[tshaddox]

Well, okay, it may be the case that our democracy is so crippled that it can’t protect basic consumer rights. But even so, what are we supposed to do? Quit our jobs, abandon our livelihoods, and take to the streets until our government decides we’re too much trouble and hands over power to a more consumer-friendly replacement government? Or just continue to want to use subscriptions through Apple where possible?

[rglullis]

This is a false dichotomy that both pro-government and pro-corporate people fall into. Whether Apple or "Our Government", we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions.

> But even so, what are we supposed to do?

Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings. Stop putting convenience above principles. Refuse to pay/subscribe/accept any terms that are clearly not in your best interest.

You don't need Big Government to do that. You don't even need to be part of a mobilized group. It's in your hands and every individual can choose for themselves. Let's take responsibility for our own actions and stop using the vices/failings of others to excuse ourselves to do the same.

[Hokusai]

> You don't need Big Government to do that.

Regulations are there tools that citizens have to reign in corporate behavior. 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations.

> Vote with your wallet.

Yes. And also vote with your ballots, one person one vote triumphs one dollar one vote if you want freedom.

[dimitrios1]

> 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations.

This is completely reductionist, and completely uninformed.

Banks, as an easy counter example to your worldview, don't have armies of third party regulators, corporate compliance staff, and auditors because they hate regulation. They love big government. It acts as a barrier to entry for them, because they already have the 10,000 person department ready to modify procedures and legal documents to comply with the next set of regulations while the little banks drown. Regulators frequently dine with top bank executives, but I can assure you they aren't dining with the citizenry or your local regional bank.

Every amount of extra regulation just increases tyranny. It makes the American dream more untenable. I want people to succeed and not rely on giant mega corporations for their well being and wealth generation. You can rightly claim that I'm an anti-regulation lobbying entity in this regard, if you wish.

[mrandish]

+1 for paying attention in Econ 101 (and posting a POV that's probably more controversial these days than it should be).

[webmobdev]

Strong banking regulations is necessary to ensure that people trust the banks, and the banks don't misuse the fund you deposit with them. The collapse of some banks in US and India due to lax oversight, greed and corruption, in the last 2 decades is strong proof of this.

[Hokusai]

> due to lax oversight

That is an important point. Not only realisations are needed, regulations need to be enforced if we expect the banking system to work.

[rglullis]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25330764

[the_other]

"Stop consuming... " isn't enough. You also have to do some of the work needed for the other side of "vote with your wallet". "Vote" for the system/product/method you wish to see. This might include building it yourself, using crowdfunding/micropayments for journalists/politicians/artists you trust/follow.

[rglullis]

Agreed. "Vote with your wallet" does not exclude the idea of being an investor or sponsor of better alternatives.

[jerf]

I would also add that nobody saying "vote with your wallet" necessarily means it to be the only action you take.

It's more a bare minimum. If you're inclined to moan about how awful something is, but you're still paying $5/month for it, it kinda bounds how awful it must be in practice. If it's that bad, stop paying them, as a bare minimum, not as an exclusive remedy.

(Exceptions for monopolies like local internet or other situation where there are considerations strongly forcing you into a particular contract. Some exception for oligarchic situations where everyone has the bad terms... but only some. If it didn't even exist 20 years ago, you don't "need" it.)

[AlexandrB]

> Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings.

This is... impossible. Ignoring the amount of time I would sink into researching every eventuality for a given service (how do you find out what the unsubscribe flow is for a site before you subscribe to it?). Some "services" have their hooks in just about everything. Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet.

[shrimp_emoji]

>Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet.

I avoid Google Analytics all the time. It's called NoScript. c: It actually has no effect on site functionality, either.

ReCaptcha's a different story though. :c

[rglullis]

This is quite a strawman.

It might be "impossible" to do everything at once, but there is nothing stopping you from taking steps in that direction, and the more people taking those steps with you the stronger the market forces will force the companies to provide the things that you do want.

Not signing up to the NYT is a choice. Not buying from Apple and all their locked down systems is a choice. Not signing up for any subscription service that has DRM is a choice. Having an ad-blocker to fight surveillance capitalism is a choice. Adopting and promoting alternatives to every "free" offering from Google is a choice, even if they are of inferior quality. Putting your money where your mouth is and supporting the development of better alternatives for whatever comes from FAANG is also a choice. If you are doing all of that, then maybe you will be entitled to complain. But I am sure you have a lot of veggies to eat before that.

[varispeed]

You stand no chance against multi billion big corporation that can own you. It's the level of influence needed that only government can attain. The trouble is our corruption laws are so weak, you can just call it lobbying and be on your way to money town. It must be a combination of voting with your wallet and making your local politicians aware of the issues you are facing. More people put pressure the more will get done. You know if people are not doing anything, then in their mind problem is not serious.

[webmobdev]

> we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions.

In a democracy, the government derives power from us, the people. In a good and functioning democracy there exists other democratic institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them.

"Vote with your wallet" is a disingenuous argument were all the corporates work together like a cartel towards a particular business model that maximises profit for them to the detriment of us consumers. Regulations that bind all business to certain rules and standard also benefit the businesses as it creates a level playing field for them too. (But obviously large corporates at the top don't want a level playing field).

[int_19h]

> In a good and functioning democracy there exists other democratic institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them.

