner^1 from Apple anymore than Google protects Android users from Google
Like Google, Apple collects data and profits from ad services. The Apple hardware buyer becomes the product after purchase. Apple profits from selling access to the hardware owner to myriad third parties. It's always making deals
Like the one with Google we learned about in the government's antitrust case. But I digress
There was a meme something like, "Unless you're paying, you are the product". But it's also possible to pay and be the product. For example, when someone purchases an individual Windows license from Microsoft, after purchase the company is still going to _require_ them to create an "account", connect to the internet and be subjected to data collection
Both iOS and Android have "app stores" (MS copies this, too), both expect and intend these "app stores" to earn them revenue from advertising, e.g., allowing apps to do surveillance, data collections and show ads
1. who is forced to use iOS. No "unlocked" bootloaders. No custom ROMs
There are no "toggles" that protect iOS users from data collection and surveillance by Apple
Today's Apple computers try to ping Apple servers the moment they are powered on for the first time. The devices incessantly try to "phone home". Apple's definition of "privacy" does not include privacy from Apple. That is not a coincidence
There is no "toggle" to enable this "convenience", i.e., usage of Apple servers, because it is, by design, on by default
This is not an opinion or a perspective (a "take"). It is a fact, verifiable with tcpdump or the like
One can focus on differences or one can focus on similarities. Many online commentators choose the former. But if focusing on similarities, then it is indisputably clear that Android and iOS are both designed to allow Google and Apple, respectively,^1 to conduct surveillance, data collection and provide ad services
1. Apple also allows Google to collect data from iOS users via default web search in exchange for recurring payement of several billion dollars
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/apples-eddy-cue-defends-defa...
One of the other facts that the court learned from the expert tetimony in this case is that defaults matter. If generally no one uses the "toggles", then Apple and Google operate as if they have "consent" to collect data, as if the computer owner voluntarily toggled "Allow surveillance, data collection and ads" to "ON"
"In-app advertising" is a growing business for Apple
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/global-app-store-help...
By design, in order to serve ads to iOS users, an app needs internet connectivity. Even when the app has no need for internet connectivity otherwise
Today's Apple computers try to ping Apple servers the moment they are powered on for the first time. The devices incessantly try to "phone home". Apple's definition of "privacy" does not include privacy from Apple. That is not a coincidence
There is no "toggle" to enable this "convenience", i.e., usage of Apple servers, because it is, by design, on by default
This is not an opinion or a perspective (a "take"). It is a fact, verifiable with tcpdump or the like
One can focus on differences or one can focus on similarities. Many online commentators choose the former. But if focusing on similarities, then it is indisputably clear that Android and iOS are both designed to allow Google and Apple, respectively,^1 to conduct surveillance, data collection and provide ad services
1. Apple also allows Google to collect data from iOS users via default web search in exchange for recurring payement of several billion dollars
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/apples-eddy-cue-defends-defa...
One of the other facts that the court learned from the expert tetimony in this case is that defaults matter. If generally no one uses the "toggles", then Apple and Google operate as if they have "consent" to collect data, as if the computer owner voluntarily toggled "Allow surveillance, data collection and ads" to "ON"
"In-app advertising" is a growing business for Apple
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/global-app-store-help...
By design, in order to serve ads to iOS users, an app needs internet connectivity. Even when the app has no need for internet connectivity otherwise
This is a disingenuous take that punishes companies with better data collection practices. iOS has many toggles for disabling data collection, ad personalisation, limit apps from tracking you with more persistent techniques, and so on.
I'd never defend Apple willy-nilly: they're a megacorp that defrauds the European consumer and is hostile to much I care about. But there is a world of difference between Android and iOS in terms of the protections afforded to the user. Of course most people just don't know where the toggles and settings are that protect them on iOS.
I'd never defend Apple willy-nilly: they're a megacorp that defrauds the European consumer and is hostile to much I care about. But there is a world of difference between Android and iOS in terms of the protections afforded to the user. Of course most people just don't know where the toggles and settings are that protect them on iOS.
> By design Android/iOS does not enable users to deny internet access to specific apps.
It does seem like the number one permission you might wish to choose not to grant, doesn't it?
In a privacy-first design there could also be an API for an encrypted channel that the user has access to, rather than allowing the device to send mysterious black-box data from your device on your behalf in the background whenever it wants. Though I suppose it would just turn into base64 "plaintext" payloads quickly and become normalised rather than a neon sign of fuckery afoot.
It does seem like the number one permission you might wish to choose not to grant, doesn't it?
In a privacy-first design there could also be an API for an encrypted channel that the user has access to, rather than allowing the device to send mysterious black-box data from your device on your behalf in the background whenever it wants. Though I suppose it would just turn into base64 "plaintext" payloads quickly and become normalised rather than a neon sign of fuckery afoot.
On iOS you can deny an app cellular data access which accomplishes this, as long as you don't launch it on Wifi. But yes I too wish I could deny apps internet access completely.
"... as long as you don't launch it on WiFi."
Unfortunately, apps can still connect even when they are not "launched"
There are ways to deny apps internet access completely. But this is not something that is provided by Apple or Google
Unfortunately, apps can still connect even when they are not "launched"
There are ways to deny apps internet access completely. But this is not something that is provided by Apple or Google
It would be cool to have some form of filtering vpn to do just that and easy to deploy on a personal vm provider.
Maybe I should ask Claude Code to kludge together something.
Maybe I should ask Claude Code to kludge together something.
>> I wonder if selling personal information makes them more money than selling hamburgers.
Historically it's been a real estate company due to the vast portfoloio and usually prime locations. Not sure if this is still the case.
Historically it's been a real estate company due to the vast portfoloio and usually prime locations. Not sure if this is still the case.
At my local spot, they just shout "MOBILE APP?!" When you pull up. No other greeting. It's a truly lovely experience
It sure seems like whenever a corporation grows old, large or expansive enough, it will inevitably morph into an spy agency. Even what is obstensibly a burger flipping business wants to spy on people.
Earlier this week I was in a regional gas station getting lunch, they've got maybe 30 or so locations scattered around this part of the state, and watched them tell an old man that he couldn't get a loyalty card from them anymore because they only do apps now. "But I don't have a cellphone" - "Uhhh... You can also do it online?"
Earlier this week I was in a regional gas station getting lunch, they've got maybe 30 or so locations scattered around this part of the state, and watched them tell an old man that he couldn't get a loyalty card from them anymore because they only do apps now. "But I don't have a cellphone" - "Uhhh... You can also do it online?"
> a burger flipping business wants to spy on people
"It started at a Burger-G restaurant in Cary, NC on May 17."
"It started at a Burger-G restaurant in Cary, NC on May 17."
For example, the Manna software in each store knew about employee performance
in microscopic detail — how often the employee was on time or early, how
quickly the employee did tasks, how quickly the employee answered the phone
and responded to email, how the customers rated the employee and so on. When
an employee left a store and tried to get a new job somewhere else, any other
Manna system could request the employee’s performance record. If an employee
had “issues” — late, slow, disorganized, unkempt — it became nearly
impossible for that employee to get another job.
> Even what is obstensibly a burger flipping business
Technically, McDonald's is a real estate company[1] who wants to spy on people, but that doesn't make it any less egregious.
[1] https://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/mcdonalds-beyond-the-burg...
Technically, McDonald's is a real estate company[1] who wants to spy on people, but that doesn't make it any less egregious.
[1] https://www.wallstreetsurvivor.com/mcdonalds-beyond-the-burg...
Isn't that technically true for all franchises?
If every restaurant is its own small/medium business and the corporate franchisor only ever interacts with the franchisees and never with the end customers, then all the direct revenue for the franchisor will be from services or licenses provided to the franchisees, not from directly selling burgers. But the franchisees are still much more dependent on the franchisor than they would be in a normal B2B relationship. And many of those "service costs" can be freely set by the franchisor and have the purpose of channeling revenue back from the restaurants - revenue that would not exist if no burgers were sold.
If every restaurant is its own small/medium business and the corporate franchisor only ever interacts with the franchisees and never with the end customers, then all the direct revenue for the franchisor will be from services or licenses provided to the franchisees, not from directly selling burgers. But the franchisees are still much more dependent on the franchisor than they would be in a normal B2B relationship. And many of those "service costs" can be freely set by the franchisor and have the purpose of channeling revenue back from the restaurants - revenue that would not exist if no burgers were sold.
