When Everything Everywhere All at Once said “The only thing I do know is that we have to be kind. Please, be kind, especially when we don’t know what’s going on"
When the Good Place said “Why choose to be good every day when there is no guaranteed reward now or in the afterlife… I argue that we choose to be good because of our bonds with other people and our innate desire to treat them with dignity. Simply put, we are not in this alone.”
When Jean-Paul Sartre said ”‘Hell is other people’ is only one side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also ‘Heaven is each other’. Hell is separateness, uncommunicability, self-centeredness, lust for power, for riches, for fame. Heaven on the other hand is very simple, and very hard: caring about your fellow beings.“
Dementia is the result of the Brain gradually destroying itself because of long periods of Depression. In other words Dementia equals Depression plus Time. Depression is when you do a partial shutdown of your Conscious Mind to help cope with incessant 'Thoughts' coming from your Subconscious Mind, aka, 'Monkey Mind". The shutdown of the Conscious Mind also means a significant reduction in Brain activity. If you start regular resistance training your brain instructs the body to increase muscle mass. If you stop regular training your brain instructs the body to decrease muscle mass. Use It or Lose It. Your Brain and its neuron connections doesn't treat itself differently to any other part of the body when applying the Use It or Lose It protocol. So Depression and low brain activity, over Time, causes the brain to cannibalize itself to the point where it is called Dementia. It is never too late to start 'resistance training' for your Brain. Try crosswords, sudoku, conversations, hobbies etc. anything that increases brain activity. Oh, and don't forget the most important one; Get rid of the Depression. Monkey Mind and a Path to Depression How to get Depression How to get rid of Depression
Source: 22 Dementia and how to get it
I don’t think that’s legal but nothing matters to the Trump administration.
😡
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
It is absolutely wild to me that America is having a groomer panic when the supreme court basically just told Mormons they can diddle children and not report it because "religious freedom" and I'm really starting to wonder when this "religious freedom" stops if not reporting literally the worst crime you can commit is fine under the guise of God. Perhaps these people would be fine with a father murdering his daughter because she had premarital sex and that brought dishonor on the family, or are they against that only because they associate so called "honor killings" with Muslims? Because the way it's going they are ONE stop away from genuinely arguing this with the way they've allowed religion to shit all over everyone else's rights by holding the feelings of Christians above literally everything else, including CSA victims. Religious freedom is not the right to take away everyone else's rights regardless of what a Certain Brand of Christian thinks. Especially when the only religion that gets this freedom in the US (and Canada) is Christianity.
Like don't panic about groomers if you're going to make it legal for Mormons to rape children and do nothing about it, and instead of calling trans people pedos come out and saw what you mean because I'm tired of the political right couching everything they say in coded fucking language so they can hide their actual intentions. If you need to do this much subterfuge to hide your political goals you damn well KNOW your ideas are unpopular and fucked up I wish these people were even a quarter as oppressed as they think they are because then we'd actually start violently and virulently questioning literally everything about everything whenever a republican or a conservative opened their fucking face instead of only doing that to people we don't like while accepting whatever horse shit falls out of the political rights ass no matter how ridiculous or who gets hurt, children they want to "save" so bad included.