This is kinda recursive - a "good and functioning" democracy is the one in which such institutions exist, so one where they don't is not a "good" one - but they are no less real for that. Worse yet, a "good" one can turn into other kinds - and the more centralized its governance, the more powerful it is, the faster that can happen.

[rglullis]

> In a good and functioning democracy (...) institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them.

This is the idealistic view. In the real world we have people in power, with their own personal interests, with institutions that are ever more distant from the people and with ever less consequences to face when they do wrong.

The one exception is perhaps Switzerland, and this would be more due to how local governments and cantons prevail over national leaders. The institutions are small and limited in reach. Aside from them, every model (US, the EU, China, Russian) relies on over-centralization and ever-expanding reach of the institutions and the consequential subversion of said institutions to the favor of interest groups.

So, unless you are Swiss I really don't have any reason to believe you actually have any power over the government, and I really don't believe you should be defending to give them even more power and attributions.

> maximises profit to the detriment of consumers

Last I checked, no one forced me to buy anything from Apple. I don't think closed systems are beneficial for me, so I don't buy them. No one forced me to buy anything from Google, either. No one forced me to buy a car or to live in an expensive metro area or even check any trendy bar with overpriced drinks. No one forced me to buy home appliances that can I not repair.

"Well, where I live there is only one internet provider, so I am forced to use it". No, you are not. It's just that the inconvenience of not having internet at home outweighs your willingness to get your community and put together an alternative. Also, more likely than not, the reason that there is no alternative is due to REGULATIONS that lobbyists from big telco managed to pass so that they have an advantage.

To truly believe that "regulations creates a level-playing field" is beyond naive. It's borderline harmful to you and for society at large.

[webmobdev]

> This is the idealistic view.

You work with the reality you live in, but you do strive for idealism. If you don't, you stagnate as the society rots.

The reality today is that in some democracies the balance of power has shifted from the people to the corporates. And that's unacceptable. Thinking that this is what's the best achievable in your democracy is just nihilistic and pessimistic attitude. Sitting silent is not an option. Regulation is one of the tools through which the government restores the balance between the corporates and the people. And it is possible to strike the right balance between the greed of the corporates and the need of the people.

[rglullis]

You are not "working with the reality you live in", you are effectively ignoring and denying reality in order to be able to sustain your worldview.

[webmobdev]

I am advocating political action for change in a democracy. Unless you live in a country that doesn't claim to be a democracy, this applies to any democracy. Just because your democracy is being screwed by the power to be, doesn't mean you stop believing in it and stop fighting for it.

[int_19h]

Switzerland is a country that banned minarets nation-wide in a federal referendum. It's all very democratic, but still an abuse of power.

[webmobdev]

> But even so, what are we supposed to do? Quit our jobs, abandon our livelihoods, and take to the streets

If necessary yes. Your forefathers fought hard to earn you your democratic and associated rights that you have all taken for granted. And that's why its slow erosion has only now made you start to feel a bit uncomfortable. So yes, you too need to start asserting for your rights.

And no, to begin with you don't need to quit your job and take to the streets.

Start by writing letters to the political parties of your country. Start by making your local politicians aware that you feel the government isn't concerned about your rights as a consumer. Escalate and urge others in your network to do the same. And move on from there. Democracy is designed to slow down political changes because abrupt political changes also has a lot of chaos. Initially you will only have to spend maybe an hour or two a week to do the above. As more and more people support you, and you all work together, this may increase to 5-10 hours a week depending on how much you are willing to commit yourself. Once a political party latches on to your issue, it then becomes a lot easier - join it or offer issue-based support to them. (Yes, often it is all quite boring and just takes patience and dedication. That's democracy - it is often boring participating in it, but still worth it).

[microtonal]

I don't know, perhaps vote for politicians that do have your rights and not corporation's rights at heart? Convince people that protecting their rights and livelihoods is not socialism or unamerican? I know that this is difficult in the US, both because there is so little choice in elections and it is difficult to convince other people to vote differently.

But you can be sure that if everyone puts all their eggs in Apple's (or more generally FAANG's) basket, their only interest is and will be their corporate profit, not your or content creators' rights.

[Siira]

“Voting” for pre-selected candidates in rigged elections without a way to hold the elected accountable to their promises, basically means the citizens have zero means but strikes/violent protests. (This is true in most non-Western “democracies”.)

[ummonk]

Dude you're responding to someone in Belarus. Americans voting for nonsocialist candidates is not the issue there.

[microtonal]

Wait what? Googling the user name that I am replying to leads to:

https://github.com/baddox

San Francisco, CA

[ummonk]

Sorry my bad you're correct.

[d1amonds]

> But even so, what are we supposed to do?

You are to ask precicely this question and think up variations of it.

I was just pondering how easy we dedicate our lives to a thing in contrast with how unpopular dying for it is. It doesn't seem both can be right at the same time?

[Closi]

How about just enforce a standard which all companies have to follow through legislation?

(See: Open Banking)

[rglullis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[Closi]

"We shouldn't do something, because someone might use it as an opportunity to make it worse"

Great.

[rglullis]

More like "we should only try to implement large-scale systems after we test a smaller-scale of it and that we are sure that no side-effect is worse than the problems we are trying to solve in the first place"