this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
993 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
64123 readers
8661 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree about such a generalization.
There are very few instances where people decide to be dumb and use technology for it but in general my life is much better thanks to technology.
My job exists due to technology, the Internet allows me to work from home, a washing machine washes my clothes, I can order food in the middle of a meeting and have it delivered on my lunch pause, I can speak to my family half a world away everyday, with video, for free, I can have the answer to any question in seconds from my a tiny device in my pocket, my car brakes automatically if I'm distracted (and heats up before I sit down in the morning)... you get the deal.
I hear you, but the writer isn't concerned with "can": If you replaced "can have the answer to any question in seconds from my a tiny device in my pocket" with "must" then you can see their dissatisfaction.
if I went to a restaurant and was told that I had to install and use their app to order their food, I would fucking leave. If it was the only restaurant left in town then I'd have much less choice in the matter. The insidious nature of technology is that it changes "can" with "must".
That's not really the fault of technology though, that's the fault of how companies are implementing technology through their policies and procedures.
Companies can have stupid, arbitrary rules and requirements and policies and do stupid or harmful actions regardless of technology or not.
I don't think it's fair to blame tech for company policies.
...but just like you chided the person you replied to, none of that is true or real. The restaurant that forces you to use their app doesn't exist, and it's not the only restaurant in town. None of that is even because of technology, it's because of capitalism.
Here is one such restaurant (have to use their website via QR code, but same idea) near where I live: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6LhBMo5duVzSB9HE9
That said, it's clearly not the only restaurant in town, and nobody is forcing a gun to your head to eat there.
I agree, and good for you for leaving the restaurant. You could open a competing restaurant that doesn't use apps and let people vote with their wallets. It's not the nature of technology, its the decision of some people who are bad at knowing their customers. I don't "have to" wash my clothes in the washing machine, but you bet I won't even think about doing it manually. Forcing the use of an app is like only offering a vegan selection. If your customer didn't ask for it you are going to have a bad time. If you are the only place in town is a monopoly problem, and a different discussion.
Having to use an app to order food might be slightly annoying, but it beats working 12h a day in the field to feed my familiy. It's the firstest of first world problems.
btw, people didn't work 12 h a day in the field
the long work days are a result of capitalism. yes, progress has increased average work hours, instead of decreasing them.
People back then didn't have Healthcare, cars or iPhones. I like all of those.
Communist countries work even longer hours, look for instance 996 in China.
In fantasy land you can open a competing restaurant. Back here on earth not only is that not an option for 99% of the population, most people are stuck with the couple choices they have in town and when tech comes in and forces the enshitificstion of services in order to pump stock price you’re stuck just eating this shit forever. That’s the problem. You seem to believe in “the invisible hand of the free market” when that simply doesn’t exist. Consumers aren’t rational. Investors aren’t rational. And the market is anything but free. Big tech is working really hard to make sure they have a stranglehold on every industry to make it worse and trap people into using their platforms.
Is that the fault of the technology, though, or is that the fault of the companies?
Companies can have stupid, arbitrary rules and requirements and policies and do stupid or harmful actions regardless of technology or not.
I don't think it's fair to blame tech for company policies.
I keep hearing about it’s just “fault of companies” as if companies weren’t lead by the tech bros. By that logic all the pollution BP and other oil companies cause is just company decisions ! It’s not the fault of oil that greedy oil barons exist… yet it’s the burning oil causing the pollution (admittedly not best example but sort of holds)
Often times the tech companies try to “disrupt” a particular industry by providing a tech based approach and then lobbying the legacy business out of existence thus limiting your choices. This is why the tech enshitification works, because there is no real competition. The uber wealthy simply force feed you what they want. Uber, Netflix, and Amazon all operated at a loss specifically to be able to starve out legitimate businesses and limit your choice to only what they provide. Now we don’t have much of independent book stores, taxis outside of big metro hubs, and god only knows what’s going on with streaming service prices.
The ultimate fuck you from modern tech is the “if you don’t like it, don’t use it” while at the same time they work tirelessly for their tech “solution” to be the only choice.
So yea a ton of tech sucks and exists only to extract value out of its users and not solve any concrete issue
Again, tech doesn't FORCE anything, people choose to fuck customers (and workers) and sometimes happen to use tech as an excuse. You don't need any tech to raise prices or lower wages, and those are some of the biggest problem we have. Whether I use an app or coins to pay for my parking is not the issue.
In a world with lobbyists, monopolies, big corporations donating billions to politicians, a QR code is nowhere near the top of the problem list.
And consumers are quite rational, the go consistently for the cheapest option that fulfills their need. You see it in online services, electronics, flights, etc.
