Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#41

Post by gruez »

Eisenstein wrote: post #38
pc86 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, they're all discounts, for starters. And they're subsidized by the revenue made by everyone else. A thousands of coupons start rolling in and meaningfully affecting revenue either the coupons go away or the MSRP increases. It's the exact same pig just slightly different lipstick.

What you are saying is that the amount of money people save getting discounts is made up by increases to the retail price for everyone else, and that this is equal to the extra money that individually priced people would pay or receive or discounts, so its a wash? This assumes that the business would raise prices to make more money from people who they think can pay it and give that back to others as a discount. Do y…

>This assumes that the business would raise prices to make more money from people who they think can pay it and give that back to others as a discount.

>Do you have evidence this would be the case?

This is pretty standard economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#42

Post by cameldrv »

pydry wrote: post #22
dynm wrote: post #11

Like most people, surveillance pricing feels gross to me. But I think we need to separate two things: Surveillance pricing is a combination of (a) price discrimination and (b) surveillance. If it were up to me, I'd probably give people much stronger legal rights to control their personal information, which would in turn decrease "surveillance". But I haven't seen a convincing argument to ban price discrimination. The…

Price discrimination isn't about wealth. A poor person who books a flight the day before because of an emergency pays more than a rich person who books it 3 months out. Pharmaceuticals lobbying hard to get the UK to stop buying drugs on the national level (where they have enormous pricing power) and make hospitals responsible for buying drugs. This would be terrible for the UK.

For airline tickets, it's mostly not about wealth yet, at least on U.S. domestic routes. I know that for some international tickets, especially between a rich country and a poor country, the price can be different depending on whether you are buying in the currency of the rich country or the poor country, and I think, if it's a round trip, whether it's originating in the rich country or the poor country.

You really see this in spades with Uber/Lyft though. I've often compared Uber prices with friends of mine and there can be a big difference for the same trip at the same time with two different people.

This phenomenon unfortunately makes me much less bullish on the AV future, because robotaxi providers will try to do this to extract the maximum cash out of users. Someone who decides to sell their car and just take automated rides is going to get gouged because the algorithm is going to figure out that they have no alternative.

One thing I've found with a lot of adversarial algorithms is that you have to demonstrate to the algorithm that you have an alternative. For example, if you consistently check prices on the Uber and Lyft apps and pick the lowest cost one, they will notice when you price out rides and then don't take them, and you will get better prices.

Similarly, with feeds, I have been finding that Facebook and YouTube want to push me short video content, even though I don't like it and don't watch it. You can push the button that says "Show Less" or "Not Interested", but they generally don't care. What works is when they show you something you don't like is to close the app and do something else. That is a signal that they respect.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#43

Post by iAMkenough »

pc86 wrote: post #19
robrtsql wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they're all discounts, for starters. Surveillance pricing defenders claim that surveillance pricing is better because it works both ways--it might offer a higher price to someone who is desperate, but someone who is likely not that motivated might get a sweet deal. I highly doubt that. A highly-advertised, transparent discount or sale is how you sell to someone who is not that motivated. Surveillance pricing is…

> Well, they're all discounts, for starters. And they're subsidized by the revenue made by everyone else. A thousands of coupons start rolling in and meaningfully affecting revenue either the coupons go away or the MSRP increases. It's the exact same pig just slightly different lipstick.

Now you’re on a list that indefinitely upcharges everyone that uses the “lipstick on a pig” idiom. Utilized by multiple big retailers.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#44

Post by gruez »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #39
dynm wrote: post #11

Like most people, surveillance pricing feels gross to me. But I think we need to separate two things: Surveillance pricing is a combination of (a) price discrimination and (b) surveillance. If it were up to me, I'd probably give people much stronger legal rights to control their personal information, which would in turn decrease "surveillance". But I haven't seen a convincing argument to ban price discrimination. The…

Reductio ad absurdum: Your local water monopoly has perfected price discrimination. Since water is a necessity, the water monopoly sets the price of water to "everything you own".

>Your local water monopoly has perfected price discrimination. Since water is a necessity, the water monopoly sets the price of water to "everything you own".

