this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2026

327 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

89747 readers

3893 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

327

New York City Council Approves Landmark Legislation Banning Surveillance Pricing (council.nyc.gov)

submitted 14 hours ago by Beep@feddit.online to c/technology@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.online/c/tech@feddit.online/p/2110072/new-york-city-council-approves-landmark-legislation-banning-surveillance-pricing

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] squeezy@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago

Next: EVERYWHERE ELSE

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That makes three states and two major cities by my count.

2/3 of the US states will have some flavor of ban within the next year or two.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

States shouldn't even have to touch this. The national Congress needs to take this over and stomp it out. It's a bipartisan issue every voter would get behind.

[+] username_1@discuss.tchncs.de -22 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

Wow, "landmark legislation banning surveillance pricing". No idea what it means. I know the meanings of every word separately though...

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Landmark legislation is law that changes the legal landscape, aka: it’s a trendsetter or underpins important legislation.

Surveillance pricing is setting prices based on observations made of an individual, in the vast majority of cases through cookies and other online tracking.

So this is formative legislation which bans the use of individualized pricing based on a person's habits or history.

Headlines just have a whole different linguistic standard. I think It’s a fun little cultural relic, but nowadays there’s no need to keep them as short as possible, as long as they’re under the character cutoffs most aggregators have for post titles.

[–] TerdFerguson@lemmy.ca 12 points 10 hours ago

Literacy really is on the decline, nowadays, isn't it?

Sorry, I mean: You not read.

[–] BrilliantBadger@piefed.ca 18 points 12 hours ago

Literally a summary in the first sentence of the article.

[–] PinkBalaclava@sh.itjust.works 23 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, a bit weirdly phrased to me as well, but the first line of the article clears it up

Speaker Julie Menin’s legislation will prevent companies from using personal data to offer different prices to different New Yorkers

[–] RepleteLocum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Isn't that just price gouging?

[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

They can overlap. Price gouging means charging excessively high prices, especially when people have little choice during shortages or emergencies. Its basically demand based pricing, a fairly normal economic principle, taken to extremes.

Surveillance pricing means using personal data to estimate what you're willing to pay and tailoring your price accordingly. Two people could be buying the same product at the same time and see different prices because the company thinks it can squeeze more out of one of them.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 hours ago

It still allows mass gouging you cant be price gouged different than anyone else though. So stops price tags that would change by who's near them.

[–] username_1@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, that's better. But titles are important. Why would I even click on the link if I don't understand the title? "Draft prediction of isomorphic amino-acids transition schedules".

[–] PinkBalaclava@sh.itjust.works 11 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I click on it because I don't understand the title. It's not even clickbait or exaggerated, just a bit oddly phrased. With the added context of that first sentence, the title also makes perfect sense.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

It's only oddly phrased if you aren't used to headline style writing, aka headlinese