Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eisenstein | Hacker News Reader

I think you say 'basic economics' but actually mean 'ideal free market'. Economics is the science of economies, which do not have to be free or market based.

The problem with people's basic understanding of free markets is that it is heavily simplified. We are looking at it from the perspective of 'what if human nature wasn't ever a problem, everyone was always perfectly rational, and everyone had all of the information they needed to make a rational decision'. Those criteria do not and have never existed, which is why the free market fails sometimes at doing some basic things.

Don't get me wrong, it is a great idea and it solves all sorts of problems and we should keep using it -- but don't come to the conclusion that because it all works out in the theory part, then if something in the real world is a certain way then we have to accept that it is efficient and inevitable.

View on HN

You've made a general argument that shows not all theoretical economic theories about free markets can be trusted. Fair enough. But my claim is much narrower.

It merely relies on the love of money of real people in our current economy, and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would find and pay for products that don't screw their privacy, control, etc. I think both those premises are undeniably true.

So you are saying that because people are being screwed in the current market that is undeniable proof that people are OK with being screwed by the market?

If I misunderstand you please correct me.

If that is what you contend, then you have no addressed whether or not the market allows them to do otherwise. You take for granted that the market is free and that people are willingly choosing this outcome with perfect knowledge and without any incentives or forces which would compel them to act despite not wanting to be screwed. For instance, if you do not have bargaining power with a company over your contract, you have no choice but to accept it. Can you enter into negotiations before agreeing to a EULA?

There are forces that are not free market forces which constrain actions, there is human tendency to prioritize immediate needs over long term benefits, etc which all play a role.

The fact that:

1. The market exists 2. We have a conception of how the market should work in an ideal 3. People act in a certain way

do not all combine to make it true that 'people prefer it this way'.

That's the point I am making in counter to your assertion.

You are making all these theoretical points... do you doubt that people are demonstrably lazy and willing to give up their privacy and control for free or cheap or convenient stuff? I don't see how this is even a contentious point to make.

You're bringing up all these theoretical counterpoints that either obviously don't apply, or only apply very partially. There are many local only, FOSS options available for every type of software, right now, many free, for people that care about privacy and control in their computing. They generally have tiny market share. If they were made even more convenient, I don't believe the impact would be substantial. By that I mean stuff like brand recognition, what friends are using, and so on would still be more important decision factors than privacy/control features.

This is a people problem, not a "free market not behaving like its theoretical model" problem. Either people don't fully understand the meaning and importance of their privacy, or their revealed preference of not caring that much is just... sadly... true.

Right, I guess am focusing more on your using the 'economics' as proof that it is a people problem, because I see it used that way all the time without regard to structures and human elements. Basically people use 'but the market is obviously working so it must just be the way it is'. They see it as the result of a theoretical market structure in which people make purely rational decisions in their best interest on an even playing field with everyone else, instead of a situation which is affected by laws (or lack of them), specific cultural events, and psychology among many other things.

Sorry if I was talking past you instead of with you, but I have to say that I don't think it is fair to call my responses 'theoretical counterpoints'. What I am doing is pointing out that on the face of your claim, you are engaging in what could reasonably be called 'begging the question'. That is, assuming the conclusion in your own argument without actually showing that that conclusion has a logical basis. Saying 'the current situation exists, and because people have mechanisms by which they can affect that situation that means they are in complete control of the situation' is not logically valid unless you can account for those things which they do not have mechanisms to control being irrelevant to the outcome.

Either people are broadly ok with being screwed (my personal experience suggests this) or there is a grand conspiracy to prevent anyone who is not screwing their customers from competing in the market.

Maybe it is the latter, who knows. But what I do know is that the non-screwing options exist, but are often less popular and more expensive (either in price, time, or effort).

And this annoys me to no end. Because _I_ don't want to be screwed. But whether I get screwed or not increasingly depends on how much those around me are willing to get screwed or not.

It's not that people are OK with being screwed over but rather that they have been conditioned into being helpless about it. Big corporations hire psychological experts that know exactly how to manipulate you into thinking you need their products or otherwise act against your own best interests, whether that's through advertisement, peer pressure or whatever else they can come up with.

You yourself admit that while you don't want to be screwed you only have the option of not being screwed if those around you also choose not being screwed yet somehow you conclusion that others are different and must be OK with being screwed. Presumably you also often choose being screwed over being socially ostracized? Do you really make sure that all those around you have options to still interact without without being screwed?

Yes people often technically have options of not getting screwed but those options almost exist in a different world and in order to choose them you have to abandon the one you are living in now. That people cannot afford to do that does not mean that they are OK with being screwed.

I am partially with you on this one.

"Yes people often technically have options of not getting screwed but those options almost exist in a different world and in order to choose them you have to abandon the one you are living in now."

But the question that remains is this: If the true situation is people who'd desperately like not to be screwed, and would pay the same or more for this privilege, but are made helpless by corporate propaganda and market dominance, why do we not see new players rushing in to fill this need? They could take massive amounts of market share.

There are only two explanations I can see:

1. Monopoly forces or similar at work.

2. This is not the actual situation.

Regarding 1, you can make the argument for a network effect/coldstart problem. That seems possible to me as an alternative explanation, and as a way out. Still, in my personal experience, 90% of people just don't care that much, and so are vulnerable to essentially being "bribed" by short-term corporate incentives. The free/privacy-respecting alternatives would have to match this force, and also match the marketing.

> Presumably you also often choose being screwed over being socially ostracised?

No, I only choose being screwed over being homeless, or jobless.

Which didn't use to be a particularly likely scenario but the tides are turning.

I don't care about being socially ostracised for refusing to ever use WhatsApp for example.

We teach children not to cave to peer pressure as if it was a choice they could make, and now you're claiming that caving to peer pressure is not something people choose.

The root of the cause is that we allow companies to run mass psychological manipulation campaigns to get people to act against their bests interests. It's not a people problem, it's a corporate propaganda problem.

> and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would

That's a terrible premise. Why are you assuming that this flow exists and that billions of people are failing individually rather than the simpler one this flow not existing?

One reason: Whenever I've made the case personally to friends/family, people who are smart but not interested in messing around with tech, I am usually met with a giant shoulder shrug. Or perhaps, in a best case scenario, "Yeah that doesn't sound great, but there's no way I'm installing X to deal with it".

We can always say the case hasn't been made well enough, and maybe it hasn't it, but at what point do you just start believing people?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com