New App Lets You Boycott Koch Brothers, Monsanto And More(forbes.com)
forbes.com
New App Lets You Boycott Koch Brothers, Monsanto And More
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/05/14/new-app-lets-you-boycott-koch-brothers-monsanto-and-more-by-scanning-your-shopping-cart/?partner=yahootix
81 comments
As I go through a store using this app, a storekeeper stops me, concerned that I'm just using his store for "showcasing". Luckily I'm able to explain to him how the app is helping me not buy many of his products. Once he learns this, he is much relieved and lets me go on my way.
That's seriously genius. I can't believe how creative people are honestly. Can't wait to use this app.
wow, this is very interesting. It would be awesome if they can give away the data that powers the app. Others can build their own apps
Nice, now we just need one to avoid products made in Israel.
Awesome! I've been working on something similar:
http://www.collectiveoffset.com/
I think this is an interesting concept and it will be cool to see how this space evolves!
http://www.collectiveoffset.com/
I think this is an interesting concept and it will be cool to see how this space evolves!
Cool project.
I actually don't like the use of offset however. Why do I want to offset Chic Fil A? If I don't even eat there--I don't have anything to offset. Offset also makes me feel like I am helping to return to the current status quo. What if I don't want the status quo? What if I just want to fight Chic Fil A?
I think that the idea that users contributing a small amount of money to combat the negative spending of some corporations is incredibly sticky. ("Look at the power of my small dollars! I'm making this evil corporation burn their money!").
But how do you convince visitors to the site that this math adds up? Users may want to donate but would probably be more likely to donate if they were convinced their dollars had that much power. Maybe an infographic explaining it?
I actually don't like the use of offset however. Why do I want to offset Chic Fil A? If I don't even eat there--I don't have anything to offset. Offset also makes me feel like I am helping to return to the current status quo. What if I don't want the status quo? What if I just want to fight Chic Fil A?
I think that the idea that users contributing a small amount of money to combat the negative spending of some corporations is incredibly sticky. ("Look at the power of my small dollars! I'm making this evil corporation burn their money!").
But how do you convince visitors to the site that this math adds up? Users may want to donate but would probably be more likely to donate if they were convinced their dollars had that much power. Maybe an infographic explaining it?
Interesting, as it accepts that we're likely to buy stuff from companies we don't like regardless (very difficult to avoid in some spaces). Mixed feeling about the offset idea in general however.
As a someone who supports the right to life, you'd think I'd be interested in this app, but on reflection, I not interested.
Turning everything in ones life in to a form of politics would be way too draining I'd think and ultimately not a productive as one would like.
I'd rather spend ten minutes a day helping on a suicide prevention hotline, or donating resources to newly expectant mothers, than try to ferret out every last connection to abortion clinics by furtively scanning bar-codes every time I went shopping.
Turning everything in ones life in to a form of politics would be way too draining I'd think and ultimately not a productive as one would like.
I'd rather spend ten minutes a day helping on a suicide prevention hotline, or donating resources to newly expectant mothers, than try to ferret out every last connection to abortion clinics by furtively scanning bar-codes every time I went shopping.
heh...
It's funny... the UX person in me was thinking it would be easier just to take a picture of your shopping cart and have it highlight the items you shouldn't purchase. Just based on packaging. Then I thought ... hey ... an even better idea would be to hold the phone up in front of the shelves and have all of the offending items X'd out.
Then I thought ... man ... all of this would be a LOT easier if Google Glass had a better camera! Maybe Apple will make a better pair of glasses and in the not too distant future we can just walk up the aisles and have all the products we wouldn't want to support X'd out for us.
Point is... in the future you will most likely not have to scan the bar code. The software will just put X'es over all of the products that are "bad" by some definition set by you. That would be a pretty interesting use of something like Glass I think.
It's funny... the UX person in me was thinking it would be easier just to take a picture of your shopping cart and have it highlight the items you shouldn't purchase. Just based on packaging. Then I thought ... hey ... an even better idea would be to hold the phone up in front of the shelves and have all of the offending items X'd out.
Then I thought ... man ... all of this would be a LOT easier if Google Glass had a better camera! Maybe Apple will make a better pair of glasses and in the not too distant future we can just walk up the aisles and have all the products we wouldn't want to support X'd out for us.
