[Buttons840]

I've wondered, as wealth inequality grows, perhaps the poorest among us simple won't have enough money to exchange for goods. "Sorry, you don't have enough money to make a haircut worth my time, but if you let me invade your privacy and show you ads until the end of time, that will be valuable enough to exchange for a haircut. Read and sign this 200 page contract and I'll go get a chair ready."

See also essential software that cannot be purchased, only rented. Many of the most essential apps today are not paid for with money, occasionally people talk about how they want to pay for these apps (in exchange for better customer service, etc), but no, they don't want our money, our money is worth less than the data we give.

[dotnet00]

But the practical necessity of having a smartphone and some internet access has only resulted in cheaper devices and services that fit the needs of the poor. It was a pretty big thing during Covid lockdowns in rural parts of India for instance, where extremely cheap smartphones and internet access made it possible for some amount of remote education to be pursued entirely remotely.

[lrvick]

How do you define essential? I only use open source software and do not own a cell phone and I get along just fine.

[Buttons840]

Important community events being organized on Facebook is quite common, for example. I've had interviews want me to use Google Calendar.

[lrvick]

Google calendar invites contain attachments in standard formats you can use in Thunderbird or almost anything else.

Facebook events can do the same, but it does require you to have a Facebook account which is over the ethical line for me as I do not accept their terms of service. I always let community event organizers know this, and explain how to export events into a standard calendar format that can be emailed.

[enedil]

I doubt that if somebody cannot afford a haircut, their data would be that pricey.

[Buttons840]

I'm thinking more on a macro level.

Someone at Google has said "people want to pay us money to have better support and be treated like customers instead of products", and the response was "no, not worth it". On a macro scale Google was not interested in the money of individuals.

Facebook / Meta is one of the richest companies in the world, and they didn't make their money by taking money from individuals.

Politicians aren't swayed by the donations of common people, but by the donation of wealthy special interest groups and wealthy individuals.

The poorest 50% of the United States controls 1.2% of the wealth. One day they'll look around and collectively ask "what can we do with our money?", and the answer will be "buy cheap consumer goods, pay rent, and not much else". More and more companies don't want the little money they have, instead they want their attention, their votes, and their time and labor. Going after their money alone just isn't worth it.

[Buttons840]

Oh. Another great example of this is how many companies focus more attention on getting VC money than on getting paying customers. Again, average people don't have enough wealth for it to be a focus for the biggest companies.

[lrvick]

Rich/poor does not matter all that much to surveillance capitalists and atdech companies.

If they or their friends have the ability to vote someone will always be willing to for their data to have an advantage in swaying said votes.