Not Buying American Anymore
A viral blog post arguing for “not buying American” to protest anti-consumer practices has triggered a broader critique of how weak regulation in the US enables corporate abuse, from device lock‑ins and right‑to‑repair barriers to shifting software terms after purchase. Commenters debate whether the problem is uniquely American or a global capitalist pattern, how much blame lies with governments versus companies and voters, and whether individual boycotts of US-based firms are coherent or effective given complex supply chains and similar behavior by non‑US brands. Some point to stronger consumer protections in parts of Europe and Brazil as models, while others argue that meaningful change requires revitalizing pro‑consumer regulation and political engagement rather than relying on personal purchasing decisions alone.
Scope: “Don’t buy American” vs “Don’t buy anti‑consumer”
- Many commenters argue the post conflates “American” with “anti‑consumer,” even though similar practices exist in Japan, Korea, Sweden, etc.
- Several interpret the core message as “don’t support oligarchic, anti‑consumer systems,” not literally “never buy US-made things.”
- The author in the thread clarifies the target is the US regulatory/political environment that rewards bad behavior, not every US company individually.
Global nature of anti‑consumer practices
- Examples from non‑US firms: Samsung throttling devices, Japanese printer vendors blocking third‑party ink, a Swedish DAW with restrictive licensing, BMW “renting” software features.
- This weakens the argument that US culture uniquely produced these practices, but some insist the US still sets the global tone because it’s the largest and most influential market.
Responsibility: corporations, governments, and voters
- One camp blames corporations for profit‑seeking and governments (especially US) for gutting regulators and enabling “enshittification.”
- Others insist citizens share responsibility: they elect leaders, don’t stay civically engaged, and often tolerate or even reward anti‑consumer behavior.
- Counterpoint: voters often face only “anti‑consumer jerk #1 vs jerk #2,” limiting meaningful democratic choice.
Feasibility and logic of a personal boycott
- Skeptics call the boycott illogical or symbolic: global supply chains blur what “American” means, and there are few realistic non‑US alternatives for many tech products.
- Supporters frame it as a signal, not perfectionism: reduce support for the largest offending market to create pressure and send a message, even if one still buys some problematic products.
- Critics highlight perceived inconsistency (e.g., still buying from a non‑US company that behaves badly) and label it virtue signaling; supporters reply that trying to reduce harm is better than doing nothing.
Consumer protection and political context in the US
- Commenters note that the US once had a stronger pro‑consumer movement and agencies (FTC, CFPB, etc.), but their power has been eroded by corporate influence and partisan politics.
- There is debate over how pro‑consumer recent administrations actually were and whether either major party meaningfully defends regulators.
Role of influencers and tone
- The author cites a prominent right‑to‑repair YouTuber as inspiration; some praise his awareness‑raising, others accuse him of sensationalism or hypocrisy.
- Reactions to the post range from “measured and important” to “evidence‑light rant,” with some focusing on logical gaps more than on the underlying concern about creeping anti‑consumer norms.