Point is... in the future you will most likely not have to scan the bar code. The software will just put X'es over all of the products that are "bad" by some definition set by you. That would be a pretty interesting use of something like Glass I think.
Maybe you could also have it do face recognition and tie that in with sentiment analysis of people's twitter, facebook and Google+ feeds so that you can be cold and aloof or just plain avoid people with "bad" viewpoints.
I'd like a red X over people that discuss, say, the political opinions of celebrities.
Also I think avoiding products if you disagree with the company owners is laudable and I don't really get why you are responding with such snark.
Also I think avoiding products if you disagree with the company owners is laudable and I don't really get why you are responding with such snark.
To me, it seems too tribal and "total warfare"ish. Remembering and boycotting a few things... sure, although generally that doesn't have much effect. But tagging all products that have some association with people who don't fit your world view seems scary and close-minded to me.
Ah. I agree with your first point, it's ineffectual. But my hope would be that an app can help people boycott more effectively (who would guess that bottled waters are sold by Coke and Pepsi?) and have a greater total effect.
I don't think it would be like excluding all the products that don't fit my world view, but excluding all the products from actors whom I think are doing severe damage to the environments and legislatures of the world's nations.
I don't think it would be like excluding all the products that don't fit my world view, but excluding all the products from actors whom I think are doing severe damage to the environments and legislatures of the world's nations.
> (who would guess that bottled waters are sold by Coke and Pepsi?)
Maybe it's a bit of a reach, but the Coke/Pepsi vending machines here have water in them and that was how I figured out each company also had their own brand of bottled water they also sold (Aquafina for Pepsi and Desani for Coke).
Maybe it's a bit of a reach, but the Coke/Pepsi vending machines here have water in them and that was how I figured out each company also had their own brand of bottled water they also sold (Aquafina for Pepsi and Desani for Coke).
If you research it you'll find both are bottled filtered tap water. For awhile I tried figuring out where they were bottled, mostly unsuccessfully. The holy grail would have been finding competing plants in the same city bottling the same municipal tap water, but I was unsuccessful. Not all corporate bottling plants bottle all products at every plant, I couldn't figure out which of my coke products came from the nearest syrup plant in Chicago or bottling plant in Quincy although it seems all Pepsi products are reminiscent of the proverbial "thousand mile salad" and come from the sand states (or what we in the center of the country call fly over, because we fly over those states on our international vacations which we can easily afford because we don't live on the coasts)
Oh yeah, I think at least one of them says it's tap water in the fine print on the bottle (or did). Pretty funny though.
Not water, but oddly, Dr. Pepper is bottled by Pespi here. In other parts of the United States, Coke or 7up bottles it.
Not water, but oddly, Dr. Pepper is bottled by Pespi here. In other parts of the United States, Coke or 7up bottles it.
Disagree with the owners on what? David Koch supports the Cato Institute, NOVA on PBS, and the American Museum of Natural History in New York. What if I disagree with libertarians but I like science? Should I buy or not buy some Dixie cups?
I agree that it's good for people to support companies they believe in, but that takes introspection and investigation. This app promotes neither.
I agree that it's good for people to support companies they believe in, but that takes introspection and investigation. This app promotes neither.
The problem is that we do not have any discernable influence on our nominal political representatives. A workaround is that we might be able to influence the corporations that do have significant influence. It's worth a try.
The Citizens United decision means the money you spend is used to influence the political process. It's part of what you're buying, so why not factor it in to your purchasing decision?
The Citizens United decision means the money you spend is used to influence the political process. It's part of what you're buying, so why not factor it in to your purchasing decision?
It's part of what you're buying, so why not factor it in to your purchasing decision?
Because one hallmark of a civil society is the ability to have vigorous disagreements in the political sphere and yet continue to live and work together as a community.
Because one hallmark of a civil society is the ability to have vigorous disagreements in the political sphere and yet continue to live and work together as a community.
I know quite a few people that are gay and would love to have the opportunity to get married in the state they reside in. So when Chick-fil-A dumps money into campaigns for ads against equality bills I sure as hell will not give them a single cent.
I can't pick and choose if I want to pay for tanks but I can certainly not pay companies that are actively trying to hurt the people I love with my money.
I can't pick and choose if I want to pay for tanks but I can certainly not pay companies that are actively trying to hurt the people I love with my money.
