• Firestorm Druid@lemmy.zipEnglish
    147·
    3 months ago

    For the love of anything holy. Then they’ll require to install a shitty app to shop at the grocery store in the first place. No, thank you

    • anachronist@midwest.socialEnglish
      83·
      3 months ago

      I shop at Jewel (which is currently under threat of being taken over by Kroger) and they’re now doing this thing where there will be, for instance, peaches, under a huge sign showing an incredible deal. Then you look at it and realize that the price isn’t discounted at all unless you install a “Jewel App” and use it to “claim” a “digital coupon.”

        • GingeyBook@lemm.ee
          10·
          3 months ago

          At least with Kroger you don’t have to have the app, you can use their website for everything

      • jpeps@lemmy.world
        23·
        3 months ago

        Two major supermarkets do this in the UK now. I fucking hate it, it should be illegal. I also noticed recently a store with digital price labels. Combine the two and we’re marching towards the news in the post at a breakneck speed.

        Many supermarkets do adjust their prices based on the average income of the location they’re in, so this isn’t really different in some ways.

      • BlueLineBae@midwest.socialEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        I’ve been shopping at shitty Jewels all my life and I’m moving to an area where I can choose Jewel or Mariano’s. I was super excited to find this out until they announced as part of the merger, they would sell off a bunch of stores most of which are Mariano’s including the one I would have started going to. I Reeeeeeally hope the merger doesn’t go through.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          3 months ago

          Regulatory capture and the Federal Trade Commission asleep at the wheel.

      • cfi@lemmy.world
        6·
        3 months ago

        Big Y in the Northeast does that well. That’s probably the biggest reason why I don’t regularly shop there anymore

      • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        5·
        3 months ago

        ShopRite by me is doing that.

        We mostly stopped buying at ShopRite (mostly, because there are some things we can only get there due to dietary restrictions, and they carry things others don’t).

        I don’t think we were the only ones though, because that was gone the last time we were there. It could also be due to the Stop and Shop being “digital coupons only” and being forced to close recently. Don’t know for certain. It could just have been a test run for them and they will bring it back later, no idea.

        Either way, I have no interest in having their app on my phone. I toyed with the idea of using a cheap tablet I’ve got and don’t touch to install the app on it and connect to in store wifi only.

    • Sabata@ani.social
      17·
      3 months ago

      If I have to install spyware or open a link at a physical location, my top priority is to leave.

    • ZeroTwo@lemmy.world
      11·
      3 months ago

      A local grocery store has kinda done something like this? Just not as extreme as needing an app to shop. They literally took out all the coupons from the mail ads and they have you install their app for coupons. Which makes you run through hoops to install and make an account. I tried doing it in store but I gave up because of how annoying it was and all the information they needed. Just to used a god damn coupon… I miss the little red coupon dispensers in stores.

    • anachronist@midwest.socialEnglish
      123·
      3 months ago

      Saw an interview with a guy (on Bloomberg actually) who explained that “ability to pay” and “willingness to pay” are two different things and that the pricing system doesn’t target people who have a lot of money (“ability to pay”) but rather people who have fewer options.

      Like, if the app knows that you don’t have a car and this is the only grocery store you can walk to, you will pay a higher price.

    • aphonefriend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      31·
      3 months ago

      No, the existing “base line” price will stay as is for the poors. Those with slightly more money however…those will pay more.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      14·
      3 months ago

      Well since the government has all the info and has the postal service to get stuff to the people in need, why not just send this people some sort of stamps for free that lets them buy food, lets call it food stamps or something.

      Jk, that would never work, let’s give all that sensitive data to some company that will definitely not leak, sell it or use it for some nefarious thing, because it will use AI.

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
      9·
      3 months ago

      We could wipe out food insecurity by just doing taxes properly. We shouldn’t tolerate for-profit businesses doing what the government should be doing.

    • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 months ago

      What you’re describing is a more socialist/communist view on means based price adjustment.

      This is real-time price gouging, which is good old-fashioned capitalism.

      Looing forward to WIC and SNAP benefits being erased by price gouging on the needy.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      6·
      3 months ago

      If you think about it, it does not make financial sense for them to maintain this kind of system as a purely progressive price discrimination that charges richer people more money. I expect a lot of it would end up more like the Uber practice of charging more to people with low phone battery; they will identify who is more desperate, who has less choice but to buy the given product immediately, and charge them more. Because of how poverty works, that’s more likely the poor.

