#- Convenience

[mostlysignssomeportents]

No, “convenience” isn’t the problem

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in CHICAGO (Apr 17), Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

Using Amazon, or Twitter, or Facebook, or Google, or Doordash, or Uber doesn't make you lazy. Platform capitalism isn't enshittifying because you made the wrong shopping choices.

Remember, the reason these corporations were able to capture such substantial market-share is that the capital markets saw them as a bet that they could lose money for years, drive out competition, capture their markets, and then raise prices and abuse their workers and suppliers without fear of reprisal. Investors were chasing monopoly power, that is, companies that are too big to fail, too big to jail, and too big to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

The tactics that let a few startups into Big Tech are illegal under existing antitrust laws. It's illegal for large corporations to buy up smaller ones before they can grow to challenge their dominance. It's illegal for dominant companies to merge with each other. "Predatory pricing" (selling goods or services below cost to prevent competitors from entering the market, or to drive out existing competitors) is also illegal. It's illegal for a big business to use its power to bargain for preferential discounts from its suppliers. Large companies aren't allowed to collude to fix prices or payments.

But under successive administrations, from Jimmy Carter through to Donald Trump, corporations routinely broke these laws. They explicitly and implicitly colluded to keep those laws from being enforced, driving smaller businesses into the ground. Now, sociopaths are just as capable of starting small companies as they are of running monopolies, but that one store that's run by a colossal asshole isn't the threat to your wellbeing that, say, Walmart or Amazon is.

All of this took place against a backdrop of stagnating wages and skyrocketing housing, health, and education costs. In other words, even as the cost of operating a small business was going up (when Amazon gets a preferential discount from a key supplier, that supplier needs to make up the difference by gouging smaller, weaker retailers), Americans' disposable income was falling.

So long as the capital markets were willing to continue funding loss-making future monopolists, your neighbors were going to make the choice to shop "the wrong way." As small, local businesses lost those customers, the costs they had to charge to make up the difference would go up, making it harder and harder for you to afford to shop "the right way."

In other words: by allowing corporations to flout antimonopoly laws, we set the stage for monopolies. The fault lay with regulators and the corporate leaders and finance barons who captured them – not with "consumers" who made the wrong choices. What's more, as the biggest businesses' monopoly power grew, your ability to choose grew ever narrower: once every mom-and-pop restaurant in your area fires their delivery drivers and switches to Doordash, your choice to order delivery from a place that payrolls its drivers goes away.

Monopolists don't just have the advantage of nearly unlimited access to the capital markets – they also enjoy the easy coordination that comes from participating in a cartel. It's easy for five giant corporations to form conspiracies because five CEOs can fit around a single table, which means that some day, they will:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/18/cursed-are-the-sausagemakers/#how-the-parties-get-to-yes

By contrast, "consumers" are atomized – there are millions of us, we don't know each other, and we struggle to agree on a course of action and stick to it. For "consumers" to make a difference, we have to form institutions, like co-ops or buying clubs, or embark on coordinated campaigns, like boycotts. Both of these tactics have their place, but they are weak when compared to monopoly power.

Luckily, we're not just "consumers." We're also citizens who can exercise political power. That's hard work – but so is organizing a co-op or a boycott. The difference is, when we dog enforcers who wield the power of the state, and line up behind them when they start to do their jobs, we can make deep structural differences that go far beyond anything we can make happen as consumers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

We're not just "consumers" or "citizens" – we're also workers, and when workers come together in unions, they, too, can concentrate the diffuse, atomized power of the individual into a single, powerful entity that can hold the forces of capital in check:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/10/an-injury-to-one/#is-an-injury-to-all

And all of these things work together; when regulators do their jobs, they protect workers who are unionizing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks/#if-blood-be-the-price-of-your-cursed-wealth

And strong labor power can force cartels to abandon their plans to rig the market so that every consumer choice makes them more powerful:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

And when consumers can choose better, local, more ethical businesses at competitive rates, those choices can make a difference:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/10/view-a-sku/

Antimonopoly policy is the foundation for all forms of people-power. The very instant corporations become too big to fail, jail or care is the instant that "voting with your wallet" becomes a waste of time.

Sure, choose that small local grocery, but everything on their shelves is going to come from the consumer packaged-goods duopoly of Procter and Gamble and Unilever. Sure, hunt down that local brand of potato chips that you love instead of P&G or Unilever's brand, but if they become successful, either P&G or Unilever will buy them out, and issue a press release trumpeting the purchase, saying "We bought out this beloved independent brand and added it to our portfolio because we know that consumers value choice."