No.
The specific point here is that the McDonald's Corporation is often the landlord of its franchisees. Of course most franchisees of any franchisor are required to buy supplies etc from the franchisor, but McDonald's is famous for also charging them rent.
The specific point here is that the McDonald's Corporation is often the landlord of its franchisees. Of course most franchisees of any franchisor are required to buy supplies etc from the franchisor, but McDonald's is famous for also charging them rent.
McDonalds is a real estate business. I recommend you check out the 2016 movie "The Founder" which is the story of Ray Kroc. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Founder
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Founder
> McDonalds is a real estate business.
In the same way that American Airlines is a credit card company. How much rent will they receive if they stopped selling burgers?
> The Founder"
Good movie but McDonalds is a long long way away from scrappy, morally-bankrupt Ray Kroc's time. I imagine using pink slime to make the nuggets he sold to kids would be right in his wheelhouse though.
In the same way that American Airlines is a credit card company. How much rent will they receive if they stopped selling burgers?
> The Founder"
Good movie but McDonalds is a long long way away from scrappy, morally-bankrupt Ray Kroc's time. I imagine using pink slime to make the nuggets he sold to kids would be right in his wheelhouse though.
American Airlines is more a credit card company than McDonalds is a real estate company. If McDonald's stopped collecting rent from its franchisees, there would probably be layoffs at corporate but the general public would still be able to buy Big Macs.
If American Airlines' credit card revenues dried up they wouldn't be able to pay their fuel bills and the company would be gone the next day.
If American Airlines' credit card revenues dried up they wouldn't be able to pay their fuel bills and the company would be gone the next day.
> In the same way that American Airlines is a credit card company.
I thought the "they're not what you think" deal with airlines is that they're actually futures trading companies that happen to own and operate some aircraft?
I thought the "they're not what you think" deal with airlines is that they're actually futures trading companies that happen to own and operate some aircraft?
While very interesting and a great movie, maybe can you explain how it's pertinent to this conversation?
>> "Even what is obstensibly a burger flipping business"
> ostensibly
probably implied they knew.
probably implied they knew.
Ostensibly ;)
But yes, good movie too.
But yes, good movie too.
```When Uber entered the taxi market without securing taxi licenses or extending the workforce protections required under law, it said the move didn’t count because it did it with an app.```
It's so weird to see the first half of this article written as an ode to the virtues of competition and then see the sharp pivot into defending taxi medallions. Say what you will about Uber, but no Uber driver has ever tried to lie and harass a passenger over whether or not the credit card machine is broken in an effort to cheat on their taxes. It's not even like the anti-consumer hostility of the taxi experience translated into better rights for workers, the high price of a medallion meant in practice your typical cab driver was in a situation damned close to indentured servitude to a medallion company.
And to top it all off, taxis demonstrate the fallacy of thinking that hundreds of market participants provides meaningful benefits from competition. In a market with a suitably large number of cab drivers and passengers, the odds of repeat business between any pair of driver and passenger is low enough that neither party is incentivized to treat each other well. It's not like anyone was pulling out a Yelp-like site or review book to pick the best-reviewed cab drivers, or like you went out of your way to stick with a cab driver you'd had a good experience with. Meaningful competition requires that people can make _informed_ choices, and without repeat business you don't get participants informed enough to make meaningful choices between market participants. It also requires leverage. It doesn't matter if you threaten to take your business elsewhere next time if you and they both know _you were going to anyway_.
I'm not saying that Uber is perfect, or even that Uber couldn't be productively regulated better by the government. I'm saying that taxis were a terrible experience, and I don't trust Doctorow to have a good lay of the land when he focuses more on his ideology than the evidence. If subscribing to Doctorow's beliefs requires services to look more like taxis than Ubers, you can count me out.
It's so weird to see the first half of this article written as an ode to the virtues of competition and then see the sharp pivot into defending taxi medallions. Say what you will about Uber, but no Uber driver has ever tried to lie and harass a passenger over whether or not the credit card machine is broken in an effort to cheat on their taxes. It's not even like the anti-consumer hostility of the taxi experience translated into better rights for workers, the high price of a medallion meant in practice your typical cab driver was in a situation damned close to indentured servitude to a medallion company.
And to top it all off, taxis demonstrate the fallacy of thinking that hundreds of market participants provides meaningful benefits from competition. In a market with a suitably large number of cab drivers and passengers, the odds of repeat business between any pair of driver and passenger is low enough that neither party is incentivized to treat each other well. It's not like anyone was pulling out a Yelp-like site or review book to pick the best-reviewed cab drivers, or like you went out of your way to stick with a cab driver you'd had a good experience with. Meaningful competition requires that people can make _informed_ choices, and without repeat business you don't get participants informed enough to make meaningful choices between market participants. It also requires leverage. It doesn't matter if you threaten to take your business elsewhere next time if you and they both know _you were going to anyway_.
I'm not saying that Uber is perfect, or even that Uber couldn't be productively regulated better by the government. I'm saying that taxis were a terrible experience, and I don't trust Doctorow to have a good lay of the land when he focuses more on his ideology than the evidence. If subscribing to Doctorow's beliefs requires services to look more like taxis than Ubers, you can count me out.
> sharp pivot into defending taxi medallions.
This is a deflection. Cory is not coming out in defense of taxi medallions so much as it is a re-iteration of the current laws in place and how tech uses apps to get around the laws. Yes taxis suck, but also so does uber in their own way - This is all beside the point. These tech companies are using 'gig'ified models to get around laws set by the city officials elected by the people.
This is a deflection. Cory is not coming out in defense of taxi medallions so much as it is a re-iteration of the current laws in place and how tech uses apps to get around the laws. Yes taxis suck, but also so does uber in their own way - This is all beside the point. These tech companies are using 'gig'ified models to get around laws set by the city officials elected by the people.
The opening of the article is laying out the case that the laws are good -- they make the market legible to participants. As he says:
``` To navigate all of these technical minefields, you need the help of a third party. In a modern society, that third party is an expert regulator who investigates or anticipates problems in their area of expertise and then makes rules designed to solve these problems.
To make these rules, the regulator convenes a truth-seeking exercise, in which all affected parties submit evidence about what the best rule should be and then get a chance to read what everyone else wrote and rebut their claims. Sometimes, there are in-person hearings, or successive rounds of comment and counter-comment, but that’s the basic shape of things.
Once all the evidence is in, the regulator—who is a neutral expert, required to recuse themselves if they have conflicts—makes a rule, citing the evidence on which the rule is based. This whole system is backstopped by courts, which can order the process to begin anew if the new rule isn’t supported by the evidence created while the regulator was developing the record.
This kind of adversarial process—something between a court case and scientific peer review—has a good track record of producing high-quality regulations. You can thank a process like this for the fact that you weren’t killed today by critters in your tap water or a high-voltage shock from one of your home’s electrical outlets. ```
And this is central to Doctorow's point, right? The narrow question of the legality of Uber's current service offerings is actually pretty well litigated, and if Uber was as flagrantly illegal as he claims, "we're an app" wouldn't have kept them in business. Doctorow argues that this is happening through regulatory capture -- the case isn't primarily that Uber is violating the currently existing set of laws, regulations, court precedents, etc. It's that Uber is violating what the regulations _would be_ in a world where they had less market power with which to influence regulations.
And so it's not enough to argue about how the apps get around _current_ laws. By Doctorow's own arguments, we're debating the merits of a counterfactual set of different regulations that we would have if you changed current conditions. And at that point, it is absolutely fair game to ask if this counterfactual set of different regulations is actually better for market participants.
``` To navigate all of these technical minefields, you need the help of a third party. In a modern society, that third party is an expert regulator who investigates or anticipates problems in their area of expertise and then makes rules designed to solve these problems.
To make these rules, the regulator convenes a truth-seeking exercise, in which all affected parties submit evidence about what the best rule should be and then get a chance to read what everyone else wrote and rebut their claims. Sometimes, there are in-person hearings, or successive rounds of comment and counter-comment, but that’s the basic shape of things.