If your neighbor showed up on a list of people who donated to support Prop 8, would you stop inviting them to your BBQs? What if they "just" voted for a candidate who professed to be against marriage equality (like our current President in 2008)? That's what I mean about civil society.
Obviously its fabric will survive your boycott of Chick-fil-A, but letting the political bleed into all aspects of our lives is something I find intensely distasteful.
Obviously its fabric will survive your boycott of Chick-fil-A, but letting the political bleed into all aspects of our lives is something I find intensely distasteful.
And if a charity is going to toss out donations of Harry Potter toys because they "promote witchcraft" they are out as well. I'm going to try this app.
And fund things you object to?
Why imply not funding things you object to as not being civilised? Makes no sense. Or is it just a justification for laziness?
Why imply not funding things you object to as not being civilised? Makes no sense. Or is it just a justification for laziness?
So you prefer to spend your life doing band-aid actions instead trying to fix the probem in it's root, that is, money in the wrong pockets. All these problems you prefer to work with are consequence of an unfair and corrupt system that is screaming for a fix. These anti-ethical companies are the ones responsable for turning politics and democracy (if it exists) into a mere tool for personal and not social profit. Read a book called The Black Book on Brand Companies and start scanning barcodes.
Abortion clinics are tiny businesses compared to giant conglomerates like Koch. I don't think there's much boycotting you could do even if you wanted to.
Arguably you could boycott everyone who funds abortion clinics (e.g. Warren Buffett who is the #1 donor to Planned Parenthood). So, no NetJets for you.
I agree it becomes really silly beyond one or maybe two steps. IBM in the 1930s was about the limit of "second degree hate"; I'd still have been happy to mow the lawn of IBM employees back then. I probably would have had problems doing business with IBM directly if I'd known all the details. The only transactions I'd have done with nazis were sell side death transactions, i.e. real life Castle Wolfenstein.
I agree it becomes really silly beyond one or maybe two steps. IBM in the 1930s was about the limit of "second degree hate"; I'd still have been happy to mow the lawn of IBM employees back then. I probably would have had problems doing business with IBM directly if I'd known all the details. The only transactions I'd have done with nazis were sell side death transactions, i.e. real life Castle Wolfenstein.
You also get a certain amount of milage out of limited boycotts and only a little extra beyond that.
The Koch brothers probably aren't going to change their behavior no matter how much boycotts cut into their bottom line. If you cut off all revenue to every business they have an interest in, and everyone in the world refused to send them another dime even by buying up their failing businesses at fire sale prices, they would still be richer in their cash holdings than most people ever dream of being. They'd continue to have more influence on world affairs than most small nations.
On the other hand, most large corporations are more interested in money than politics, and politics is just a side game. So a moderately successful boycott of a single or small number of products sends enough of a signal back to corporate headquarters to change their behavior. If Whirlygig sales drop 10% because of their policy on Foozles, they aren't going to wait for Fizzbuzz sales to follow, they're going to reverse course immediately.
The Koch brothers probably aren't going to change their behavior no matter how much boycotts cut into their bottom line. If you cut off all revenue to every business they have an interest in, and everyone in the world refused to send them another dime even by buying up their failing businesses at fire sale prices, they would still be richer in their cash holdings than most people ever dream of being. They'd continue to have more influence on world affairs than most small nations.
On the other hand, most large corporations are more interested in money than politics, and politics is just a side game. So a moderately successful boycott of a single or small number of products sends enough of a signal back to corporate headquarters to change their behavior. If Whirlygig sales drop 10% because of their policy on Foozles, they aren't going to wait for Fizzbuzz sales to follow, they're going to reverse course immediately.
So what exactly makes the Koch Brothers and Monsanto worse than Facebook (also a horrible political lobbying monster corporation)? Because they're not tech companies who your friends work at?
Koch Brothers: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout...
Monsanto: poisoned people with Agent Orange, DDT, and polychlorinated biphenyls (re PCBs: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm)
Facebook: ???. I guess their CEO is an arrogant, 20-something billionaire, and they play fast and loose with online privacy. They have yet to kill anyone or commit treason[1]. So there's that.
[1] Or, as they'd call it on Arrested Development, "light treason"
Monsanto: poisoned people with Agent Orange, DDT, and polychlorinated biphenyls (re PCBs: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm)
Facebook: ???. I guess their CEO is an arrogant, 20-something billionaire, and they play fast and loose with online privacy. They have yet to kill anyone or commit treason[1]. So there's that.
