News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing. Parent comment

Re:San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveil... by Eisenstein on Wednesday July 29, 2026 @12:29PM (#49099596)
What you are saying is that the amount of money people save getting discounts is made up by increases to the retail price for everyone else, and that this is equal to the extra money that individually priced people would pay or receive or discounts, so its a wash?

This assumes that the business would raise prices to make more money from people who they think can pay it and give that back to others as a discount.

Do you have evidence this would be the case?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveil... by gruez on Wednesday July 29, 2026 @12:37PM (#49099724)
>This assumes that the business would raise prices to make more money from people who they think can pay it and give that back to others as a discount.

>Do you have evidence this would be the case?

This is pretty standard economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:San Francisco: Don't Fall for Industry Defense of Surveil... by Eisenstein on Wednesday July 29, 2026 @01:08PM (#49100171)
1. That didn't answer my question

2. Do you have evidence that the we are operating under standard economics when massive personalized data collection is being used in conjunction with AI to individualize pricing per consumer instead of per market segment?

[ Parent | on HN ]