Once all the evidence is in, the regulator—who is a neutral expert, required to recuse themselves if they have conflicts—makes a rule, citing the evidence on which the rule is based. This whole system is backstopped by courts, which can order the process to begin anew if the new rule isn’t supported by the evidence created while the regulator was developing the record.
This kind of adversarial process—something between a court case and scientific peer review—has a good track record of producing high-quality regulations. You can thank a process like this for the fact that you weren’t killed today by critters in your tap water or a high-voltage shock from one of your home’s electrical outlets. ```
And this is central to Doctorow's point, right? The narrow question of the legality of Uber's current service offerings is actually pretty well litigated, and if Uber was as flagrantly illegal as he claims, "we're an app" wouldn't have kept them in business. Doctorow argues that this is happening through regulatory capture -- the case isn't primarily that Uber is violating the currently existing set of laws, regulations, court precedents, etc. It's that Uber is violating what the regulations _would be_ in a world where they had less market power with which to influence regulations.
And so it's not enough to argue about how the apps get around _current_ laws. By Doctorow's own arguments, we're debating the merits of a counterfactual set of different regulations that we would have if you changed current conditions. And at that point, it is absolutely fair game to ask if this counterfactual set of different regulations is actually better for market participants.
> To make these rules, the regulator convenes a truth-seeking exercise, in which all affected parties submit evidence about what the best rule should be and then get a chance to read what everyone else wrote and rebut their claims.
More like a forum where expensive lobbyists buy loopholes that make the rules toothless. Rules say companies can't do X, they cry about it and so an exception is carved out where X is allowed for the exact situation one of the corporations finds itself in.
Individual consumers of taxi cab services are not going to governmnet events to "submit evidence". That stuff is expensive and they have far more pressing issues to deal with than watching politics play out in real time. If they're lucky, they'll have some consumer advocacy group making their cases on their behalf.
More like a forum where expensive lobbyists buy loopholes that make the rules toothless. Rules say companies can't do X, they cry about it and so an exception is carved out where X is allowed for the exact situation one of the corporations finds itself in.
Individual consumers of taxi cab services are not going to governmnet events to "submit evidence". That stuff is expensive and they have far more pressing issues to deal with than watching politics play out in real time. If they're lucky, they'll have some consumer advocacy group making their cases on their behalf.
(depends on jurisdiction) there was already concept of pre-booked transport that was distinct from taxi and does not require taxi medaillon to operate. Uber just made pre-booked transport as convenient to use as taxi.
So it is not that Uber avoided taxi licencing 'because of app', but it avoided taxi licencing by providing slightly different service that do not fit into legal definition of regulated taxi services. And one could argue that these slight differences are in fact important, because the reason why taxis are tightly regulated are for reasons that mostly do not apply to Uber.
So it is not that Uber avoided taxi licencing 'because of app', but it avoided taxi licencing by providing slightly different service that do not fit into legal definition of regulated taxi services. And one could argue that these slight differences are in fact important, because the reason why taxis are tightly regulated are for reasons that mostly do not apply to Uber.
The Doctorow school argument, as best I can tell, would go 'the regulations on black car service were meant for things like limo services that don't compete directly with taxis, and once Uber started competing directly with taxis, regulators and authorities should have moved more aggressively to write new regulations/laws that regulated Uber the same way taxis are regulated.' They would not agree with "the reason why taxis are tightly regulated are for reasons that mostly do not apply to Uber."
And this is exactly why I think the question of "what is the correct way to regulate car ride services" shouldn't hinge on incumbency bias towards taxis, but actually ask the question of what is best for participants in the market (which doesn't just include taxis and Ubers but also includes public transportation and its users, for instance). But that doesn't fit neatly into Doctorow's enshitification narrative.
And this is exactly why I think the question of "what is the correct way to regulate car ride services" shouldn't hinge on incumbency bias towards taxis, but actually ask the question of what is best for participants in the market (which doesn't just include taxis and Ubers but also includes public transportation and its users, for instance). But that doesn't fit neatly into Doctorow's enshitification narrative.
These claims of incumbency bias, based on a fragment of a sentence, seem unnecessarily presumptive.
I've read a bit of his work, seen a couple of his speeches, and don't have the same conclusions about his opinions. You could probably ask for clarification.
I've read a bit of his work, seen a couple of his speeches, and don't have the same conclusions about his opinions. You could probably ask for clarification.
I want to gently push back on this from my perch in NYC. Pre-Uber, taxis had their monopolistic issues but were:
- available at most times on major thoroughfares with a raise of the hand.
- reliable - I was never once jerked around or overcharged by an NYC yellow cab, which I can not say about private cab companies I've seen in other cities.
The worst problem was finding cabs in the outer boroughs, and that was improved greatly with the "green cab" program (they were restricted to beginning their fares in the outer boroughs).
There's been a lot of time and gradual change since then, but what I see now (Post-Uber): - In most of the city, it is difficult or impossible to hail a cab without an app. - The Uber/app drivers are worse, clearly much less experienced and don't know where they are going. - Price gouging has been outsourced to the app itself, and happens very frequently. - Even once cabs are called on the app they often cancel or fail to show in anywhere near the advertised time.
Personally, I greatly prefer the Pre-Uber situation.
The worst problem was finding cabs in the outer boroughs, and that was improved greatly with the "green cab" program (they were restricted to beginning their fares in the outer boroughs).
There's been a lot of time and gradual change since then, but what I see now (Post-Uber): - In most of the city, it is difficult or impossible to hail a cab without an app. - The Uber/app drivers are worse, clearly much less experienced and don't know where they are going. - Price gouging has been outsourced to the app itself, and happens very frequently. - Even once cabs are called on the app they often cancel or fail to show in anywhere near the advertised time.
Personally, I greatly prefer the Pre-Uber situation.
I want to push back against your pushback as someone who’s lived in both NYC and the SF area. I agree with you that Uber barely made sense in Manhattan. I never once used it and taxis were plentiful.
I’ve since realized that in the US, NYC is an exception. When I first came to SF and Seattle for job interview related things, I used taxis, only to find out that the taxis were so terrible I never used them again:
- In the suburbs of Seattle, I was given a taxi chit from the place I was interviewing. I called in for a cab and had to wait over a half an hour for one to pick me up.
- In SF, the airport cab I was using had his GPS unmounted from his dash, and ended up handing me the machine and asking me to help him navigate from the back seat. Then when we got to the hotel, he lamented my choice to pay by credit card as it meant he would get the money much later than if he had cash. After I told him I didn’t have the circa $100 in cash he was charging, he sadly acquiesced, then proceeded to take a literal paper rubbing imprint of the card number before I could leave.
I like to say that the Bay Area made Uber make sense, both in terms of urban planning and in terms of how terrible taxis were.
And I think those may be related: if you can get around well in a place like NYC using public transit or walking, taxis have to be a lot more attractive in order to justify their existence. In SF or Seattle they had much less competition due to the suburban sprawl and worse public transit.
I’ve since realized that in the US, NYC is an exception. When I first came to SF and Seattle for job interview related things, I used taxis, only to find out that the taxis were so terrible I never used them again:
- In the suburbs of Seattle, I was given a taxi chit from the place I was interviewing. I called in for a cab and had to wait over a half an hour for one to pick me up.
- In SF, the airport cab I was using had his GPS unmounted from his dash, and ended up handing me the machine and asking me to help him navigate from the back seat. Then when we got to the hotel, he lamented my choice to pay by credit card as it meant he would get the money much later than if he had cash. After I told him I didn’t have the circa $100 in cash he was charging, he sadly acquiesced, then proceeded to take a literal paper rubbing imprint of the card number before I could leave.
I like to say that the Bay Area made Uber make sense, both in terms of urban planning and in terms of how terrible taxis were.
And I think those may be related: if you can get around well in a place like NYC using public transit or walking, taxis have to be a lot more attractive in order to justify their existence. In SF or Seattle they had much less competition due to the suburban sprawl and worse public transit.
>Say what you will about Uber, but no Uber driver has ever tried to lie and harass a passenger over whether or not the credit card machine is broken in an effort to cheat on their taxes.
This actually did happen to me. When I was in Hyderabad, I took an Uber from my company's office to the airport, and the driver said his phone died right after picking me up, so I had to pay cash.