[1] Or, as they'd call it on Arrested Development, "light treason"
How can you poison people with DDT? DDT is harmless to humans. It's been eaten in large doses to demonstrate this point.
The only harm involved with DDT is the millions of poor mostly-non-white people dead from malaria (including many children) because of the irrationality of some privileged wealthier mostly-white people (not including many children).
For more info start with http://industrialprogress.com/2012/01/26/the-story-of-ddt/ and google.
The only harm involved with DDT is the millions of poor mostly-non-white people dead from malaria (including many children) because of the irrationality of some privileged wealthier mostly-white people (not including many children).
For more info start with http://industrialprogress.com/2012/01/26/the-story-of-ddt/ and google.
Alex Epstein is the director of the Center for
Industrial Progress, an organization he founded
in 2011. Its mission is to "inspire Americans to
embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal."
He is also a blogger at Master Resource, a "Free
Market Energy Blog," and a past fellow of the Ayn
Rand Institute, an organization that has received
funding from the Koch Foundations including at
least $50,000 between 2005 and 2010.
Some of my favorite blog post titles of his:
* Coal is Clean: http://industrialprogress.com/2012/03/12/coal-is-clean/
* Keep Our "Addiction" to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr005=zvtlch4...
* Why We Should Love the Oil Companies: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/06/love-oil-companies-edu... (I think this might be my favorite for its shades of Dr. Strangelove's subtitle)
This is simply not true. There are scads of studies that have established DDT's potential for human toxicity in diabetes and cancer. Not only that, DDT's LD50 is not particularly large.
Salesmen used to drink large amounts of organophosphates to show farmers it was harmless -- now we know that class of peaticides cause serious neurological disorders.
Salesmen used to drink large amounts of organophosphates to show farmers it was harmless -- now we know that class of peaticides cause serious neurological disorders.
Source?
Or more importantly, where is the evidence that exposure to much lower dosages of DDT causes more harms than millions dead of malaria?
Or more importantly, where is the evidence that exposure to much lower dosages of DDT causes more harms than millions dead of malaria?
[deleted]
Yeah, but malaria mostly only kills (tens of millions of) children in poor countries in Africa and Asia so it's of no concern to right-thinking environmentalists in rich Western countries.
You're exaggerating. Malaria is a killer, but it's not tens of millions of children per year. The WHO estimates a number just shy of a million, about 50% children. That's still a sizable number and in principle you're right - most of them are in poor countries.
However, the mechanisms that drive this are more complex. A grossly simplified version goes like this: Since the population that's hit worst has no buying power, no pharmaceutical company is interested in developing a vaccine or an effective, cheap treatment. Malaria is very much a poor peoples illness due to a variety of contributing factors: No access to effective treatment, no access to mosquito nets, no proper hygienic conditions, no enclosed living spaces that keep mosquitos out.
Just spraying DDT on every swamp in Africa is not a solution to the problem. DDT accumulates in the food chain, mostly in fat and gets fed to the children you're trying to protect via the mothers milk. It is linked to an increased rate of stillborn and cancer. It's really not the kind of stuff you'd want to use if there's any alternative.
However, the mechanisms that drive this are more complex. A grossly simplified version goes like this: Since the population that's hit worst has no buying power, no pharmaceutical company is interested in developing a vaccine or an effective, cheap treatment. Malaria is very much a poor peoples illness due to a variety of contributing factors: No access to effective treatment, no access to mosquito nets, no proper hygienic conditions, no enclosed living spaces that keep mosquitos out.
Just spraying DDT on every swamp in Africa is not a solution to the problem. DDT accumulates in the food chain, mostly in fat and gets fed to the children you're trying to protect via the mothers milk. It is linked to an increased rate of stillborn and cancer. It's really not the kind of stuff you'd want to use if there's any alternative.
So, you're going to boycott every other company that dumped PCBs and pesticides and other carcinogens into groundwater, right?
Where did I say I was boycotting anything? I was merely explaining why I think Monsanto and the Koch brothers are worse than Facebook.
My mistake, sorry. Tech has an unjustifiably positive view of its own long-term environmental impact, so, hotbutton.
All good, apologies for the rude tone. I feel like I've had increasing issues with people misinterpreting or misreading my comments on here lately. I took that out on you unnecessarily. Cheers.
edit: really, i'm getting downvoted by someone for civility?
edit: really, i'm getting downvoted by someone for civility?
