this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
302 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

21802 readers
1335 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
kescusay@lemmy.world
302
Ban on ‘surveillance pricing’ could threaten discounts, retailers warn (www.thestar.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In its long-awaited artificial intelligence strategy released Thursday, the Carney government said it will “strengthen its privacy laws to ensure that Canadians’ personal information is not used inappropriately, including for surveillance pricing.” Government officials did not give further details or clarify when asked if that will be an outright ban on the practice.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Steve@communick.news 81 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I think they misunderstand what people are complaining about.
People don't want discounts for one person while another gets overcharged. It's a good thing if it threatens discounts. Everyone wants to pay the same price for the same thing.

Discounts can be annoying even when they're "fair"
It's annoying when something was discounted yesterday, and now you have to pay more. Or when you just bought something last week, but now you could have saved a bunch because it's some arbitrary special day. Temporary discounts of any kind are inherently unfair and manipulative.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Tip: Some stores, realiizing you can return a product and re-buy it at the current discounted price, will retroactively price match themselves within the return window.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago

They don't misunderstand at all. They don't want them forcing the app down their customers throats so they can collect data on their buying habits and sell it. The unfair pricing is just them forcing people without the app to pay unreasonable prices.

Discounts have a good reason, mostly advertising and some seasonal discounting and lots of storage clearance. So this is fine and to be expected. Nothing unfair about being incentivized to buy seasonal food because its cheaper when its growing in your region at the moment. This is where capitalism gains some efficiency for food distributing. Most stores in Germany announce the discounts up to one week prior, so people can somewhat plan their discounts to save money.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

People don't want discounts for one person while another gets overcharged.

Yeah, maybe you have more faith in humanity than me, but I think there are tons of people who would be ok with this assuming that they're the ones getting the discount.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago

LOL, OH NOOOOOO. "Let us absolutely rape your wallet, or else..."

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 44 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Rofl nice try, assholes

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, don't threaten me with a good time.

What I want is predictable pricing, not "ten percent off Tuesday, except the third Tuesday of the month..." and all the other BOGO crap where the discount is the real price at other stores and they just gouge you (90 to 100% in the case of BOGOs) the rest of the time.

You don't want to give discounts? Don't give discounts. We'll be comparing your prices to the competition. Discounts and sales and coupons are just a way to make price comparison harder for the consumers.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

At Target you can ~10% off when you buy a retail product online for pickup. -You can't place an online order (even for pickup) without entering all of your contact and billing details...

I know it's technically not surveillance pricing, but it's still incredibly scummy.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 13 points 2 weeks ago

Target has been pissing me off for years with their "you can't have your laundry detergent for normal, not double jacked up, price unless you buy $50 in other cleaning supplies at the same time" games. Coupled with their "we aren't giving you a cash discount, we're giving you back some of what you just paid us as store credit cards, good luck not losing them..." I started, and the cashiers patiently obliged, dividing my orders to start with what gave me the store cards, then paying for the 2nd part of my order with the store cards from the first part.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 43 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Discounts, sales and similar tactics have worked fine for decades if not centuries, without customers being recorded.

Their claim is bullshit.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

It's not a claim it's a threat.

And I will take no discounts to fucking surveillance pricing.

The boycott is permanent. Brick and mortar can't change prices during business hours.

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 2 weeks ago

Fine by me. If it's stupid surge pricing with occasional "discounts" or a straight price for everything then I'll take the later.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 34 points 2 weeks ago

They're trying to convince us that surveillance pricing actually benefits us. Lol

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago

Oh yeah, that's the problem... All the companies falling over themselves to give out extra discounts to consumers.

“Why is the government stopping us from charging our customers LESS??”

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There have been discounts back in time where retailers did not have personal information on that level. What happened to stickers like "10% off" for all customers?

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

That’s way more expensive than fucking with people too tired and poor to fight back

[–] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your “discounts” are being subsidized by someone else’s over charges.

What ever happened to charging enough to cover your overhead and have middle class life?

[–] chocrates@piefed.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Capitalism. Greed is the name of the game.

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 weeks ago

"discounts"

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

God they're so transparent.

"But the discounts we want to give our customers!!!"

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

Kill it with fire.

I have already pre-boycotted digital pricetags in brick and mortar stores. I will just drop all my shit and leave. You will not get my money if you're changing the prices on customers like that.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago

Sounds like the rich when they threaten to leave if they don’t get their own way. If he gets voted in we will leave.

If they don’t like it they have every choice leave or not trade.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 weeks ago

They wouldn't do it if didn't enable them to extract more money from us.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

I think most of us understand economics well enough to see that there's no difference between a selective discount and a selective price hike.

[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

It's not a threat, it's protection money

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Bullshit.

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

If this isn't the most ridiculous thing ever. Surveillance pricing is effectively a price fixing event across all industry. Old America wanted healthy competition to best serve citizens. Me, I thought old America was bad for its citizens.

[–] discocactus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

April 26th 1992...

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

there was a riot on the streets, tell me where were you?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Got a source that you can read without subscribing? Even killing Javascript doesn't get the full page to load.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Edit: had an archive.ph link to the non-paywall article, turns out we shouldn't use archive.today or any of it's affiliated links. They were behind a DDOS attack on Wikipedia, so I'm done with them, as everyone should be.

Now to find another paywall bypassing site!

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

not on wikipedia but on someone who published open-source intelligence on the site operator, and using visitor traffic, while also masquerading as some random person who sighted the operator a tiny bit and editing archives to keep the identity theft up

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] frunch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fuckin figures. I knew that place was too good to be true. I'll delete the link and stop using them. Got a non-paywall link to the article, by any chance?

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

unfortunately not :(

try the extension at https://gitflic.ru/user/magnolia1234

[–] CluelessCalls@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I’ll take my chances.