It’s possible to violate all sorts of social norms. Societies that celebrate people that do so are on the far opposite end of the spectrum from high trust ones. They are rather unpleasant.
Just the Silicon Valley ethos extended to it's logical conclusions. These companies take advantage of public space, utilities and goodwill at industrial scale to "move fast and break things" and then everyone else has to deal with the ensuing consequences. Like how cities are awash in those fucking electric scooters now.
Mind you I'm not saying electric scooters are a bad idea, I have one and I quite enjoy it. I'm saying we didn't need five fucking startups all competing to provide them at the lowest cost possible just for 2/3s of them to end up in fucking landfills when the VC funding ran out.
Do those fees actually improve anything for the citizens who now have to deal with vehicles abandoned on sidewalks everywhere or does it just buy the major a nicer yacht?
this is such a wild comment -- there are countless products where regardless of purchase -- the user is still served advertisements. i have no idea what reality, or timeline, this comment belongs in.
broadcast television, paid streaming entertainment is just straight up the most glaringly obvious example of a paid service overflowing with advertisements.
paid radio broadcasts (xm/Sirius).
operating systems (windows serves you ads any chance it gets).
monthly subscriptions to gyms where youre constantly hit with ads, marketing, and promotions be it at the gym or via push notification (you got opted into and therefore have to opt out of intentionally after the service is paid).
mobile phones, especially prepaid come LOADED with ads and bloatware.
Those are hybrid subscriptions/subsidies. Not paid in full.
If you are being exposed to ads in something you paid for, you are almost certainly being charged less money. Companies can compete on cost by introducing ads, and it's why the cheaper you go, the more ad infested it gets.
Pure ad-free things tend to be much more expensive then their ad subsidized counterparts. Ad subsidized has become so ubiquitous though, that people think that price is the true price.
this seems like semantics and corporate hand-waving -- that's not what is conveyed to the user in what i have observed as the context of paid services and the promises asserted around what a purchase gets a customer.
in the subsidized example, xm/Sirius is marketed to users as an "ad-free paid radio broadcast"; the marketing literally attempts to leverage the notion of it being ad-free as a consequence of your purchase (power) in order to highlight its supposed competitive edge and usefulness, and provide the user an incentive to spend money, except for the fact that the marketing is false. you still get served promotions and ads, just less "conventional" ads.
i go to a football game and im literally inundated with ads -- the whole game has time stoppage dedicated to serving ads. i guess my season ticket purchase with the hopes of seeing football in person is.. apparently not spending enough money?
i see this as attempting to move the goalposts and gaslight users on their purchase expectations, as a way to offload the responsibility and accountability back onto the user -- "you don't pay enough, you only think that you pay enough, so we are still going to serve you ads because <insert financial justification here around the expectations we'e undermined>.
why then is there any expectation of a service being ad-free upon purchasing?
who the hell actually enjoys sitting through 1.5 hours of advertisements and play stoppage?
over time users have been conditioned to just tolerate it, and over time, the advertising reclaims ground it previously gave up one inch at a time in the same way people are price-gouged in those stadiums -- they don't have much alternative, but apparently the problem is the user should fork up more money for tickets so as to align their expectations with reality? while they're getting strong-armed at the concession stand via proximity and circumstance and lack of competition, no less.
are you really trying to tell me the problem there is, they need to make... more money? and THEN and only THEN we can have ad-free, paid for entertainment otherwise known as american football? is this really about user expectations, or is this about companies wanting their cake and eating it, too?
Isn't that the system that we are already living in?
Democracy in its american form or even at many others show almost complete paralysis of the entire system basically if bad actors infiltrate it (Looking at ya donald)
It is honestly a little sad since conservatives usually think of their society as this high trust society and they were the ones who primarily voted and are being taken advantaged of by the few untrustworthy individuals.
Politics is a cult/religion and you can't prove me otherwise.
I vote because I vote for lesser evil not for greater good. I do think that frankly, both the parties or just most parties in every nation are just so short of reality but I created a discord server of 100 people and I can see how I can't manage 100 people and so maybe I expect so much from the govt.
I used to focus so much on history and politics but its bloody mess and there is no good or bad. Now I just feel like going into the woods and into the darks living alone, maybe coding.
> High trust is prima facie incompatible with capitalism
Quite compatible
> If you want a high trust society, you don't want capitalism.
There is nothing at all in capitalism that would prevent a high level of trust in society.
> Capitalism is inherently low trust
But that's not true. The thing about capitalism is that it's RESILENT to low trust. It does not require low levels of trust, but is capable of functioning in such conditions.
> If the penalty for deceit was greater than the penalty for non-deceit
Who are the judges? Capitalism is the most resistant to deception, deceivers under capitalism receive fewer benefits than under any other economic system. Simply because capitalism is based on the premise that people cheat, act out of greed, try to get the most for themselves at the expense of others. These qualities exist in people regardless of the existence of capitalism, it is just that capitalism ensures prosperity in society even when people have these qualities.
If we look at any communist society, the only way to get ahead was lying and cheating. China was forced to adopt capitalist markets to deal with this, hence why modern China hardly resembles the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, or Laos.
The problem is that without capitalism ONLY lying and cheating will get you ahead. Look at ANY country that builds its economy on the restriction of people's economic freedom, on the absence of private property rights - these are the most deceitful and disgusting regimes in the world with zero level of public trust.