If you're going to devote yourself to solving the collective action problem to make people-power work against corporations, spend your precious time wisely. As Zephyr Teachout writes in Break 'Em Up, don't miss the protest march outside the Amazon warehouse because you spent two hours driving around looking for an independent stationery so you could buy the markers and cardboard to make your anti-Amazon sign without shopping on Amazon:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/29/break-em-up/#break-em-up

When blame corporate power on "laziness," we buy into the corporations' own story about how they came to dominate our lives: we just prefer them. This is how Google explains away its 90% market-share in search: we just chose Google. But we didn't, not really – Google spends tens of billions of dollars every single year buying up the search-box on every website, phone, and operating system:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-feeling-unlucky/#not-up-to-the-task

Blaming "laziness" for corporate dominance also buys into the monopolists' claim that the only way to have convenient, easy-to-use services is to cede power to them. Facebook claims it's literally impossible for you to carry on social relations with the people that matter to you without also letting them spy on you. When we criticize people for wanting to hang out online with the people they love, we send the message that they need to choose loneliness and isolation, or they will be complicit in monopoly.

The problem with Google isn't that it lets you find things. The problem with Facebook isn't that it lets you talk to your friends. The problem with Uber isn't that it gets you from one place to another without having to stand on a corner waving your arm in the air. The problem with Amazon isn't that it makes it easy to locate a wide variety of products. We should stop telling people that they're wrong to want these things, because a) these things are good; and b) these things can be separated from the monopoly power of these corporate bullies:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/08/divisibility/#technognosticism

Remember the Napster Wars? The music labels had screwed over musicians and fans. 80 percent of all recorded music wasn't offered for sale, and the labels cooked the books to make it effectively impossible for musicians to earn out their advances. Napster didn't solve all of that (though they did offer $15/user/month to the labels for a license to their catalogs), but there were many ways in which it was vastly superior to the system it replaced.

The record labels responded by suing tens of thousands of people, mostly kids, but also dead people and babies and lots of other people. They demanded an end to online anonymity and a system of universal surveillance. They wanted every online space to algorithmically monitor everything a user posted and delete anything that might be a copyright infringement.

These were the problems with the music cartel: they suppressed the availability of music, screwed over musicians, carried on a campaign of indiscriminate legal terror, and lobbied effectively for a system of ubiquitous, far-reaching digital surveillance and control:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/02/nonbinary-families/#red-envelopes

You know what wasn't a problem with the record labels? The music. The music was fine. Great, even.

But some of the people who were outraged with the labels' outrageous actions decided the problem was the music. Their answer wasn't to merely demand better copyright laws or fairer treatment for musicians, but to demand that music fans stop listening to music from the labels. Somehow, they thought they could build a popular movement that you could only join by swearing off popular music.

That didn't work. It can't work. A popular movement that you can only join by boycotting popular music will always be unpopular. It's bad tactics.

When we blame "laziness" for tech monopolies, we send the message that our friends have to choose between life's joys and comforts, and a fair economic system that doesn't corrupt our politics, screw over workers, and destroy small, local businesses. This isn't true. It's a lie that monopolists tell to justify their abuse. When we repeat it, we do monopolists' work for them – and we chase away the people we need to recruit for the meaningful struggles to build worker power and political power.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/12/give-me-convenience/#or-give-me-death

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[sadghostgirl14]

[goshyesvintageads]

Banquet Foods, 1971

[philosophybits]

Through laziness and constancy the mind keeps to what it finds easy and attractive; this habit is constantly limiting our knowledge, and no one ever takes the trouble to extend his mind and lead it as far as it could go.

François de La Rochefoucauld, Moral Reflections

[lovelyhellokitty]

シークレットマスコットコンビニ(サンリオコンビニコレクション)

[theambitiouswoman]

Knowledge and experience, in any and all areas of life, are more than just information. They protect you against manipulation and control. The less we know, the more vulnerable we are to being swayed by half truths and misleading narratives from other people. With every fact we learn, every book we read, and every conversation we engage in, we not only defend ourselves from negative influences, but also open ourselves to personal growth and social progress. Ignorance might be bliss for some, but it's a dangerous bliss that leaves one susceptible to control. Learning is the key to freedom, autonomy, and a better future. When you rely on yourself and succeed, it boosts your confidence.

When it comes to relationships, trust is the foundation of a strong bond. Trusting a partner means believing in their integrity, intentions, and actions, and feeling secure in the knowledge that they prioritize your well being. A relationship also offers comfort and companionship, where you can be their authentic self without the fear of bring judged. However, while trust and comfort are relationship essentials, they should not overshadow the importance of maintaining your own individuality. A healthy relationship celebrates the uniqueness of both partners and does not require submitting your own thoughts or individuality for the sake of the other. It's important to express personal opinions, beliefs, and values, ensuring they are heard and respected. Over relying on other people creates a cycle of dependency, hindering personal growth and potentially straining relationships in the long run.

[min-j1]

Todos regresan a mí cuando la soledad y el aburrimiento los embargan, cuando anhelan atención y cariño. Vuelven a mí porque saben que nunca digo que no, que estoy siempre dispuesta a ofrecer mi apoyo incondicional. Regresan para alimentar su ego, para saciar su narcisismo en mi presencia. Vuelven a mí para jugar con mis sentimientos y emociones, para desequilibrar mi estado de ánimo con sus caprichos. Todos regresan a mí cuando anhelan sentirse queridos, deseados, cuando buscan en mis brazos un refugio temporal. Pero lo hacen solo para herirme, para hacerme caer una vez más a sus pies, sabiendo que nunca les negaré mi amor.

