People aren't generally opposed to the idea of differential algorithmic pricing, they're against the way it'll almost inevitably get implemented if allowed to be done without regulation / public involvement and oversight.

Ask a lefty if they're in favour of charging people fines based on net worth/income, rather than based on a flat rate. Speeding ticket? That'll be 0.5% of your annual salary, or 0.5% of your net worth, or a baseline minimum amount, whatever's higher.

The way it'll get implemented though, is more like "It's hot, so you gotta pay x2 for water if you're poor already". And "you're a privileged race/gender, you get X pricing, it's not discrimination if it's an algorithm doing it!".

[–] MadBigote@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You're comparing examples where the entity establishing the rate of a speeding ticket or a fine is the government as a consequence of you violating the law, to a company deciding how much they know you're willing to pay for a product or a service that may or may not a basic necessity such as water or food. Not quite the correct comparison.

[–] liuther9@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

The difference? Nowadays both operate to make rich richer

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ask a lefty if they’re in favour of charging people fines based on net worth/income, rather than based on a flat rate. Speeding ticket? That’ll be 0.5% of your annual salary, or 0.5% of your net worth, or a baseline minimum amount, whatever’s higher.

As a Finn, I'm perpetually amazed when that's not how it works in every country. I'm not a lefty, nor poor, and I think that's the only reasonable way to handle fines.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

every where else it's only about punishing poor people, fairness has nothing to do with it.