Make product worse, get money

Boycotts and Consumer Power

• Several commenters argue individual boycotts are largely ineffective: others keep buying, big companies “lean into” remaining customers, and the boycotter mainly reduces their own happiness.
• Others counter that organized boycotts with clear demands and endpoints (e.g., labor or political campaigns) can work, citing historical and current examples.
• Some redefine “boycott” as a personal moral allocation of money rather than a tool to force corporate change.

Dating Apps and Misaligned Incentives

• Many see dating apps as structurally incentivized to maximize engagement, not successful long‑term relationships, since “success” causes users to leave.
• Some argue apps were never good at matching in the first place; the problem is intrinsically hard and the market is skewed (few women relative to men seeking casual encounters).
• Others highlight consolidation (large groups buying competitors and degrading features) and network effects, making genuinely better entrants hard to sustain.

Markets, Information Asymmetry, and Enshittification

• A recurring theme is information asymmetry: consumers rarely know what quality they could have for a modest price increase, or which product is truly better.
• Commenters link this to “enshittification”: once a firm has enough users, it can slowly worsen quality or extract more value, relying on switching costs and habits.
• Some say the article underplays regulation, antitrust, and cartels as key checks (or failures) in markets.

Examples: Cars, Food, Sports, Tech

• Cars: debate over whether automakers are still incentivized toward unsafe/cheaper designs versus being constrained primarily by regulation. Others point to reduced repairability as the modern “worse product.”
• Food: discussion of unhealthy restaurant and supermarket incentives, seasonal local food vs year‑round industrial supply, and how revealed preferences (people choosing cheap, tasty food) shape offerings.
• Sports venues: high concession prices and outsourced monopolistic vendors are cited as classic “captive audience” exploitation, with some predicting long‑term demand damage.
• Tech brands (Tesla, Apple, Google, Match Group) are used as examples of brand lock‑in, network effects, and acquisition of better competitors.

Ethics, Taste, and Responsibility

• Several commenters blame short‑term profit focus and detached ownership (shareholders vs operators).
• Others emphasize that many consumers prioritize low price and convenience, so “bad products” often align with actual behavior, if not stated preferences.