> It doesn't benefit the consumer or the working class

It should absolutely benefit the blue-collar consumer. Whom it hurts is the moderately rich. (If it works as intended.)

Like a rideshare app offering worse pay to drivers who they know are heavily in debt and near their payment deadline? Offering less pay to people who are desperate and have no other options?

▲

pc86 an hour ago | parent [-]

Your example is both bad and irrelevant. Two completely unrelated things can be true simultaneously.

▲

radiorental an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not seeing this example as unrelated.

E.g. If a seller knows I've been searching for flu remedies, I've made a social media post related to the illness. Then I go to the pharmacy and everything related to alleviating those symptoms is more expensive for me.

Put simply, if they know you absolutely need something, they will leverage that information.

	▲	lokar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A larger more powerful organization has leverage over someone by collecting their data, and uses that to extract value from them.

▲

8note 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

its still surveillance pricing - the payment from the working class here is their labour.

its the same exploitation in both cases

▲

lokar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I can’t quite understand your point. My example was a real reported behavior.