Like others have said - be careful with this option - there are a LOT Of examples in the Google Fi forums about people doing a chargeback with Google because of charges they felt were fair or fraudulent via Google Fi, and next thing they know their Google Account (Photos, Docs, Email, etc.) is disabled.

I would watch the same thing with Amazon (Music, Alexa, Photos, AWS, etc.)

All the more reason to not use these companies for anything that’s even moderately important.

Exactly. If you are at the point where your only recourse is chargeback, then you are at a bridge-burning moment. The company has treated you so badly that you’re willing to light the relationship on fire. Why on earth would you want to continue being a customer of that company? I’ve done a few chargebacks in my life and they were all against scum-of-the-earth companies I would never do business with again.

One thing I've always wondered: since credit cards generally have relatively pro-consumer policies, why didn't they just take the next logical step and write "retaliation for chargebacks isn't allowed" into their merchant agreements?

Because the companies might just stop accepting them or actually start fighting. Also the current state is good for both merchants and credit cards. Issues are quietly solved and problems go away, permanently.

That's one of the reasons I degoogled my life. I want to be able to tell Google to go screw itself in such events

Backup everything elsewhere regularly https://zapier.com/apps/dropbox/integrations/google-drive

You’d want to use frequent Google Takeout for backups of all of your data.

This is why I do not use gmail or any other online services from any vendor which might restrict me from doing things I do. My online dependency is limited to Netflix and Amazon. Amazon is easily replaceable. As for Netflix - there are other services and as an alternatives I'll just read more books. I might miss Google Gearch and Youtube but from my experiments those can be used in anonymous mode. For people who earn money on Youtube it is of course very different.

A couple of years ago I migrated away from Gmail for just this reason. Before I did that, my life could have become very difficult if Google decided to deem me as a persona non grata, and I'd have little to no recourse.

That’s a good point. I hadn’t really considered that.

A problem with this is that it’s a nuclear option. Companies you use it against may decline to trade with you again. That may be a problem or not.

This is one problem I face with centralization. If all stores handle purchases on their own, it's fine if your local camera shop refuses you as a customer because you also probably don't want to deal with them again, but if you are forced to use your CC company to dispute against steam, amazon, google, you are risking being banned from their service. You are risking access to your photos, documents, and emails. To using online features for other products you already own.

I agree, but we are far from centralized. Very far.

-edit-

If you think we're centralized and you're "downvoting to disagree" at least have some decency to explain how we're centralized. There is nothing that Amazon sells that I can't buy an alternative product at a dozen other retailers for comparable prices, for example.

I think that it varies.

Due to network effects, there often aren't good alternatives for social media like Facebook or collaborative cloud tools like Google docs.

For games, it's not unusual for indy games to only release on Steam. Even when there is a physical release, that option is becoming increasingly difficult (e.g. many computers no longer have a built in disc drive, many stores no longer carry PC games, etc.).

This is less common than the previous two examples, but it may be difficult to find niche products outside of Etsy. For example, I haven't been able to find another place to purchase this specialized martial arts equipment: https://www.etsy.com/listing/175827423/

Sure, kind of.

So Steam and Etsy themselves trend toward some amount of centralization, but in the case of Stream for example you have Playstation, Microsoft's platform, Stadia (soon to be cancelled I'm sure), Switch, Epic game store, iOS, and others. They aren't all exactly 1-1 comparable but I think that's ok. Frankly, you can get games from a lot of sources. You might say you can't get an indy title from one of these sources that you can on Steam, but you can't buy Halo on Playstation either - that doesn't make things centralized. It's a very competitive market.

In the case of Etsy I think you're a little more right, but there's no reason that has to continue to be that way.

People clearly differ.

Steam and Etsy are actually two companies that, if I were unable to use them starting tomorrow, that would basically have zero impact on my life.

Whereas, although I do order from a variety of online retailers, going cold turkey on Amazon would be a fairly significant inconvenience for me--although some seem not to use them much.

Right but you wouldn't be able to make the claim that the market is centralized based on these factors.

Centralization is a float not a Boolean. I use Amazon a lot, am generally happy, but am slightly concerned with the amount of centralization that Amazon retail represents.

Centralized in what way?

You'd just create a new account for Amazon.

But what about your gmail? You'll lose all access to your email

"Monopolization Defined"

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.

"Market Power"

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

What you may think has little relation to governing regulatory law.

I didn't claim that Amazon was or wasn't a monopoly so I'm not following the point you're trying to make here. Centralization is not the same thing as monopoly.

"Centralisation" in the context used is synonymous with monopolisation.

Not in the context of my comment which you replied to.

You merely parroted the term introduced earlier.

Downvoting on HN sucks, doesn't it? It's a feature designed without empathy, even though it directly affects human emotion. Which is extra bizarre considering it's on a forum that prides itself on respectful human behavior.

I don't care too much about the karma itself, it's more so I want to know why something I said is worthy of this little down arrow thing. Am I completely incorrect? If so why? What specifically is wrong. I want to learn and have discussions about these things. Sucks to see people downvoting you too - they're just proving your point.