It’s no small irony that the simplest answer is the right answer here: you can’t force consumers to use your product. They need a reason to use it, and none of the current ones are sufficiently compelling.
In crisis, only the most adventurous ones of us gamble, any grow addicted to it, and most lose... A lot.
The traditional rule books are key to survivability in tough business times... Tangible goods and services, a deep focus on quality, reasonably paced sales growth, customer support, low dependency on external factors and suppliers... Crypto and Web3 represents none of those things, and that's why a lot of the time it is based solely on marketing vapor, and also why many don't want to invest in it (unless perhaps they are addicted to gambling or unless they want to promote a particular aspect of it for their own personal financial gain).
or foresight that exclusively buying goods manufactured abroad will eventually affect your home price as your neighbors one by one lose their local jobs...
Do we know why people act in such a way?
Edit: I'm quite shocked at the deep presumption of negativity. I was genuinely trying to discuss and explore the phenomenon of choosing long term detriment for short term gain.
Hierarchy of needs. Maslow is obviously not accurate, but people focus on basic survival and prioritize themselves and their families first. You do not even reach the level of contemplation of politics until you have food, shelter, comfort and a degree of safety. Most Americans struggle to satisfy all of these consistently.
If you want more people to care about privacy, solve their basic needs first. Then they will care about big picture items.
It seems like it was more like "Well I could have a TV now, or a TV + Microwave now" and that was the micro decisions that lead to a hollowing out of the labor force.
I'm just armchair speculating here, happy to learn more in a concise way (ie doesnt require me to go get a degree on the subject) .
Person A going out to buy a Chinese-made microwave from Walmart today isn't going to lead inexorably to decreased property values, but it is going to give Person A something in which to stick their microwavable popcorn tonight. In fact, many Person As have been buying Chinese-made microwaves from Walmart for many years now, and still property values are going up!
Eventually, sure, enough people making those choices on a macro scale leads to factories closing close by, and if there's no corresponding rise in other industries, that will lead to negative economic consequences for the entire area. But that's a far off problem with a lot of uncertainty, and this popcorn isn't going to pop itself tonight!
Of course, it is also true that Person A could go out of their way to shop at a local store and buy a microwave made by an American company, but that the American company decides that there's much more profit to be made by moving production overseas, and the negative economic consequences happen anyway. Not because of the short-sightedness of Person A, but the greed and short-sightedness of CEO B. That's even more reason for Person A to not be too worried about their individual purchase.
> definitely part of the dystopia.
How so?
It's very immature (or complicit with what you categorized as dystopian there).