      This is a major reason we still need cash and other ways of saying no to corporate surveillance; if we can’t maintain privacy when making purchases that information will be used as a weapon against us.

    • Omnificer@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 months ago

      Yea, as a sort of reverse tax credit, it would be interesting. But as a profit driver, it’s nice and dystopian.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 months ago

        I guess food stamps kind of do this but they are so hard to actually be granted. We need something automatic that is specifically geared to solving food insecurity for the most needy.

  • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.eeEnglish
    50·
    3 months ago

    If this happens… You can bet your ass my unemployed relative is going to be the one buying all the groceries with cash.

    No cash? Well it turns out the untaxed gift allowance is $18,000, or $1500/mo, more than enough for all the groceries of a large family.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      So they’ll have to price small quantities low and go up from there to prevent TaskRabbits / Craigslisters from running this as a business

  • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    3 months ago

    Demonstrating the inherent contradiction of capitalism in practice.

    Capitalism is allegedly the only fair way to price things, via the “Price Mechanism”. However, capitalists have simultaneously been creaming their pants at the idea of charging specific people or people in specific situations more, because they can get more profit, in service of Profit Maximization.

    I’m sure I’ll get a lecture on how they are not at all mutually exclusive but I don’t care, honestly. It’s either going to price gouge when the customer is perceived to be in more need (low battery pricing for taxi apps) or have a price based on the customer’s ability to pay… at which point why not socialism?

    Essentially, the capitalist will support what is best for themselves and make up reasons why it theoretically might benefit consumers (but not really).

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      3 months ago

      When people talk about the benefits of capitalism, what they’re generally really talking about are the benefits of perfect competition.

      The capitalists themselves, of course, absolutely hate perfect competition with the burning wrath of a thousand suns.

      • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        3 months ago

        I think perfect competition is impossible. The incentive is not to compete fairly, it’s to maximize profits and the most effective ways to maximize profits are anticompetitive, exploitative, or both. Anyone arguing for a society built around such a system is either naive or trying to buy more time with false hopes.

        Virtually every condition in the ideal scenario is a barrier for profit, and I don’t think any civilization has managed even a single one of those conditions. There will always be actors looking to take advantage of any loopholes or create unregulated markets.

        It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          I think perfect competition is impossible.

          It is an ideal to be approached asymptotically, and a correct goal for consumer-protection regulation. Consider for example antitrust law, truth-in-advertising laws, product safety standards, etc. and how they directly match up with and promote those conditions.

          It’s just not a system that is sustainable. The incentives are simply wrong and the society built around those incentives can’t maintain a system of perfect conditions even if one were to exist.

          It’s not a system that is sustainable in a liassez-faire libertarian Hellscape, because of course capitalism left unchecked devolves into cartels. But it is a system that can be maintained with appropriate regulation.

          • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            A theory to use as a standard for regulation assuming you are restrained to a capitalist system, maybe.

            But it is a system that can be maintained with appropriate regulation.

            The nature of Capitalism requires that some have while others have not. Many of those among the capitalist class will use the full force of their power to obstruct and corrupt regulation, find loopholes, and obtain more power. Regulatory capture, pivoting to the bleeding edge of industry where nobody knows how to regulate yet (financial derivatives, crypto, AI), or just leading a coup - they’ll find a way.

            The only way is something that resembles socialism, but you can call it “appropriate regulation” if it makes you feel better. Sure, competition has its place… but it doesn’t belong anywhere near basic human needs.

              • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                Market socialism can be distinguished from the concept of the mixed economy because most models of market socialism propose complete and self-regulating systems, unlike the mixed economy. While social democracy aims to achieve greater economic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.

                I mind if you are simultaneously linking to a Wikipedia article defining it as being completely self regulated, lacking any form of social welfare.

                Capitalism’s problem is that, ultimately, it’s “compete” or die because you need to work to afford to live. I’m not necessarily advocating for the nationalization of all industries or a command economy. There can be competition, but the playing field needs to be leveled first. Workers owning the enterprise as a collective is a step in the right direction but that still leaves the door open for “B2B” exploitation when an enterprise’s failure can mean its workers now cannot afford to live.

    • LengAwaits@lemmy.worldOP
      21·
      3 months ago

      All this time I thought we’d eat the rich. Turns out they’ll eventually just eat each other instead.