This actually did happen to me. When I was in Hyderabad, I took an Uber from my company's office to the airport, and the driver said his phone died right after picking me up, so I had to pay cash.
I've had that happen a few times in Chicago. Worked out well for me, since I had the driver agree that I'd pay half the fare that was the upfront price. Then I reported the drivers for the scammers they are to Uber, and I got a refund of the price I never paid in the first place, plus credit. Love me some VC welfare.
Yeah, it's a real thing that happened to me, to. In multiple US cities. And I'm sure we're far from alone.
Uber is almost always cash in cities I’ve visited in India. Some take UPI too but it’s hard to use that as a foreigner.
So breaking the law is ok if you don't agree with it?
Actually most people agree that legality and morality are overlapping but separate categories. There are legal and immoral things as well as illegal but moral ones. I have no problem with someone breaking a law I see as immoral if the act itself is morally positive or neutral. It is a matter of benefit versus odds of being caught.
For example, do you think it is immoral for marijuana people to consume their drug of choice? It remains federally illegal.
For example, do you think it is immoral for marijuana people to consume their drug of choice? It remains federally illegal.
Yes? The law is not some absolute arbiter of morality and it does change across time and jurisdictions. It's really only an expression of consequences that may be enforced by a body of power.
In many situations an individual does not feel represented by a certain law and it's equally ok for them to choose to follow their own moral compass as it is for the people who put that law in place to attempt to enforce their ways.
In many situations an individual does not feel represented by a certain law and it's equally ok for them to choose to follow their own moral compass as it is for the people who put that law in place to attempt to enforce their ways.
taking into account all the impacts on society, uber is a substantial improvement on what came before. sometimes laws are bad and it is good when you break them
That is how change is made. See also: Civil Rights Act, circa 1964
Whether or not taxi medallions are a good thing I hope we can agree that there's a gulf between Rosa Parks and Travis Kalanick?
There's a difference in terms of their motives and methods and the surrounding context, but, ultimately it's just actions and consequences and a messy collective decision-making process. The collective ruling body has thus far decided that Uber be allowed to continue and the conversations and laws continue to evolve around these things. Nobody is calling Travis a hero but we've [collectively] agreed that there was some value to some of those decisions.
Let's look at that gulf. One's a poor black woman in the 1960's and the other's a rich white guy in the 2010's. It's easy to see which one we've been programmed to be supportive of. But picking someone based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character isn't what we're going for. So we have to be explicit in saying that the documented actions by this particular rich white guy are what people find offensive about him, rather than simply that he is one.
In terms of societal change though, they both had a bad law in front of them, they both broke it. In Rosa Parks' case, the law got changed. In Travis Kalanick's case, new laws got passed specifically regulating his company. But the thing is, the taxi medallion laws haven't actually gone away. This results in Uber having to do things in weird ways to satisfy the letter of the law in order to comply with the various laws that exist in each jurisdiction.
Travis Kalanick got rich off the backs of an army of drivers and a swath of passengers. Rosa Parks did not.
He did some pretty shitty stuff along the way, sure.
One thing about Rosa Parks is that she wasn't the first. It was because she was the woman who wasn't going to fall to ad hominem attacks. We can name the logical fallacy, but unfortunately it works in the unregulated court of public opinion.
Neither was Travis, but they were both the ones that succeeded. She succeeded in changing minds and laws, and he succeeded in making a pile of money.
So there's absolutely a gulf between the two, and that gulf is that the laws about sitting in the back of the bus got struck down. The taxi laws did not. One happens to be a rich white guy and the other happens to be a not-exactly-well-off black woman, and the black woman actually managed to get the laws changed.
In terms of societal change though, they both had a bad law in front of them, they both broke it. In Rosa Parks' case, the law got changed. In Travis Kalanick's case, new laws got passed specifically regulating his company. But the thing is, the taxi medallion laws haven't actually gone away. This results in Uber having to do things in weird ways to satisfy the letter of the law in order to comply with the various laws that exist in each jurisdiction.
Travis Kalanick got rich off the backs of an army of drivers and a swath of passengers. Rosa Parks did not.
He did some pretty shitty stuff along the way, sure.
One thing about Rosa Parks is that she wasn't the first. It was because she was the woman who wasn't going to fall to ad hominem attacks. We can name the logical fallacy, but unfortunately it works in the unregulated court of public opinion.
Neither was Travis, but they were both the ones that succeeded. She succeeded in changing minds and laws, and he succeeded in making a pile of money.
So there's absolutely a gulf between the two, and that gulf is that the laws about sitting in the back of the bus got struck down. The taxi laws did not. One happens to be a rich white guy and the other happens to be a not-exactly-well-off black woman, and the black woman actually managed to get the laws changed.
[deleted]
It's the same story all over again with AI.
It's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy popular artists, or give legal, medical and physiological advice to random people without possesing any kind of formal qualifications for giving said advice.
If I hired a hundred starving artists and a thousand students to provide the same services, my company would quickly be sued into the ground.
But just fire the people and add AI instead, and then I'm magically no longer responsible for the output. The picture becomes murky and we start to discuss how the AI was trained, if the training data was sourced legally and so on and so forth.
It's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy popular artists, or give legal, medical and physiological advice to random people without possesing any kind of formal qualifications for giving said advice.
If I hired a hundred starving artists and a thousand students to provide the same services, my company would quickly be sued into the ground.
But just fire the people and add AI instead, and then I'm magically no longer responsible for the output. The picture becomes murky and we start to discuss how the AI was trained, if the training data was sourced legally and so on and so forth.
The same thing ("it's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy"... happened with search engines and the web when they took over from human curated lists of links. They made copies of websites en masse without asking permission of the copyright holders. They supplied enough value that laws were really only enforced or expanded by high-value highly organized rights holders (e.g YouTube removing videos with copyrighted audio.)
> Competition is an essential component of effective regulation, for two reasons: First, competition keeps the companies within a sector from all telling the same lie to its regulators.
I'm as pro-competition as anybody, but I don't actually buy this argument.
Firstly, regulating a thousand small players is much harder than regulating a few. Which is why there is a lot of evidence that regulation (even when good or needed) eliminates some amount of competition - crash and emission testing put an end to new car manufacturers for a long time.
Secondly, in industries with lots of competition and individual actors (real estate, healthcare, finance, etc) regulatory capture is actually far worse! Increasing the sheer number of special interests does not, in fact, improve regulation. And if anything, smearing it across as many voting districts as possible gives a level of political entrenchment that software companies could only dream of.
Let me flip the Airbnb argument on its head - why are hotels allowed to build dense dormitory-style housing in cities where it's otherwise illegal to do so? Because their regulatory capture is so entrenched that we don't even think about it.
I'm as pro-competition as anybody, but I don't actually buy this argument.
Firstly, regulating a thousand small players is much harder than regulating a few. Which is why there is a lot of evidence that regulation (even when good or needed) eliminates some amount of competition - crash and emission testing put an end to new car manufacturers for a long time.
Secondly, in industries with lots of competition and individual actors (real estate, healthcare, finance, etc) regulatory capture is actually far worse! Increasing the sheer number of special interests does not, in fact, improve regulation. And if anything, smearing it across as many voting districts as possible gives a level of political entrenchment that software companies could only dream of.
Let me flip the Airbnb argument on its head - why are hotels allowed to build dense dormitory-style housing in cities where it's otherwise illegal to do so? Because their regulatory capture is so entrenched that we don't even think about it.
I disagree. Finance is a good example. The core regulated parts of finance like retail and commercial banking are pretty good. Costs are low, they’ve gotten more efficient, services are uniform and poor performers get purged.
The issues with finance are on the edges and areas where there are really a small number of industry players. They have an outsized impact and the worst practices are usually skirting the regulatory framework.
The Airbnb argument isn’t regulatory capture example - the issue there is that it’s impossible to build anything. You have to build a giant hotel to justify the overhead of building anything hotel. Airbnb fills a gap of creative reuse and provides a tax shelter for rich people.
The issues with finance are on the edges and areas where there are really a small number of industry players. They have an outsized impact and the worst practices are usually skirting the regulatory framework.