Surely you can have your cake and eat it too, right?
I don't understand the question...
If consumers were rational Tesla stock wouldn’t be where it is, meme coins wouldn’t exist, nft craze wouldn’t have happened (btw all examples of tech spending money to trick dumb people). Consumers routinely DO NOT go for the cheapest possible option but frequently get tricked by stupid gimmicks and smoke and mirrors. For example - Colgate started wrapping their toothpaste boxes in a clear plastic that sparkles under grocery store lights. Despite raising prices, introducing wasteful plastic, and increased packaging costs they increased market share and profits - that’s not rational. You seem to have been sold on libertarian delusions.
I never mentioned salaries and I very distinctly did mention that majority of the people in the world live in smaller communities with limited choices. If a tech overlord buys out their businesses (e.g buying all local newspaper and replacing them with mostly ai slop and agenda articles) there are not many alternatives. Insisting that because you have some choice in some matters it means everyone does is naive … and also another example of an irrational consumer lol
Consumers don't buy stock, and deifnieltely not enough to influence trillion dollar company valuation, let's begin with that.
I never said they go for "the cheapest option, period". They are willing to spend extra if they get perceived, or real, value, like aestelhetics (your example) , social status (cars for instance) or functionality (iPhone).
I'm very far from libertarian, so let's abstain about speculating about each other's beliefs and let's talk about ideas.
Majaority of people in the world do NOT live in smaller communities, first, and tech only increases choices, second, so even if the first was true it's still an argument in favor of tech. I can get the new York times (or the helsingin sanomat) in the smallest village of Germany, again thanks to technology.
So you’re just gonna make stuff up as you feel it’s true?
“Consumers do not buy stock” lol yes they do “iPhone can be the cheapest option” (as long as you don’t care how much you spend and it has perceived value” “Tech only increases choices” (biggest laugh I had in a while) “Most people in the world do not live in smaller communities”
Fucking lol my dude. Sounds like you’re really projecting your life into facts of the world which is a common disease among programmers.
You know that places outside of US exist right? You know that the tech created in US cities disproportionately adversely affects 3rd world countries. If you ignore all that and go full bootlick mode on tech oligarchs then yes all you say is true, but back in the real world you couldn’t be further off base
I have never lived in the US, my man. I am not a programmer, either. So 0 for 2.
Keep up the good work, you convinced me with your Lols. Consumer definitely decide the price of stocks. And the color of the sky. You got it, champ. Typed on an electronic device. Sent over the internet. I love the hypocrisy ;)
This is the problem with capitalism. What a sick world view.
The solution is... more monopolies? Please enlighten me.
How was that your takeaway from this thread
You attack capitalism in an article about tech, so let's ask how is that your takeaway, then I'll answer.
First of all, follow the thread brother, I'm not the same person you originally replied to.
Second of all, this article is just as much about capitalism as it is about "tech". If you actually read the article and just thought "this is just about tech" and not "this is about tech and how it has leaked unnecessarily into nearly every transaction", then IDK what to tell you
None of those things are about capitalsm, so still irrelevant.
And I know what the article is about, I just think it's bullshit first and the most minor of minor problems second.
Tech is a huge net positive and even when it's annoying it's a fucking trivial thing to work around.
Alright bud, it's obvious you're just interested in being a contrarian and not actual productive conversation, so see ya 👉
Yep, I want to be a contrarian, that why I brought politics in a discussion about tech. Oh, wait...
These two lines paint a very sad picture.
What's sad about a lunch pause? Do I need to keep working 8 hours straight?
Or about a car braking automatically? I has saved me twice in four years, I was looking to see if someone was coming from one direction while the guy in front of me braked suddenly. Car stopped before I rear ended the other guy.
I must be missing something...
The sad part as I read it is that you actually have to work 8 hours at all. Productivity has increased more than thrice in the last few decades, yet, the early industrialization 8+ hours are still the norm while it has been proven to be unproductive for most jobs and defiantly unhealthy. Or at least that is what I interpret into it. There are different models of work breaks, I think the french have a somewhat long lunch break because they celebrate it more while other work cultures are more on the nutrition acquisition road
I don't have to, I could go half-day and have a decent living, maybe downsizing the house a bit, but I like the big house and the fast car, and the sushi for lunch.
Yeah, idk what the other guy was talking about. But, I've ridden with someone that apparently got dependent on that automatic braking feature. He "used" something like 5 times during a 1.5 hour trip.
That sounds super uncomfortable, the emergency braking is quite brutal...
I think you hit the head on the nail.
I agree. Tech is like fire, handle it responsibly.