Explicit displays of civility always get upvoted over the long term, but anything anybody writes will get downvoted at some point. Best not to think about it.
My guess is that someone on a phone accidentally down-voted you when they wanted to up-vote. Those little arrows are... well... little!
[deleted]
you're probably getting downvoted (not by me) for implying that anybody on HN might misinterpret or misread your comment. because obviously IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR WRITING THE KIND OF COMMENT THAT COULD BE MISINTERPRETED YOU LOSER!!!!!!!!!
The Bloomberg story on the Koch Brothers is a complete smear job: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/bloomberg-legi...
Statists don't like the Koch's because they hate anyone who believes that people should be free to make their own decisions without being ordered about by small-minded busybodies whose self-image depends on the delusion that they know what's best for everyone else. And rather than engage in debate, they find it much easier to just demonize their opponents with dishonest ad hominim attacks.
Statists don't like the Koch's because they hate anyone who believes that people should be free to make their own decisions without being ordered about by small-minded busybodies whose self-image depends on the delusion that they know what's best for everyone else. And rather than engage in debate, they find it much easier to just demonize their opponents with dishonest ad hominim attacks.
Ad hominem as in "small-minded busybodies"? The irony...
> people should be free to make their own decisions without being ordered about by small-minded busybodies whose self-image depends on the delusion that they know what's best for everyone else
You do know they funded the Tea Party.
You do know they funded the Tea Party.
And that would be bad how? I should ask where you got all your information on the Tea Party since it seems like there is more than one smear job going.
I am not sure that the target audience for the app is identically opposed to "lobbying" and "big corporations" for any player. They might feel that there's something particularly repugnant in the goals or ideology of Koch Brothers or Monsanto that doesn't apply to Facebook. Further, you are unlikely to accidentally buy Facebook-owned breakfast cereal.
But nice try at sophomore cynicism.
But nice try at sophomore cynicism.
because the first has the audacity to not agree with the left and the second is a corporation who patents genetics and similar?
Really it all comes down to irrational hate by one side or the other and unfortunately this type of irrationality is best observed on sites like Hacker's News and Slashdot, Digg was bad too in its good days. The level of pretentiousness is astounding, but fortunately other than up/down/karma and bombastic posts the members of such sites do little else.
Really it all comes down to irrational hate by one side or the other and unfortunately this type of irrationality is best observed on sites like Hacker's News and Slashdot, Digg was bad too in its good days. The level of pretentiousness is astounding, but fortunately other than up/down/karma and bombastic posts the members of such sites do little else.
Because Zuck wears a hoodie while pushing his corporatist political agenda via his well-funded PAC.
Well, no. As influential as Zuck is, his influence simply pales in comparison to that of Koch Brothers or even Monsanto.
The Koch brothers are indeed very influential. Remember when they bankrolled that Libertarian Party that now controls American politics, legalized all the drugs and abolished the income tax?
Just one of many baskets they put their eggs in. It's like pointing out a single failed company to suggest the whole portfolio of them is crappy. Maybe their goal was just giving more exposure to libertarian ideas.
Don't forget about when they legalized gay marriage.
So, the evolution of this is some app running in your glasses that rates everyone you meet on some criteria based on what your preferred media source(1) (e.g. MSNBC, Fox News) says about the companies they buy from and the artists/writers/politicians they like.
1) note, facts require research not punditry
1) note, facts require research not punditry
The Revolution will be an In App Purchase.
The iOS app appears nicely designed but the server side is struggling. Couldn't create an account, app website is very slow http://buycott.com
Looks like Ivan could use some help
Looks like Ivan could use some help
Honestly, this sounds like just too much trouble and I guess I just don't really care enough. If I refused to buy anything that was made or sold by anyone that had ever done harm to anyone, I'd probably starve to death... homeless & naked. I've spent the last 2 years reading the label of every food item I buy my son because he's allergic to eggs and soy (and we avoid nuts because we're too afraid we'll kill him with one) so I can tell you a little something about how much of a pain it is to scrutinize every single item you purchase. It is not as easy as it sounds. And even if there is an app for that... it will still suck. Personally... I don't think this is worth it. To each their own.
Consider the possibility that the point is to not purchase consumer goods from corporations.