The Airbnb argument isn’t regulatory capture example - the issue there is that it’s impossible to build anything. You have to build a giant hotel to justify the overhead of building anything hotel. Airbnb fills a gap of creative reuse and provides a tax shelter for rich people.
How does Airbnb provide a tax shelter? Also aren't they all doing "buy, borrow, die" thing so don't need a tax shelter?
The “big beautiful bill” essentially subsidizes short term rentals by allowing investors to fully depreciate the properties year 1.
You turn personal housing costs into business deductions. The property throws off paper losses through accelerated depreciation while generating cash flow and then you get to reclassify lifestyle spending as investment activity.
So in other words, someone can rent out a property for a small portion of time on airbnb, while living it in the rest of the time, and yet count everything spent on it as a deductible business expense?
You can’t live in it. Average stay is has to be <7 days.
It makes sense to do if you’re in the 35% bracket. You buy a condo or a house. So you buy a house, airbnb it for one year, then rent for 2-5 more. Then you 1031 exchange it and do it again. If you don’t trade up, you have to keep the property or they recapture the bonus depreciation on a prorata basis later.
Airbnb hasn’t been about couchsurfing in a long time. It’s a mechanism to monetize real estate under more favorable tax rules.
It makes sense to do if you’re in the 35% bracket. You buy a condo or a house. So you buy a house, airbnb it for one year, then rent for 2-5 more. Then you 1031 exchange it and do it again. If you don’t trade up, you have to keep the property or they recapture the bonus depreciation on a prorata basis later.
Airbnb hasn’t been about couchsurfing in a long time. It’s a mechanism to monetize real estate under more favorable tax rules.
Isn't this a very US-centric view? I mean, Airbnb operates worldwide.
Finance also has a ton of self-regulatory bodies, especially FINRA, which acts as a central arbiter of ugly behavior that isn't illegal. I won't sing their praises on the hills, but they do exist and they are effective at instilling a sense of fear. Taxis and hotels, and AirBNB and Uber do not have this.
Unfortunately, the SEC slashed their spending with them and FINRA laid off a large percentage of the people doing that important work.
Ah, great. I'm sure the DOGE youth have excellent opinions on maintaining market functionality and stability, from their vast experience of being libertarian teenagers.
Hotels are allowed to do that because democratically elected representatives passed laws to allow it, subject to strict regulations.
This is backwards. Hotels have always existed, but zoning restrictions on who or what could be a hotel came afterwards through law.
Most modern (20th century) regulations on topics like hotels were formalizations of existing socially accepted practices and often attempts to address obvious issues (eg many guests unable to escape a fire).
It's process over product, but somehow we've come to regard the 'product' as end goal over all else. Yet no product lasts forever.
Hotels are a specially designated category for temporary housing so that permanent residents can exclude travelers from their neighborhoods.
You aren't flipping it on its head at all, the reason hotels exist is because travelers exist and need somewhere to go.
Why does Airbnb think they have a right to invert the social contract that has created a designated place for people who are likely to not know local norms and be operating on strange hours?
You aren't flipping it on its head at all, the reason hotels exist is because travelers exist and need somewhere to go.
Why does Airbnb think they have a right to invert the social contract that has created a designated place for people who are likely to not know local norms and be operating on strange hours?
I like the modern social contract and hotels, but to be fair, AirBNB is inverting what had already been inverted. In some sense, AirBNB is returning to the old model before hotels were everywhere. A traveler would reach a new town and ask for lodging in someone's home. In many countries, providing lodging to strangers is still the norm.
The only travelers at that time arriving by the thousands would be armies, it's not comparable when scale matters.
Em. Tourism has been a thing, complete with travel guides, tour operators, souvenirs made for tourists and tourist attractions for millennia.
Plenty of major destinations (holy places, resorts, etc) would bring in thousands of tourists at a time. The ancient Olympics, for instance, brought in tens of thousands of visitors.
Plenty of major destinations (holy places, resorts, etc) would bring in thousands of tourists at a time. The ancient Olympics, for instance, brought in tens of thousands of visitors.
Surely, those existed since ancient times, there's a reason why Romans had inns and waystations. There was some expectation to host strangers traveling as an act to please the gods, etc. but for any mass events there would be lodging at inns, camps, and so on... Not an expectation that everyone hosts thousands of strangers when they pour over for such events.
The scale is massively different, they didn't have millions of people coming through a city during the summer, like Paris, Barcelona, or Lisbon gets. Just Lisbon gets some 5-6x its population as tourists per year, it's in a very different scale to some tens of thousands in ancient times, which wouldn't expect the same relative level of amenities as modern tourists do.
The scale is massively different, they didn't have millions of people coming through a city during the summer, like Paris, Barcelona, or Lisbon gets. Just Lisbon gets some 5-6x its population as tourists per year, it's in a very different scale to some tens of thousands in ancient times, which wouldn't expect the same relative level of amenities as modern tourists do.
Yes, inverting it back to before there was regulations and a massive tourism industry.
> Why does Airbnb think they have a right to invert the social contract
Firstly, vacation homes existed and were legal long before Airbnb - but finding one anywhere was expensive and a a massive PITA.
Secondly, who's social contract?
Firstly, vacation homes existed and were legal long before Airbnb - but finding one anywhere was expensive and a a massive PITA.
Secondly, who's social contract?
Funny, in my experience Airbnb never captured the vacation home market to anywhere near the degree of the apartment in a popular city market. Where I am you still have a much better bet of finding a vacation home via the websites that existed previously than Airbnb.
Also there is a reason why places places with lots of vacation homes are considered expensive an dnot the most pleasant to live at permanently. That's why cities etc regulated, they dis not want them to turn into holiday parks.
Also there is a reason why places places with lots of vacation homes are considered expensive an dnot the most pleasant to live at permanently. That's why cities etc regulated, they dis not want them to turn into holiday parks.
And now they’re easy to find and everyone buys them for investment which crowds out community members.
The neighborhood social contract. The one where I know my neighbors and we build a vibrant community. Instead of the drunk idiots who show up for 3 days and throw their beer bottles on the ground.
The neighborhood social contract. The one where I know my neighbors and we build a vibrant community. Instead of the drunk idiots who show up for 3 days and throw their beer bottles on the ground.
Travel management companies and other business who rent property for tourism have been doing this for decades. I have several great small websites that had cabins or short term rentals in cities I frequent and I wasn’t getting killed my stupid cleaning prices or junk fees.
Some of the cabin rental companies I rent from have been around since the 90s.
Some of the cabin rental companies I rent from have been around since the 90s.
"not know local norms and be operating on strange hours?"
What 'local norms' are so different that you won't understand them as a traveler? 99.9% of the population sleep and wake up at the same time. You just need to be a decent human being.
What 'local norms' are so different that you won't understand them as a traveler? 99.9% of the population sleep and wake up at the same time. You just need to be a decent human being.
Yeah I don't buy OP's "local norms" argument but as someone who lived in the same building as an AirBnB it's inarguable to me that it affects the standard of living for others in the building.
The hallways got scuffed up, some guests were excessively noisy, dropped trash all over the place, broke stuff... as a permanent resident if you do that you face consequences. As someone only resident for a weekend it makes no difference to you.
The hallways got scuffed up, some guests were excessively noisy, dropped trash all over the place, broke stuff... as a permanent resident if you do that you face consequences. As someone only resident for a weekend it makes no difference to you.
Am I allowed to stay with a relative or a friend when I visit their town? I am totally ignorant of local norms, maybe I should be in the Holiday Inn next door instead?
but you aren't doing that when you stay at airbnb
The line got blurry with the advent of the internet. How do you define "friend"? First there was craigslist and house swapping, and then there was couchsurfing.com, and then came Airbnb, which injected a giant pile of money into the system and everything went haywire from there.
> Firstly, regulating a thousand small players is much harder than regulating a few.
I don't agree with this.
Get you and a thousand friends to submit fake mortgages documents and let me know how many of you end up in jail. Compare that too how many people went to jail from Wells Fargo.
More smaller players is easier to regulate because you can literally use any punishments. If you dissolve Wells Fargo the economy is going to throw a fit (see Enron) but if you dissolve a tiny company then nobody cares.
