117
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
117 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49753 readers
351 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd rather not... They already use these to implement dynamic pricing based on stock levels, best before dates, etc. Only a matter of time before they feed surveillance camera data to the system to take the appearances of nearby customers into account. (I wonder if it's already a thing in those no-register stores in the States? They can probably also pull in your shopping history, search history, etc?)
Why would they take appearance into consideration when they can detect your phone and know exactly what your income level is and your purchasing habits?
Would you support an individualized pricing system if it meant that disadvantaged individuals could afford a better quality of life that is subsidized by charging wealthy people more?
You're not from around here, are you, pardner?
Shhhh, I am providing an argument in favor of a dynamic pricing structure that they have expressed opposition to.