[kerriclarkcreative]

Video & captioning by kerriclarkcreative This post features a video of a deaf individual using sign language to express her thoughts about streaming services. She highlights the convenience these platforms provide, allowing users to access a wide range of content from the comfort of their homes. She also shares her perspective that movie theaters may be facing extinction, as more people opt for the ease and flexibility of streaming. Captions are provided for hearing viewers to follow along with her insights.

Transcript: Regarding the future of streaming platforms, I strongly believe that movie theaters will see a decline in attendance. Instead, everything will be streamed at home. Streaming is more affordable and convenient; you can pause anytime, enjoy your own sound system, and eat your own food—all within your own space. This setup allows for a greater sense of control while enjoying movies with your family, partner, friends, or even by yourself. This is the future, and we are already living in that era.

[alenagerashchenko]

OSAKA, JAPAN

[pratchettquotes]

"But can't you use a keeping-warm spell?" said Tiffany.

"I could. But a witch doesn't do that sort of thing. Once you use magic to keep yourself warm, then you'll start using it for other things."

"But isn't that what a witch is supposed to--" Tiffany began.

"Once you learn about magic, I mean really learn about magic, learn everything you can learn about magic, then you've got the most important lesson still to learn," said Miss Tick.

"What's that?"

"Not to use it. Witches don't use magic unless they really have to. It's hard work and difficult to control. We do other things."

Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men

[whats-in-a-sentence]

There was a pond in the park, and to this my friend led the way. It was frozen over, but a single hole was left for the convenience of a solitary swan. Holmes gazed at it and then passed on to the lodge gate.

"The Illustrated Sherlock Holmes Treasury" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

[normystical]

added the shrug emoticon to my shortcuts a while ago. just now i added "eee" for ≧∇≦

super convenient :3 i won't have to leave and come back every time to copy and paste my desired emoticons lol

[scribbling-punk]

Convenience - 25.

Final Chapter.

The sheets feel cool against Kara's overheated skin as she lies sprawled across the bed, her breaths coming out in slow, shallow gasps from her heaving chest. One of Lena's arms wraps tightly around her waist and she pulls Kara closer, their bodies fitting perfectly together like puzzle pieces that were made especially for each other. 

The air is stuffy and thick with the scent of sweat and sex, mingling with the faint traces of perfume that barely lingers on Lena's clammy pulse points.

"That was perfect," Lena whispers into Kara’s ear in a purring voice that is so low and sultry that it causes shivers to rush down Kara's spine. Soft lips leave the ghost of a tender kiss against Kara’s temple as fingertips dance across a ticklish hip, “you are perfect.”

Lena’s breath tickles the shell of Kara’s ear as she contentedly sighs, the tip of her nose nuzzling Kara’s flushed cheek as she curls herself around the adorably exhausted starfish spread out on the guest bed.

“I wish I could just keep you here forever…. That the world around us would allow it.” There’s a pause and another sigh, “I don’t want you to leave after the summer, Kara.”

Kara’s breath freezes in her chest.

Those words are all she has wanted to hear for several weeks now, but now, hearing them out loud and outside of her dreams, Kara isn’t able to garner up the same excitement that she thought she would.

She cares for Lena.

She really, really does, but staying here means remaining a sordid little secret that Lena holds at arm’s length in front of anyone else who may be around.

Kara understands it, she herself is terrified that the wrong people will find out that she is a lesbian and while she doesn’t have quite as much to lose as Lena, it would ruin her life if the truth were to get out. Before, though, Kara at least had the luxury of moving around and never really letting too many get to know her.

Staying here and spending her life pretending that she isn’t head over heels for Lena would be stifling for both of them and it would be selfish for either of them to choose this life.

Read the final chapter of Convenience early on Patreon.

Earlier chapters can be found on AO3.

[outstanding-quotes]

But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

[blackswaneuroparedux]

The bourgeois prefers comfort to pleasure, convenience to liberty, and a pleasant temperature to the deathly inner consuming fire.

- Hermann Hesse

[min-j1]

Cómo le explico a mi corazón que tú no me quieres, que lo que vivimos es solo una ilusión efímera, un destello de felicidad en medio de la oscuridad. ¿Cómo le hago entender que tus palabras son solo un eco vacío, que tus gestos de afecto son solo momentáneos, que en realidad buscas pasar el tiempo y yo soy solo una distracción? Es difícil decirle que detrás de tus dulces palabras se esconde la verdad amarga de que no sientes lo mismo que yo. ¿Cómo le explico a mi corazón que tú solo apareces cuando te aburres, cuando necesitas compañía, cuando no hay nadie más a quien recurrir? ¿Cómo le hago entender que nunca seremos más que eso, que no hay un futuro para nosotros dos? Es doloroso aceptar que lo nuestro es una historia sin final feliz, una fantasía que nunca se convertirá en realidad. Pero sé que debo ser valiente y enfrentar la verdad, aunque duela, aunque rompa mi corazón en mil pedazos.