Real Estate and Healthcare seem to be pretty highly concentrated industries imo. Even though there are a zillion agents/doctors they're part of a professional guild and that guild does the lobbying on their behalf. Like good luck getting antibiotics on your own but after a doctor looks at you for 1 minute you have a prescription for the same drug you always take for an ear infection.
I don't agree with this.
Get you and a thousand friends to submit fake mortgages documents and let me know how many of you end up in jail. Compare that too how many people went to jail from Wells Fargo.
More smaller players is easier to regulate because you can literally use any punishments. If you dissolve Wells Fargo the economy is going to throw a fit (see Enron) but if you dissolve a tiny company then nobody cares.
Real Estate and Healthcare seem to be pretty highly concentrated industries imo. Even though there are a zillion agents/doctors they're part of a professional guild and that guild does the lobbying on their behalf. Like good luck getting antibiotics on your own but after a doctor looks at you for 1 minute you have a prescription for the same drug you always take for an ear infection.
People take regulations for granted. The economics not only survive, they thrive. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. Protected citizenry is happier and more productive.
It depends on whether you're measuring competition as "number of competitors" or "market concentration". You can have a lot of actors but still have high concentration. Healthcare for example has many actors but the concentration is very high among the big health systems and insurance providers.
It's really quite easy to regulate many small competing entities. There are plenty of people ready to fill the role of IRS agent, and even the cost is relatively trivial.
What's practically impossible is regulating a few anticompetitive megacorporations. You can't regulate an entity that writes your nation's laws.
What's practically impossible is regulating a few anticompetitive megacorporations. You can't regulate an entity that writes your nation's laws.
There is a bigger issue with any argument around competition as to whether market participants are really competing head-to-head or if they're finding subtle ways to collude.
> Because their regulatory capture is so entrenched that we don't even think about it.
Nonsense. Residents don't complain about hotels because of the perception that hotels are too expensive for poor and working-class people to afford. Whereas the perception of apartments is that they are cheap enough that such people will choose to live in them.
It's all about not wanting to live near "poor" people.
Nonsense. Residents don't complain about hotels because of the perception that hotels are too expensive for poor and working-class people to afford. Whereas the perception of apartments is that they are cheap enough that such people will choose to live in them.
It's all about not wanting to live near "poor" people.
Clearly your familiarity with lower-tier hotels is limited. People can and do complain when Motel 6 wants to build.
> It's all about not wanting to live near "poor" people.
That much is true. And mostly because poor people make poor neighbors.
> It's all about not wanting to live near "poor" people.
That much is true. And mostly because poor people make poor neighbors.
Completely agreed: the way he articulates the problem is self-defeating. Apologies if this sounds absurdly abstract or hand-wavy, but I think the correct framing really has more to do with a sort of essential clash between law and software as technologies of social regulation.
Written law was something very important historically: from unwritten norms to codified representations that, however imperfect and provisional, were more or less accessible to all and changeable through whatever process, democratic or otherwise. Over the last decades, we -- and this could be taken rather literally as "the readers of hacker news" -- have been encoding so many aspects of the world into software in a way that doesn't clearly coincide with the legal norms of any particular let alone every country.
On the one hand, software is clearly "better" than law in at least the sense that the former eliminates the necessary ambiguity of the latter: the interpretation or "implementation details" of even just a particular law are always disputed. Perhaps a particular implementation of cross-border financial transactions, say, or of personal identity doesn't in fact reflect what the developers or product managers intended, but if that is identified it can be changed.
Yet, on the other hand, it is certainly true that, from the perspective of regulators let alone the masses, the resulting situation is much closer to pre-law. Nobody has any idea how or why they were suddenly banned from Instagram or their PayPal account closed, let alone how money actually moves around the world when they send a friend funds through Transferwise. Certainly, if we don't even know how things are working there is no process by which it could be decided that things should work differently, let alone a process by which software would concretely be made to work differently.
Indeed, I am skeptical that law as such will ever be able to regulate software: even just considering the problem in terms of a single country/legal system, how does one actually guarantee that the ever-changing corpus of code complies with the ever-changing and essentially ambiguous body of regulations? One of course sees this with the EU as the "avant-garde" of the struggle to regulate software. They pursue either these incredibly general wars on "cookies" that don't solve real problems, or endlessly deliberate when it's already too late about how to handle AI, or produce something relatively well-conceived like GDPR where enforcement is then incredibly unclear if not impossible.
TLDR I have no idea what the solution is, but I think the intrinsic problem of law and software is incredibly important to take seriously as software eats the world. At the very least, it's not just a problem of "competition" since, as you note, monopoly is at least one sufficient condition [1] of eventually rendering the way software regulates the world transparent and open to change.
[1] Undoubtedly, there are other ways this could possibly transpire through open source etcetc -- however, even in that case there has to be a guarantee that particular software defines the operations of a particular domain, i.e. that there exists software through which one can understand that domain and hypothetically change, which is in some sense just a "public" monopoly.
Written law was something very important historically: from unwritten norms to codified representations that, however imperfect and provisional, were more or less accessible to all and changeable through whatever process, democratic or otherwise. Over the last decades, we -- and this could be taken rather literally as "the readers of hacker news" -- have been encoding so many aspects of the world into software in a way that doesn't clearly coincide with the legal norms of any particular let alone every country.
On the one hand, software is clearly "better" than law in at least the sense that the former eliminates the necessary ambiguity of the latter: the interpretation or "implementation details" of even just a particular law are always disputed. Perhaps a particular implementation of cross-border financial transactions, say, or of personal identity doesn't in fact reflect what the developers or product managers intended, but if that is identified it can be changed.
Yet, on the other hand, it is certainly true that, from the perspective of regulators let alone the masses, the resulting situation is much closer to pre-law. Nobody has any idea how or why they were suddenly banned from Instagram or their PayPal account closed, let alone how money actually moves around the world when they send a friend funds through Transferwise. Certainly, if we don't even know how things are working there is no process by which it could be decided that things should work differently, let alone a process by which software would concretely be made to work differently.
Indeed, I am skeptical that law as such will ever be able to regulate software: even just considering the problem in terms of a single country/legal system, how does one actually guarantee that the ever-changing corpus of code complies with the ever-changing and essentially ambiguous body of regulations? One of course sees this with the EU as the "avant-garde" of the struggle to regulate software. They pursue either these incredibly general wars on "cookies" that don't solve real problems, or endlessly deliberate when it's already too late about how to handle AI, or produce something relatively well-conceived like GDPR where enforcement is then incredibly unclear if not impossible.
TLDR I have no idea what the solution is, but I think the intrinsic problem of law and software is incredibly important to take seriously as software eats the world. At the very least, it's not just a problem of "competition" since, as you note, monopoly is at least one sufficient condition [1] of eventually rendering the way software regulates the world transparent and open to change.
[1] Undoubtedly, there are other ways this could possibly transpire through open source etcetc -- however, even in that case there has to be a guarantee that particular software defines the operations of a particular domain, i.e. that there exists software through which one can understand that domain and hypothetically change, which is in some sense just a "public" monopoly.
I would say that regulatory capture is merely a consequence of political capture. The politicians write the regulations, supervise the regulators, and in most cases, appoint the judges.
How did Microsoft avoid breakup in 2001? Simple: George W. Bush was elected President, and the Bush administration decided to settle the court case with a slap on the wrist. Don't blame the regulators but rather the politicians.
It's ironic that Doctorow uses the example of "whether you should heed your doctor’s advice to get vaccinated", because the regulators all support vaccination, but again as a result of a Presidential election, HHS has been politically captured by an anti-vaxxer who ignores expert advice.
How did Microsoft avoid breakup in 2001? Simple: George W. Bush was elected President, and the Bush administration decided to settle the court case with a slap on the wrist. Don't blame the regulators but rather the politicians.
It's ironic that Doctorow uses the example of "whether you should heed your doctor’s advice to get vaccinated", because the regulators all support vaccination, but again as a result of a Presidential election, HHS has been politically captured by an anti-vaxxer who ignores expert advice.
> I would say that regulatory capture is merely a consequence of political capture. The politicians write the regulations, supervise the regulators, and in most cases, appoint the judges.
