Hacker News Reader

Comment by photonthug | Hacker News Reader

The old "use your agency" response never gets old does it, no matter how much consumer alternatives are whittled away, and no matter how much the abusive corporate behaviour gets ratcheted up and normalized. Do you actually make a profit yourself from forcing ads on paying customers who can't choose to avoid your services, or just aspire to one day?

View on HN

Thats a cop out.

There are lots of alternatives to McDonald's.

There are lots of alternatives to most things. Some cost more money though. That's kinda the point.

What if I can't drive all the way to an ad-free restaurant or for that matter an ad-free gas pump? What if I buy a plane ticket to get out of this bad situation and the airline is using the emergency PA to harass their captive audience of paying customers to join their miles club? What can't be avoided must endured, but there is no reason for people like you to insist that this is fine or normal, or that it's something one can opt out of. You're actively building the dystopia when you do that

>What if I can't drive all the way to an ad-free restaurant

Eating at a restaurant is a luxury. If you don't like the experience, don't go (or don't go back). You're free to make your own food with stuff you buy at the supermarket, and you'll most likely get something healthier and much lower-priced. The entire point of a restaurant is to pay more money, frequently a LOT more, for a combination of convenience, service, ambiance, and food that might not be so easy for you to make at home (e.g. pizza) due to skill or equipment limitations.

So at least the supermarket should be ad-free, right?

Most of the supermarket is essentially ad-space. Companies often negotiate quite hard for good eye-line shelf positions for their products.

That special offer Tesco has on Pepsi products? Tesco is probably making exactly the same markup on each sale and the saving is actually coming from a supply price deal they have arranged with Pepsi in exchange for their products getting extra shelf space and end-isle displays.

High-shelf space (too high for customers to safely reach, so otherwise empty or used to store boxes of product to open when it is time to replace sold stock on lower shelves) often has advertising hoardings for products on other isles these days, again this is effectively paid ad space for the suppliers. If no external supplier is currently paying for it, the space is used to advertise own-brand ranges.

You seem to believe that you're entitled to certain things that are provided by other businesses -- but on your terms.

I don't know why you think that.

You seem to believe that someone wanting a thing to exist means they believe they are entitled to it.

I don't know why you think that.

If an "alternative" to McDonald's does exactly the same abusive thing it isn't a real alternative to McDonald's at all.

If an "alternative" to McDonald's forces you to drive excessive distances to reach it, or it costs much more, or it sells Thai food instead of burgers, then it isn't a real alternative to McDonald's.

A suitable alternative to McDonald's would be one similar enough to McDonald's for your purposes that you can use it to replace McDonald's. I'm sure some people have that, but I'm also sure many people don't.

There are lots of things that don't actually have suitable alternatives. There are entire product categories that are completely filled with consumer hostile garbage, with zero competitors offering a suitable alternative, because sometimes it will always be more profitable for companies to refuse to give consumers what they want.

A suitable alternative to McDonald's is learning to cook.

Or pay a bit more to go to a nicer joint.

Quality does cost more. As long as you keep signaling to MD that you'll tolerate more and more crap for lower prices, they happily oblige.

Another trope that never gets old, it seems.

Many people have stopped going to McDonald's by the way. But not enough for McD to hurt.

Then what? What does our agency change in the world in this situation?

You are using cop-outs as well.

Cooking for yourself is a trope? You realise that's what most of the world does every day.

If making your own meals is literally out of your reach then I feel really sad for you. That must truly suck to be so dependent on companies just to eat...

Do you grow 100% of your own food? It may be helpful for your understanding (and this conversation) to get off the high horse and realise that you're also dependent on companies "just to eat".

I never said I wasn't dependent on companies. I very much am. For everything. But I have choices and, when I gave the opportunity, I make those choices meaningfully.

For example, I don't much care for the McDonald's experience, so I go elsewhere. Indeed on occasion I find going 'nowhere' to be preferable if there's no alternative. I haven't been to MD in 30 years.

I'm not trying to be on a high horse. I follow a path that works for me, and I don't complain about it. You choose the path that works best for you.

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really desperate to "win" this debate?

EXTREMELY OBVIOUSLY I meant this part of your comment:

> As long as you keep signaling to MD that you'll tolerate more and more crap for lower prices, they happily oblige.

That is the trope many use, yourself included. A lot of people signal their displeasure with various status quo. Still nothing changes. I wonder how does the one-dimensional quote above addresses the messy and complex real world out there.

Sorry, it wasn't obvious to me. I misread your point.

I'm not really trying to "win" anything. I'm telling you that you have agency. Whether that means anything to you, or if you do anything with it, I guess that's up to you.

Personally I'm not looking for my agency to change anyone else or how any company behaves. I don't do it for them, I do it for me.

I choose to support companies that align with my requirements. If a company makes me feel like crap I go elsewhere. I'm not out to change the world, just choose how I live in it.

Now I look like an a-hole! :D

It's OK, of course, and yes I take a number of stances out there by supporting one and not supporting another, company.

My point however was that nowadays that's mostly a feel-good measure. Not the unquestionable actual agency many make it out to be.

I think I understand you: everyone at the bottom end of society should just have more money or more personal time, or both. I wonder how we could make that happen.

Different people are in different places. And obviously some people have been fortunate enough to have choices, and some do not.

I would assume that most people in this thread are not working 3 jobs to survive etc. My context is not their context.

I'd also guess they are far less invested in concepts like whether or not the server offers fries with that. In my long ago, limited experience, I couldn't have cared less about how many adverts there were, there were more pressing things to worry about.

Back to your point - I choose personal time over more money. My spending is modest, my income is likely much lower than most here. Frankly I have more than enough. Living is a lot cheaper when the goal isn't money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com