This says more about monopoly power abuse than problems with "price discrimination". Food is also essential, yet prices don't rise to "everything you own" (even for the poorest) because of competition.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#45

Post by gruez »

m4ck_ wrote: post #29
delichon wrote: post #5

This is what I think of when I think of personalized pricing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlT3uHlNAg&t=111s It's pretty much what I've done when selling at flea markets all of my life. I ask what I think the market will bear, per person and situation. I don't feel at all guilty for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that mass customization in the information age has brought us to it at scale, or that the force of…

How do I negotiate with a minimum wage cashier, self-checkout, or a checkout page? Have you ever been in a Kroger property, or Walmart, or any other multi-billion dollar retailer and negotiated on something? Maybe they'll price match and I guess that counts, but it's not as if we have access to data to do that in a meaningful way to compete with the data that they have to act on. In lieu of suppressing surveillance p…

>How do I negotiate with a minimum wage cashier, self-checkout, or a checkout page?

You "negotiate" by switching to a competitor, or in some circumstances refusing to purchase at all. It's a "negotiation" in the same way that participating in an auction is a negotiation.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#46

Post by benced »

m4ck_ wrote: post #29
delichon wrote: post #5

This is what I think of when I think of personalized pricing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlT3uHlNAg&t=111s It's pretty much what I've done when selling at flea markets all of my life. I ask what I think the market will bear, per person and situation. I don't feel at all guilty for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that mass customization in the information age has brought us to it at scale, or that the force of…

How do I negotiate with a minimum wage cashier, self-checkout, or a checkout page? Have you ever been in a Kroger property, or Walmart, or any other multi-billion dollar retailer and negotiated on something? Maybe they'll price match and I guess that counts, but it's not as if we have access to data to do that in a meaningful way to compete with the data that they have to act on. In lieu of suppressing surveillance p…

I worry about corner cases like rural towns with only one grocery store (although I suspect that those are already gouging people?) but that isn't San Francisco.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#47

Post by bryanlarsen »

gruez wrote: post #44
bryanlarsen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reductio ad absurdum: Your local water monopoly has perfected price discrimination. Since water is a necessity, the water monopoly sets the price of water to "everything you own".

>Your local water monopoly has perfected price discrimination. Since water is a necessity, the water monopoly sets the price of water to "everything you own". This says more about monopoly power abuse than problems with "price discrimination". Food is also essential, yet prices don't rise to "everything you own" (even for the poorest) because of competition.

That's called "the consumer price surplus". It's one of the major reasons that market economies are better for everyone than command economies. And it's the antithesis of price discrimination.

You're right about monopolies -- price discrimination is a symptom of monopolistic pricing powers. It's not that price discrimination should be illegal, it's that successful price discrimination is a strong symbol of monopoly, and the FTC should be cracking down.

Patents and copyright are legal monopolies. Price discrimination is rampant in fields like pharmaceuticals and software which use these. If we can't get rid of the monopoly, at least we should crack down on price discrimination.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#48

Post by benced »

I suspect part of the reason this is playing well on this website is banning surveillance pricing is great for rich people. I don't have the time or inclination to coupon or aggressively cross-shop but I benefit a lot from the less well-off folks who do. The grocery store, without any ability to differentiate, has to assume that I might be one of those people and sell me a banana at the same price.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#49

Post by calbear81 »

I generally agree with the statements here but the example of the baby thermometers seems to be a false equivalence since there is no variation of pricing of the products but instead it's a personalized search results page that takes into account what they think this person might want. It actually would seem silly that a newborn parent would NOT want a baby thermometer and it just so happens that baby thermometers tend to be pricier. I know the stance from the EFF is likely that everyone should see the same search results and only allow a direct ly expressed query to influence the sorting/ranking.

Re: San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

#50

Post by frickinLasers »

delichon wrote: post #5

This is what I think of when I think of personalized pricing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlT3uHlNAg&t=111s It's pretty much what I've done when selling at flea markets all of my life. I ask what I think the market will bear, per person and situation. I don't feel at all guilty for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that mass customization in the information age has brought us to it at scale, or that the force of…

I come from a culture where the price is always listed. If I don't like the price, I'll either find a better deal somewhere else (shop) or not buy. Any time I'm forced to barter with a person I lose, because I do feel guilty about it. I feel bad that you won't get as much money as you think you should, despite the low balance in my bank account.

Some people seem to feel they have a right to help others get ripped off because they're not schemers. I don't feel I owe you that.

Post reply on HN