      • eltrain123@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 months ago

        Progressive taxes are not the same as ‘progressive’ in terms of social politics.

        Progressive taxes are how our tax brackets work. The more you make, the more you pay. This is them saying private companies will use progressive taxation as their model for pricing goods.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          3 months ago

          Yes, I know. You’re a sweet summer child if you think these algorithms will be used to consistently make wealthier people pay more, as opposed to (for example) charging poor people without cars more because they can’t as easily go to a different store.

          They will exploit every customer to the maximum extent that they can. Rich customers may have more ability to pay, but they also have more resiliency and options to resist the exploitation. It does not seem likely that the price discrimination would really end up as progressive in the taxation sense as you hope.

  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    41·
    3 months ago

    This isn’t new. Websites have had higher prices when browsed with a Mac than when browsed with Linux.

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      6·
      3 months ago

      Plus returning visits. Airlines have been caught charging higher prices to someone who returns later to purchase an airfare that they previously looked at.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    39·
    3 months ago

    I think it’s cute that people think the dynamic pricing is charging the poor less,

    If you see someone shoplifting anything from Kroger or one of their subsidiaries, no you didn’t. Now cause a distraction while that shoplifter does the Lord’s work.

      • imaginepayingforred@lemm.eeEnglish
        5·
        3 months ago

        Which is why parents need to teach their kids about the realities of life. Modern life, specifically. And prioritize them accordingly.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Charging the poor more is, first and foremost, stupid. Giving them bad products and/or services that will cost them more in the long run? That I can see. But you never want to charge them more upfront. You’ll always want to charge the rich more, because the rich have more money and are more willing to spend it (when it benefits them), and you want them to give you that money.

      Joel Spolsky wrote a great post about this two decades ago (and it’s still relevant today). The idea is as follows:

      Lets say you have two potential customers - one rich who can afford to buy your product for $2 and one poor who can only afford to buy it for $1. If you charge $1 you’ll be able to sell it to both of them and get $2. If you charge $2 you’ll only sell to the rich - also getting $2.

      Joel says that if you find a way (e.g. - by creating different versions) to sell it to the rich customer for $2 and the poor customer for $1 - you’ll get $3. Which is more than $2.

      You, on the other hand, suggest that it’s going to get offered to the rich customer for $1 and the poor customer for $2. But then the poor customer won’t be able to afford it. They won’t be it or maybe even steal it - either way you won’t get $2 from them. You’ll only get the $1 from the rich customer.

      $1 is less than $3. It’s even less than $1. If you want to earn money - this is the worst outcome. Why do you think capitalists hate the poor more than they love money?

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      18·
      3 months ago

      A few months later the policy is quietly abandoned after customers kept dirty clothes in their car to wear when shopping to game the algorithm. The presence of so many poor looking people attracted the homeless and criminality, what caused complaints and lowered the brand value.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      Hey normalize not posting pictures of people taken in public against their consent at their lowest moments. Like wtf, what if that was you?

      It says a lot when your respect and compassion for another person turns off just because they are homeless or poor.

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          7·
          3 months ago

          Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. And just because it’s technically legal doesn’t mean you’re not an asshole for doing it.

          It called being a decent person.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 months ago

            I didn’t take the picture. And I don’t know if this person wasn’t compensated for this image.

            The reason you can post all those images on the internet is almost entirely because of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 or Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The law essentially provides website providers immunity from third-party content. Generally believed to be the basis for the internet as we know it today, it’s not a given that those protections will remain in place. Giants such as Facebook and Google are under scrutiny from lawmakers for antitrust violations and other misuses of power. No more Section 230, no more upload free-for-all. source

            I’m aware of the concerns, but should every meme be copyrighted? Can I not take a photo of my daughter at Disney Land and post it to FaceSpace because unconsenting people are in the background?

            Maybe the more pressing issue is to address the house less situation instead of berating people who copy paste images. But, that’s just me.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              1·
              3 months ago

              I didn’t think you personally took that picture, but your attitude of “it’s perfectly legal” is rather off putting. Something being legal doesn’t make it ethical.

              Also, taking a pic at Disneyland with strangers in the background is different than taking a pic of a specific stranger for the purpose of humiliating them on the internet. You know this, I know this, most people know this. It cruel and wrong. Not that hard to parse out really.

        • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          3 months ago

          I didn’t say to make it illegal. I didn’t say it was illegal. I said to “normalize” (a social more) not doing so especially when the person has no choice except to live in the public. Especially when they

          1. wouldn’t appreciate it being taken or consent to it,
          2. it’s not particularly newsworthy,
          3. it’s a low moment in their lives, and
          4. it won’t benefit them and will benefit the picture taker/poster financially or otherwise

          Like we don’t make picking your nose in public illegal, there’s just a social more that that’s gross behavior. That’s what I’m asking for - that mistreatment of people be seen as gross.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            1·
            3 months ago

            Noted.

            “If you are interested in helping the homeless and drug addicted, volunteer your time, write a check, lobby the government officials in your community. These people are not on the streets for your amusement. They are real people with real problems not a vehicle for your next social media fix. I truly believe that it’s up to each of us to treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect. The next time you’re tempted to take that shot of someone passed out on the sidewalk or the young person begging for a meal, think how you would feel if that were you or your family member appearing on someone’s Facebook post.” source

            But,

            The reason you can post all those images on the internet is almost entirely because of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 or Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The law essentially provides website providers immunity from third-party content. Generally believed to be the basis for the internet as we know it today, it’s not a given that those protections will remain in place. Giants such as Facebook and Google are under scrutiny from lawmakers for antitrust violations and other misuses of power. No more Section 230, no more upload free-for-all.

      • Halosheep@lemm.ee
        2·
        3 months ago

        There it is, the standard lemmy-tier moral superiority post.

        You know nothing about this person or the context of this photo. Someone using their picture as an example of dirty clothes and the look of someone who is homeless isn’t going to make their life worse.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think that’ll save you from having data harvested from your cell phone.

      That said, turning off location tracking might become a habit while browsing the aisles.

    • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      Remember the outcry over the various Kanye items–$100 white t-shirt, etc…? It’s all coming full circle. In a few years, cities’ homeless populations will be wearing crisp Brooks Brothers suits and its wealthy assholes will be in disheveled streetwear.

  • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
    36·
    3 months ago

    What the hell is wrong with these people. How the fuck isn’t this illegal and punishable by life imprisonment?

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      16·
      3 months ago

      Because nobody has actually done this yet, this is just a question some senators asked in a hearing. It’s a weird question, but the answer doesn’t necessarily seem to be “no”.

      I think it’s more of a “You have never bought this brand, so it’s going to be 50% off today because we want you to consume as much as possible and keep coming back”, not “You’re a gamer, so the Mtn Dew Game Fuel costs 50% more today”, or “You’re rich, so everything costs 3x as much”.

      Companies already do this with their apps, issuing coupons to try to expose certain customers to more products. Dynamic pricing just seems like a less transparent and ultimately worse way to do it. It essentially kills couponing as an art form, and I am quite good at shaving 40-60% off of a grocery bill.

      If this model succeeds, I worry about what it will evolve into.

  • Kryptenx@lemmy.world
    35·
    3 months ago

    This is why so much money is being pumped into AI. This is the future and our politicians are too old to understand any of it. It isn’t sentience you should be worried about folks.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      16·
      3 months ago

      Yup too many people worry about what happens after AI gains sentience. When we need to worry about what happens before.

        • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          Ironically post-singularity AIs might be more like Master Computer from Tron. Just believing they are super efficient and can run things better. But to whose benefit?

        • gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          1·
          3 months ago

          I have the vision that AI will eventually replace all the CEOs, being even more efficient than them at whatever their job is. This means even more exploitation of workers, hoarding of wealth, and putting profits above all else. The true nightmare. I think that AI will eventually turn all corporations into pure evil, and turn all humans against AI and therefore corporations. That will result in a civil war - humans vs machines. Eventually, humans will be able to save themselves, but only by putting capitalism and the system of ever rising profits to the grave for good.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      6·
      3 months ago

      That and the systematic replacement of middle management by AI with no regard to human feelings, needs, emotion whatsoever. Pretty much what Amazon is doing to its delivery drivers already.

    • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 months ago

      Bro this isn’t AI this is a fucking basic sorting table. I hate how fucking every computer science is “AI” now.

      The only novel aspect might be trying to run facial recognition on you, which still isnt AI.

      • flerp@lemm.ee
        2·
        3 months ago

        You’re thinking about ‘general AI’

        Just plain old AI includes the ability to analyze data and make recommendations which this is. Therefore this falls under the broad definition of AI.