That seems wildly unlikely given that the thing is an app designed to run on a pricey smartphone.
Unless I buy everything on Etsy.... aren't most things coming from corporations?
> If I refused to buy anything that was made or sold by anyone that had ever done harm to anyone, I'd probably starve to death...
Boycotting does not have to turn into a religion that drives you into starvation. You can just try to support the less evil choice, or only when you have time to spare.
Boycotting does not have to turn into a religion that drives you into starvation. You can just try to support the less evil choice, or only when you have time to spare.
And ultimately... that is why this type of activism usually fails eventually. First, in order to pick the lesser of two evils, you still need to scrutinize every item so you know which one is the less evil. That still takes time and after doing it a few times and realizing your trip to the market, etc took twice as long as it should, many people will not continue. This app has been all over my Facebook feed. So I imagine a decent number of my friends shared it... but probably didn't install it. That is not any more useful than changing your profile pic "to support" what ever cause is viral this month. Of those that did install it, you've given them the out they need... only when you have time to spare. After trying it a few times and seeing how it effects their life, maybe that one time they are in a hurry and don't have to time to figure it out, they just go with it. Reminding them just how much work the boycott is. But that was just one little fudge... they'll do better next time. Right... this little chip in armor is all it takes for so many people to eventually give up. Only the most dedicated people will continue for any length of time that would even be noticed by the corporations... but probably not enough people to make them change. Sure that is a pessimistic, cynical view but tell me you haven't seen this exact set of events happen time and time again. We'd like to hope this time would be different. But history is a pretty good indicator of the future.
I see this all the time. But I also see people who can't be bothered to vote (even in referendums), or can't be bothered to use the gym membership they've proudly bought, or are in the habit of eating junk food every day. Should we now give up on everything that has a little friction?
Just as we inside the HN bubble care about IP laws (see every thread about Apple's lawsuits), there are plenty of people who care deeply about food or other issues. And it's not a huge investment to use this app once during weekly groceries and figure out which companies are opposed to $personal_beliefs. After that a "good enough" boycott is pretty much zero effort.
Just as we inside the HN bubble care about IP laws (see every thread about Apple's lawsuits), there are plenty of people who care deeply about food or other issues. And it's not a huge investment to use this app once during weekly groceries and figure out which companies are opposed to $personal_beliefs. After that a "good enough" boycott is pretty much zero effort.
The I'm-sort-of-trying-cott?
I guess it is true that getting hundreds or thousands of other people to change their behavior a little bit can add up more than 1 person changing a lot.
I guess it is true that getting hundreds or thousands of other people to change their behavior a little bit can add up more than 1 person changing a lot.
There is a middle ground, you know. You're right, you probably can't completely boycott products from evil actors. But that's not what this is about. This is about making more informed decisions about who you are supporting with your money. Not everything has to be taken to its extreme to still be worthwhile.
So you're telling me you get my email, my political inclinations, and my offline purchasing habits.
T&C includes the "no class action" and binding arbitration clauses. Privacy policy doesn't actually mention anything about campaigns I use or products I scan, which makes my suspicious mind ... umm... suspicious. At least it omits the "or as otherwise allowed by law" blanket "we do whatever we want" clause.
They do say they won't sell or rent personally identifiable information. I'm not sure if they could weasel out of it by using some sort tracking cookie, but it looks like they seem to be limiting themselves to selling aggregate data.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, but I don't think I really said anything anyone else can't read for themselves.
T&C includes the "no class action" and binding arbitration clauses. Privacy policy doesn't actually mention anything about campaigns I use or products I scan, which makes my suspicious mind ... umm... suspicious. At least it omits the "or as otherwise allowed by law" blanket "we do whatever we want" clause.
They do say they won't sell or rent personally identifiable information. I'm not sure if they could weasel out of it by using some sort tracking cookie, but it looks like they seem to be limiting themselves to selling aggregate data.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, but I don't think I really said anything anyone else can't read for themselves.
I don't understand why things just have to be online-enabled nowadays. It seems like this app could be implemented with a daily-updating list of which products belong to which company, but my understanding is that they do a live server check, which wastes data and is very bad for privacy.
It seems like "talking to a server" is the default for everything nowadays, even when it doesn't need to be.
It seems like "talking to a server" is the default for everything nowadays, even when it doesn't need to be.
"my understanding is that they do a live server check, which wastes data and is very bad for privacy."
