正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

At what point does “dynamic pricing” become surveillance pricing or exploitation? Should companies be able to charge you differently from your neighbor?

31,622 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

35 条评论

Golden Boy 👑🗡️ 的头像
Golden Boy 👑🗡️1 个月前

The other senator from Utah is trying to let blue states import infinity foreigners can you please say something

Charlie the Texan 的头像
Charlie the Texan1 个月前

Dynamic pricing is a scam on the consumer. This must be banned. They are charging whites more than minorities.

sunsetaz 的头像
sunsetaz2 个月前

It’s invasive if they’re using facial recognition software to identify customers by name, creating profiles w/out their permission & unique pricing, all under the guise of “personalized” shopping. Not just cameras used for security purposes, but profiling & selling to others.

A-a-Ron 的头像
A-a-Ron2 个月前

Yes. And I can refuse to purchase their services or products. Gov't solutions are ALWAYS worse than the problems they claim to solve. Always.

Frank 的头像
Frank1 个月前

I swear the the same people who think this is fine are gonna be bitching about Ticketmaster later. Why are we Tickemastering groceries?

Grimm 的头像
Grimm1 个月前

Not without transparency! If my neighbor and I can both see the prices and make our own decisions that’s negotiations and that’s capitalism. When the shopping experience is individualized and ephemeral, we lose key information that should factor into a true free market.

Voluntaryist Minister 的头像
Voluntaryist Minister2 个月前

When it’s compelled at gunpoint. Whatever happened to ending the IRS?

Texas Ranger Samuel Walker 的头像
Texas Ranger Samuel Walker2 个月前

Thune please resign. We need Mike Lee or Ted Cruz to take the Leaders seat!

Tom Massé™ 的头像
Tom Massé™2 个月前

NO! I've noticed this at Walmart. They know your location and your spending habits and they will change the prices electronically as you are approaching the product on the shelves. It's just WRONG.

ShadowPatriot 的头像
ShadowPatriot2 个月前

We need to get rid of that. It’s total BS, it’s like stealing from you on steroids and it’s legal.

Joe Pensinger 的头像
Joe Pensinger2 个月前

Yes they should. That’s capitalism. As long as I am not forced against my will to pay that price then I don’t see a problem. I can just walk away and use my dollars for a different purchase.

Kyle Stenson 的头像
Kyle Stenson2 个月前

Hell no.

Wildchild_jen 的头像
Wildchild_jen2 个月前

This should not be allowed. Companies should set one fair price for all. The price should not be able to change based on what I make or my neighbors make. Definitely AI should not be tracking that or my purchases.

Democracy Dies With Democrats 的头像
Democracy Dies With Democrats2 个月前

"Should companies be able to charge you differently from your neighbor?" You just know they're going to charge White people more.

Rootkit Monkey ⚔️ 的头像
Rootkit Monkey ⚔️2 个月前

This reminds me of those Flock cameras being used to stalk citizens…. getting too creepy

Joe 的头像
Joe2 个月前

Who cares? If you don't like their prices, buy from somewhere else. Why are we trying to solve a problem that doesn't hurt anyone?

Not a Keynesian 的头像
Not a Keynesian1 个月前

If the @SenateGOP wasn't so feckless, you would have passed CLARITY in a way that would have made this illegal, as it invokes the existence of at least a "synthetic" digital ID tied to the individual, precisely by using financial systems as the mechanism.

UNwokeness 的头像
UNwokeness2 个月前

Yes. Price optimization is not a crime.

Lily 的头像
Lily2 个月前

Anyway, you're a dick.

Adam Apocalycious 的头像
Adam Apocalycious1 个月前

"...regulators should enforce that law." Ummm... Seems rathe rlike support for a continued fourth Branch? Legislative, Judicial, Executive, and Regulatory? Maybe we shouldn't continue with deep-statery?

Snapperman 的头像
Snapperman2 个月前

NO...most especially the government should be prohibited from pricing my electricity/gas/taxes at a higher rate than other people.

Thomas St. Yeng 的头像
Thomas St. Yeng2 个月前

should the government be allowed to tax one person differently than his neighbor?

L0VELETTER316 的头像
L0VELETTER3162 个月前

Discrimination

Quentin Thornton 的头像
Quentin Thornton2 个月前

REMOVE TRAITOR THUNE NOW

D 的头像
D2 个月前

@SenateAgGOP members: @JohnBoozman @SenJohnHoeven @SenJoniErnst @SenHydeSmith @JimJustice_WV @ChuckGrassley @LeaderJohnThune @SenatorFischer @JerryMoran @SenMcConnell Are they receiving funds from foreign workers' groups for AG - foreign interests, not American citizens?

Glacier Speed 的头像
Glacier Speed1 个月前

I bet I could use their pricing data to prove they are charging more for certain races/ethnicities. Unintentional or not, it's illegal to discriminate.

intellivision 的头像
intellivision2 个月前

we should be able to put in limit orders then, because I know those Hanes cargo shorts will list at $15.75 soon, I just know it.