>
> How did Microsoft avoid breakup in 2001? Simple: George W. Bush was elected President, and the Bush administration decided to settle the court case with a slap on the wrist. Don't blame the regulators but rather the politicians.
>
But he addresses that in the post, by saying that these monopoly/olipolyies actors can amass massive war chests that make them become bigger than the regulator. So by the time MS was a monopoly it was already too late.
But he addresses that in the post, by saying that these monopoly/olipolyies actors can amass massive war chests that make them become bigger than the regulator. So by the time MS was a monopoly it was already too late.
> these monopoly/olipolyies actors can amass massive war chests that make them become bigger than the regulator.
Bigger than the POTUS? And why wasn't the previous Clinton administration captured?
But it's actually quite clear from the article that the regulators are not politicians:
> In a modern society, that third party is an expert regulator who investigates or anticipates problems in their area of expertise and then makes rules designed to solve these problems.
> To make these rules, the regulator convenes a truth-seeking exercise
> the regulator—who is a neutral expert, required to recuse themselves if they have conflicts—makes a rule, citing the evidence on which the rule is based.
Bigger than the POTUS? And why wasn't the previous Clinton administration captured?
But it's actually quite clear from the article that the regulators are not politicians:
> In a modern society, that third party is an expert regulator who investigates or anticipates problems in their area of expertise and then makes rules designed to solve these problems.
> To make these rules, the regulator convenes a truth-seeking exercise
> the regulator—who is a neutral expert, required to recuse themselves if they have conflicts—makes a rule, citing the evidence on which the rule is based.
It's not new. McD acquired 'Dynamic Yield' back in 2019 and has long been using big data. There is an case study from 2020 about it called "McDonald's: Can A Behemoth Lead in the Era of Artificial Intelligence?" by Fabrizio DiMuro of the University of Winnipeg.
They must be doing a very poor job of optimizing their marketing. I had a long history or ordering the same items using the same "deal", dozens of times a year. They removed that deal and my spend at McDonald's dropped 90%. I didn't place a single order for 6 months - unprecedented. Have the noticed? Have they adjusted their marketing towards me? Did they bring back that deal or offer alternative promotions on the same items? No, no, and no. The purpose of apps and big data and especially AI is to be able to achieve the goal of 1-to-1 marketing based on individual preferences and patterns. Yet it appears a massive corporation like McDonald's is unable to achieve any of these goals, it's just continuing "mass marketing" - same deals to huge portions of their customer base, without differentiation - the same as the 1990's.
I admit to being especially sensitive since I worked in personalized loyalty marketing for nearly 20 years, so failures and missed opportunities really annoy me as both a customer and practician of the art.
I admit to being especially sensitive since I worked in personalized loyalty marketing for nearly 20 years, so failures and missed opportunities really annoy me as both a customer and practician of the art.
I think it's hard for us as individuals to understand the scale of McDonald's. They claim that 1 in 8 people in America have worked at McDonald's... that's... INSANE!
Sorry, not giving McDonald's a pass. They have a large team of data scientists and technologists working on their app and customer data. Even with a massive base, running a query to find individuals whose spend has dropped 50% y-o-y is not too difficult, and should be an urgent priority at a company that reported "negative comparable guest counts" (i.e. fewer customers y-o-y) for fiscal 2024.
> The death of competition spells doom for regulation. Competition is an essential component of effective regulation, for two reasons: First, competition keeps the companies within a sector from all telling the same lie to its regulators. Second, competition erodes companies’ profits and thus starves them of the capital they need to overpower or outmaneuver their regulators.
Yeah, maybe you can start with Rogers Wireless. Eh, Cory?
Yeah, maybe you can start with Rogers Wireless. Eh, Cory?
> In its promotional materials, Plexure uses the example of charging extra for your breakfast sandwich on payday.
You would hope this would be awful PR for them and anyone using their services. What disgusting corporate sociopathy.
You would hope this would be awful PR for them and anyone using their services. What disgusting corporate sociopathy.
it's awful for us as consumers but it's AWESOME for corporate clients! imagine if workers used a plexure like service to demand higher wages during rush times or if someone called in sick? that would be amazing.
[deleted]
Fundamentally the issues precede the end states. Neither present-day software nor law-government are efficient enough to service the users to whom the possibilities (and deficiencies) are now apparent to the developers. Tech didn't create new formats it merely reformatted them into databases. Both are trapped in their inefficiencies which force the reduction of competition or their monopoly. The state is a myth we workaround by going global. Software operates arbitrary things and then automates them as expedient interfaces that disperse and charge access for what is ultimately specific (a good or service). Decent was a trial and error workaround that simply creates status.
Doctorow pretends these are the ultimate forms, which s how his answers are palliatives not solutions.
It's strange how bureaucratic Silicon Valley has become in relation to his bureaucratic prose, the tech industry once saw solutions beyond the available tech, now it's buried in consultancy rebuttal and Friedman myth ("competition is good").
We have behemoth Goliaths that are living dinosaurs that engage in hierarchical domination of what are really illusions: text, symbols, images. All we need now are the behemoths to mint their own $, copyright it and the circle is complete. Yet these are merely simulations in search of a reality that AI can't deliver, and so the behemoths are using all techniques to remain relevant. It's stillnly one step ahead of a magic act. Obviously they are finished, ready for obliteration by insightful, imaginative succession. Bureaucracies are all targets for replacement, especially Doctorow's type of prose.
Doctorow pretends these are the ultimate forms, which s how his answers are palliatives not solutions.
It's strange how bureaucratic Silicon Valley has become in relation to his bureaucratic prose, the tech industry once saw solutions beyond the available tech, now it's buried in consultancy rebuttal and Friedman myth ("competition is good").
We have behemoth Goliaths that are living dinosaurs that engage in hierarchical domination of what are really illusions: text, symbols, images. All we need now are the behemoths to mint their own $, copyright it and the circle is complete. Yet these are merely simulations in search of a reality that AI can't deliver, and so the behemoths are using all techniques to remain relevant. It's stillnly one step ahead of a magic act. Obviously they are finished, ready for obliteration by insightful, imaginative succession. Bureaucracies are all targets for replacement, especially Doctorow's type of prose.
jeffbee(4)
[deleted]
Writing/Reading exercise: Consider this article from the perspective of someone who is pro-ICEBlock-being-removed-from-the-Apple-App-Store.
What does that word diarrhea even mean?
Pretty nonsensical argument. Uber isn't an employer not because it's an app but because it's a service that connects you to someone. Your phone company isn't an employer just because you use them to hire a handyman.
So wordy only to use a nonsensical strawman. I get it: you're trying to create a new buzzword the way you did with "enshittification". So the usual suspects will be big fans. Good luck.
So wordy only to use a nonsensical strawman. I get it: you're trying to create a new buzzword the way you did with "enshittification". So the usual suspects will be big fans. Good luck.
If Uber is just a service that connects you to someone, why does Uber take the majority of a user's payment and why is it against Uber's TOS to share contact information with your drivers so you can call them and ask for a ride outside the app?
I think you have a strong argument here, but there's a problem of deeper and widespread rot at play.
The reason Uber can get away with pretending it's just a "connector" is because the entire tech ecosystem has been allowed to normalize that kind of control without accountability.
Look at Apple and Google: they take a 30% cut on every sale and ban any competing payment systems. That's the same pattern - absolute gatekeeping disguised as "market facilitation."
Our regulators have become so complacent that this behavior is now seen as the default way digital markets work. The problem isn’t just Uber's misclassification; it's that the entire platform economy is built on pretending these companies are neutral middlemen when they're really gatekeepers.
The reason Uber can get away with pretending it's just a "connector" is because the entire tech ecosystem has been allowed to normalize that kind of control without accountability.
Look at Apple and Google: they take a 30% cut on every sale and ban any competing payment systems. That's the same pattern - absolute gatekeeping disguised as "market facilitation."
Our regulators have become so complacent that this behavior is now seen as the default way digital markets work. The problem isn’t just Uber's misclassification; it's that the entire platform economy is built on pretending these companies are neutral middlemen when they're really gatekeepers.
Who pays the driver?
Exactly. If Uber is really just providing a service to the drivers, the drivers should be paying a subscription to Uber while taking money directly from the customer.
(Edit) And they should be setting their own prices!