Hmm so it doesn't work online where I buy tons of stuff from Amazon Prime, and it doesn't work in brick and mortar because my brick and mortar and steel grocery store has absolutely dismal minimal coverage if any (maybe they have a jammer?). I suppose it would work great at the farmers market ... where everything is grown locally and mostly organically so it doesn't have much of a point anymore. Other than stunts in front of a camera for journalists I'm not sure where I could use this app.
Hmm so it doesn't work online where I buy tons of stuff from Amazon Prime, and it doesn't work in brick and mortar because my brick and mortar and steel grocery store has absolutely dismal minimal coverage if any (maybe they have a jammer?). I suppose it would work great at the farmers market ... where everything is grown locally and mostly organically so it doesn't have much of a point anymore. Other than stunts in front of a camera for journalists I'm not sure where I could use this app.
Sorry, don't read too much into my comment. "My understanding" just comes from the parent comment, I haven't tried the app out.
You aren't really uncovering anything unique or special. Take a look at your companies own terms:
https://www.wealthfront.com/static/documents/wealthfront_cli...
There is a "no class action" and arbitration clause. Hell, it's data sharing policy is even worse:
"We do not share non-public personal information about you with unaffiliated third parties with whom we have no contractual business relationship for their independent use unless (1) you give us permission, (2) it is necessary to complete a transaction on your behalf, (3) it is necessary to protect against fraud, comply with a subpoena or other court order or is otherwise required or permitted by law. We do not sell information about you to outside unaffiliated companies."
That carefully tip-toes around the idea that they "can" share non-public personal information about you with affiliated third parties whom they do have a contractual business relationship with. Note the conditions they provide are only for sharing with unaffiliated third parties.
"We do not sell information about you to outside unaffiliated companies." "unaffiliated third parties with whom we have no contractual business relationship"
Heck, these two lines essentially suggest that affiliated and unaffiliated have nothing to do with contracts. Therefore, they are free to sell information to whomever they deem they are affiliated with.
My point isn't to pick on you or your company, but merely to point out that what you are suggesting is pretty common-place.
https://www.wealthfront.com/static/documents/wealthfront_cli...
There is a "no class action" and arbitration clause. Hell, it's data sharing policy is even worse:
"We do not share non-public personal information about you with unaffiliated third parties with whom we have no contractual business relationship for their independent use unless (1) you give us permission, (2) it is necessary to complete a transaction on your behalf, (3) it is necessary to protect against fraud, comply with a subpoena or other court order or is otherwise required or permitted by law. We do not sell information about you to outside unaffiliated companies."
That carefully tip-toes around the idea that they "can" share non-public personal information about you with affiliated third parties whom they do have a contractual business relationship with. Note the conditions they provide are only for sharing with unaffiliated third parties.
"We do not sell information about you to outside unaffiliated companies." "unaffiliated third parties with whom we have no contractual business relationship"
Heck, these two lines essentially suggest that affiliated and unaffiliated have nothing to do with contracts. Therefore, they are free to sell information to whomever they deem they are affiliated with.
My point isn't to pick on you or your company, but merely to point out that what you are suggesting is pretty common-place.
I said I was going to get this but just changed my mind. Holy shit. Thanks for posting.
An alternative is to specify generic items (eg. breakfast cereal) and let the program construct a shopping list that most closely fits your criteria (eg. brand XYZ fruity munchies). For each item, maybe offer a pop-up that lists alternatives in descending order, so you are not happy with a suggestion you can easily scan for and select a "next best"? You can then use your shopping list in the normal way.
Maybe it could also offer the option to place the order for you, so it becomes an "ethical online shopping" site? Like any other shopping site, your list could be saved and reused/tailored next time. If the status of any item changes, a suggestion to change brands could automatically be made next time the list is used. Funding could be by negotiating a cut of each purchase with the vendor?
Maybe it could also offer the option to place the order for you, so it becomes an "ethical online shopping" site? Like any other shopping site, your list could be saved and reused/tailored next time. If the status of any item changes, a suggestion to change brands could automatically be made next time the list is used. Funding could be by negotiating a cut of each purchase with the vendor?
If you get a hit on Choco-bits at home, then you know that you also won't be buying Fruti-bits, as they're both made by Sulfur Industries. I don't think you need to go slowly down the aisle scanning everything with a bad connection.