Jesse 的头像
Jesse2 个月前

Hint, who does it? a person or big business/Gov , the difference between murder and collateral Damage ,is deffrent for same reason. ..when it effect the rich we pay. Older than Aaron Burr ..

another Dave 的头像
another Dave2 个月前

Wow. You appear to be on the right side of history on this one issue. Too bad you will vote to confirm an AG who will protect the kakistocratic kleptocracy that you protect.

Bear 的头像
Bear1 个月前

Sounds like discrimination to me and I will fucking sue the fuck out of somebody. I’m tired of working. I need the easy money.

Antonio Arce 的头像
Antonio Arce1 个月前

And yet, companies have been doing that using our credit history... am I wrong?

Kristen Michelle 的头像
Kristen Michelle2 个月前

Here's a question, should everyone have the same rent to pay?

CanOfRedDirt 的头像
CanOfRedDirt1 个月前

Quit letting Google, et al., use our phones to sell our lives to the highest bidder. Stop letting companies & govt agencies force us to reveal our IP addresses under the guise of "identity verification" or for "convenience." Stealing data is the ONLY objective of EVERYTHING now.

Trent Brunson 的头像
Trent Brunson2 个月前

Surveillance pricing can rapidly become monopolistic. That’s the abuse. Trust is clearly lost in this case. Trust is a market institution. So trust must be maintained and protected. The grey area is the vast majority of replies are using surrogates for their underlying and unstated assumption: I want a fair market. It certainly doesn’t seem fair that a neighbor pays than me for the same good or service. That’s a centralized economy dynamic. One run by business instead of a government who has seized the means of production. And why we have anti-trust laws. Who decides what is fair in surveillance pricing? A committee of experts? Surely not. The markets will be disrupted with this and then be disrupted again as it adapts and corrects for the next equilibrium. Keep the experts and government agencies focused on safety and property protection. Fed meddling will only prolong inequities, never deliver an outcome, and hoover up resources.

AmericanFawn 的头像
AmericanFawn2 个月前

Never. Including the government.

相关视频

I just went down this rabbit hole, and it's so fascinating. So apparently, airlines have been selling your data to competitors for years. Strange right? I know, hear me out... It's called dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing is when a company charges you a price calculated specifically for you, based on what they know about you, rather than a fixed price everyone sees. Nobody called it surveillance. The mainstream take on dynamic pricing is that it's sinister and new. Corporations secretly watching, jacking up prices, exploiting desperation. That anger is mostly right. Dynamic pricing isn't a bug that crept into capitalism. It's the entire architecture of how information asymmetry becomes profit. Airlines have always charged different people different prices for the same seat. Hotels. Insurance companies. Actuarial profiling predates the internet. What changed isn't the behavior. It's the resolution. Your battery at 8% telling Uber you're stranded is a higher-resolution version of the taxi driver who saw you running in the rain and didn't turn the meter off. The new part is the precision. They know you searched the same flight six times. They know you're on a Mac. They know your zip code and how long you've been sitting on the page. Old dynamic pricing responded to demand. Surveillance pricing responds to you. The counterargument from the market side is real. Personalization can mean discounts. But companies optimizing for revenue will use behavioral data to find the ceiling, not the floor. What are your thoughts? Is this fair or pure greed from big corp? That's a wrap. Li is a gallery for the greatest minds in economics, psychology, and history. Follow if that interests you. We are ONE genius away. -- P.S. I'm building a course on how the world actually works. Not the surface story, but the incentive layer underneath it. Who funds what. Who benefits from what you believe? Why the official explanation is rarely the complete one. Comment "yes" if you're interested in something like this. Waitlist opens soon.

GeniusThinking

38,698 次观看 • 6 个月前

Consumer Pricing Investigations finds ‘Surveillance pricing’ is being expanded in America “Could you be paying more for a product than the person right next to you? It's called personalized or surveillance pricing” Walmart filed highly technical patents showing AI technology is going to be used to set prices “Investigation into so-called surveillance or personalized pricing — Companies know there's money to be made by surveilling us, by learning things about us that point to the highest price we're willing to pay. In our test on a Walmart TV, one of our Atlanta price checkers, JP, was given a price over $1,000 while the rest of us were all under $900 — Still to this day, we're inches away from each other, and apparently that's enough for a price difference of $100+” There are documented cases for each of these companies proving they are already using this surveillance pricing Target: Settled a California case for about $5 million after its app raised prices when shoppers were geofenced near a store. One reported example was a TV jumping from about $500 to about $600 in the parking lot Instacart: 2025 Consumer Reports test found identical items at the same store at the same time priced differently for different shoppers, as much as 23% Kroger: Uses loyalty data arm to profile tens of millions of shoppers, including income estimates and give different prices for promotions Uber and Lyft: Algorithmic fares that differ for the same trip at the same time Delta: Uses AI pricing system on a share of domestic flights with plans to expand Tinder: Charged older users substantially more for the same subscription Orbitz: Mac users were steered toward higher priced hotels than PC users Staples: Wall Street Journal testing found higher online prices for the same item when the shopper was farther from a competitor store The Princeton Review: Online prices varied by ZIP code, with higher prices in areas with larger Asian populations Amazon: Also has been caught but said they stopped… JetBlue: Facing a lawsuit alleging surveillance pricing

Wall Street Apes

35,744 次观看 • 1 天前