(Edit) And they should be setting their own prices!
I would caution against using this as a discriminator, since the scheme whereby you are billed by the phone company for third-party services has long existed, but that doesn't make AT&T your boss.
Do you mean “but that doesn’t make AT&T _their_ boss”? Because in this scenario I’m paying AT&T, right?
[deleted]
There is a lot of jurisprudence regarding whether or not the employer-employee relationship exists, and you can't simply dismiss that with a few words. Obviously the phone company does not employ the handyman, because if the handyman declines to fix your house the phone company is not going to disconnect his phone. But in the case of Uber, Uber absolutely will throw a driver off the platform unless they hew to a strict set of behaviors.
Yes, they use apps to break the law.
But, still, regulation - when in doubt - should be avoided. Did you know that in Germany, you need to send your employees to a specialised training if they use a ladder in their day to day work? You don't need to regulate what's common sense.
What is ridiculous is that you think this isn't a good idea. Safely using ladders isn't common sense and ladder injuries probably cost the state and the places where they occur a lot of money.
I think you are mistaking your point of view, which is probably that of an individual business owner, for the point of view of someone looking at the actuarial statistics or whatever and seeing tens of thousands of preventable ladder injuries a year. Just because an event is rare from your point of view doesn't mean that the event costs nothing or that it should be ignored.
I can't believe how common this attitude of "if its too small for me to notice it doesn't matter" is.
I think you are mistaking your point of view, which is probably that of an individual business owner, for the point of view of someone looking at the actuarial statistics or whatever and seeing tens of thousands of preventable ladder injuries a year. Just because an event is rare from your point of view doesn't mean that the event costs nothing or that it should be ignored.
I can't believe how common this attitude of "if its too small for me to notice it doesn't matter" is.
The analysis isn't done yet though:
- How much do you trust the statistics about which ladder deaths were preventable?
- Do you have the numbers on the counter-factual: once ladder training is introduced, these sub-populations see X reduction in ladder deaths, offsetting for reduction in ladder use due to people not having their ladder license?
- What is the productivity cost of assigning every single ladder user a training class, in perpetuity? This analysis should include the cost of creating a cottage ladder training industry that provides the trainings, the hourly productivity loss of sending people to trainings, the administrative cost of ensuring the trainings have been conformed to, etc.
In your heart of hearts, when you are assigned mandatory trainings, how much do you learn? I'm not asking how much _could_ you learn, I'm asking how much DO you learn? My experience, and the obvious unspoken consensus of all my colleagues, is that you click through mandatory virtual trainings as fast as possible, with the sound down, on fast-forward. If it's a live training with an actual practical skill (like ladder training), then I'd definitely concede it's much more engaging and you probably learn something. But MANY trainings are clearly, obviously, a net friction on society.
"I see a problem - how about we make a law that everybody must learn about that thing?" is the crappiest, laziest way to address the problem that you could possibly think of. If 'mandate a training' was analogized to a pull request on a codebase, it would be like responding to a bug report by adding a pop-up dialog that always pops up whenever you open the program and warns you about the bug. In other words, the shittiest possible non-solution that lets somebody close the issue as resolved. A real solution takes more work and more thinking.
In your heart of hearts, when you are assigned mandatory trainings, how much do you learn? I'm not asking how much _could_ you learn, I'm asking how much DO you learn? My experience, and the obvious unspoken consensus of all my colleagues, is that you click through mandatory virtual trainings as fast as possible, with the sound down, on fast-forward. If it's a live training with an actual practical skill (like ladder training), then I'd definitely concede it's much more engaging and you probably learn something. But MANY trainings are clearly, obviously, a net friction on society.
"I see a problem - how about we make a law that everybody must learn about that thing?" is the crappiest, laziest way to address the problem that you could possibly think of. If 'mandate a training' was analogized to a pull request on a codebase, it would be like responding to a bug report by adding a pop-up dialog that always pops up whenever you open the program and warns you about the bug. In other words, the shittiest possible non-solution that lets somebody close the issue as resolved. A real solution takes more work and more thinking.
I trust the statistics far more than {RANDOM BUSINESS OWNER|ANECTATA}
I love this comment. I am so sick and tired of the term "common sense" being used as a panacea for those on the bottom of a Dunning Kruger curve to justify wanting their ignorance to be taken as seriously as other people's knowledge. I can think of dozens of ways someone could misuse a ladder that would definitely result in property damage and quite possibly injuries and even fatalities.
I wonder how many people are killed yearly because they buy various tools and don't read the damn instructions because they're definitely smart enough to use this and be safe already, it's common sense after all!
I wonder how many people are killed yearly because they buy various tools and don't read the damn instructions because they're definitely smart enough to use this and be safe already, it's common sense after all!
Have you considered whether such training might possibly have a positive result?
"In 2023, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons reported that 500,000 people were treated for ladder-related injuries, with 300 of these incidents proving fatal." from https://www.usf.edu/health/public-health/news/2024/cc-ladder...
"In 2023, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons reported that 500,000 people were treated for ladder-related injuries, with 300 of these incidents proving fatal." from https://www.usf.edu/health/public-health/news/2024/cc-ladder...
You do need to regulate what is common sense to protect employees. There's a lot of pressure from employers to do things that go against common sense, accidents happen. The employee is hurt, employer doesn't care. A large role of regulation is to protect employees from greedy employers. That's why some employers like illegals, they don't complain about not following regulations.
That's such a gross simplification that it's highly misleading. Yes you need training to if your work involves ladders, just like any other tool that is potentially dangerous. The type of training highly depends on the danger, so for someone using a stepladder to get something from a shelf will not need more than "use the ladder from the closet, put it back after use", while someone climbing up to the antennas on a skyscraper will receive very different training (i.e. always clip in your safety harness, how to use double carabiners ...). I don't know how this is controversial?
>You don't need to regulate what's common sense.
Americans: hold my AR15
Americans: hold my AR15
Most state do require a security license though to carry a weapon for remuneration (not needed if just for personal protection).
That’s true in the US too.
We had someone come to our house to work on a range hood. They didn’t have ladder training, so the insurance company wouldn’t cover it if they fell off the ladder.
The range hood repairman left without doing any work. I do wonder what a normal day at work looks like for this person. We weren’t billed for the house call.
We had someone come to our house to work on a range hood. They didn’t have ladder training, so the insurance company wouldn’t cover it if they fell off the ladder.
The range hood repairman left without doing any work. I do wonder what a normal day at work looks like for this person. We weren’t billed for the house call.
Lol you must not live in the country.
Par for the course for a vanload of meth-heads who've never attended an hour of formal training in their life to be walking around a 45 degree roof without a harness, or one clipped into an ornamental non-structural member.
Par for the course for a vanload of meth-heads who've never attended an hour of formal training in their life to be walking around a 45 degree roof without a harness, or one clipped into an ornamental non-structural member.
Haha very true. Last time I had a roof done, several cases of Natural Ice were consumed by the working party. The roof was perfect though.
What idiot would ever use a ladder in a dangerous way?
It's me, I'm the idiot.
Standing on the top step? Yes. Putting a hammer on the top step and forgetting about it? Uh huh. Putting the ladder on plywood on a mattress so I could change a lightbulb without moving the bed and buying a taller ladder? You better believe it. Using a paint sprayer with a 25' latter and no spotter? Absolutely not. Wait, yes.
There are dozens of us: https://old.reddit.com/r/MenonUnstableLadders/
It's me, I'm the idiot.
Standing on the top step? Yes. Putting a hammer on the top step and forgetting about it? Uh huh. Putting the ladder on plywood on a mattress so I could change a lightbulb without moving the bed and buying a taller ladder? You better believe it. Using a paint sprayer with a 25' latter and no spotter? Absolutely not. Wait, yes.
There are dozens of us: https://old.reddit.com/r/MenonUnstableLadders/
Did you know in the US Federal law does not require any specific licensing or safety training to purchase a firearm.
Finally I understand why when the McDonalds app was introduced it asked for permission to access my contacts. Of course I refused and deleted the app immediately. But to this day whenever I go to the McDonalds drive-thru the first question they ask is "Are you using the app today?"
McDonalds seems to care so much about their app that I wonder if selling personal information makes them more money than selling hamburgers.