Companies Versus Consumers

In the world of business, we might think that there should be a relationship that is good and symbiotic between consumers and producers; there is a race to make the most money at the least effort. This is often praised and accepted, but it is a dangerous trend. When companies are focused on making money and not the footprint on the quality of life, and have in mind all ethical and moral considerations. They are less likely to consider the impact of their products on the quality of life of their customers. Don’t sell a good flavor that causes harm just because people will buy it. For example, a company might sell a product that is harmful to the environment, even if it is popular. Or they might sell a product that is designed to become obsolete quickly, so that the customer must buy a new one. These practices can have a negative impact on the quality of life of everyone, not just the customers of the company.

Society does not promote good morals when it comes to business. Instead, we are accepting that everything is fine if we don’t die, regardless of our quality of life as exploitable consumers. I remember a documentary that mentions that meat causes blood vessel inflammation, and we deem it “not harmful”, but do we want as consumers to affect our veins? which happens because these animals have animal iron. So, we can see the main logic behind the regulation was just to make money by appeasing public opinion and giving approval to a product, while they do not get into trouble or a scandal. So again, the thing is just money, not the general interest of the population, while keeping the ugly parts quiet. What are the ugly parts of software? Well, programmed obsolescence, artificial barriers, and eco-jails. If we consider these aspects, we can find their master plan.

There is another case I have heard about, where prominent Internet Service companies sell a free Plus plan for 3 years, and then after that period, they raise the price, and the Plus coverage is over. This is a psychology trick called operant conditioning, where you get used to faster internet, and then you feel real mental pain when your "commodity" is not giving you the same experience. This is illegal and overlooked by authorities that don't understand this subject of consumer behaviour because of what they want in the end. It may be subjective, but there are objective things that we can do to improve our quality of life rather than falling into the traps of reverse-racketeering. Why call it this? Because they have the advantage of knowing you better than you know yourself via internet bidding and large behavioral mining databases. One way to improve our collective quality of life is to beat the bus factor. This means that we should not be dependent on a single company or product. If a company goes out of business or stops supporting a product, we should be able to continue using it.

We can do this by using free software, which is software that is released under a license that allows anyone to use, modify, and distribute it. Free software gives us more control over our computers and our data. It also prevents companies from pushing agendas and forcing us to use their product environments. In the case of software, free software is the way for the consumer to win in the digital space. Keeping ownership of our computers and their computations. We should not be forced to use product environments that are designed to benefit the company at the expense of the consumer. Closed-source software is a barrier to progress, and we need to move away from it. Choose the software that releases its software under free licenses. We may also support free software projects and donate to them. By doing these things, we can help to create a world where businesses are focused on providing value to consumers, not "just making money". I have heard of a tree by its fruit, and you can see things clearly in this age.

When we donate to or volunteer for free software projects, we are helping to create a more sustainable and equitable digital ecosystem. Free (as in freedom) software is often more secure and reliable than closed source software, and it can be adapted to meet the specific needs of users. By supporting free projects, we are helping to ensure that everyone has access to the software they need, regardless of their income or location.

Let’s also change the way we think about business. We need to stop accepting the idea that companies should be allowed to make money at any cost. We need to demand that businesses respect their customers and the environment. We need to fight for a world where free software is the norm and where consumers are in control. So, while it is true that companies take risks, the consumer has a higher impact on losses than the company because they have less cash flow. A company can afford to lose money on a product or marketing campaign if it believes that it will eventually make a profit. But a consumer cannot afford that much to waste their money on a product that is not worth it. But we choose what to buy, and this means that consumers have a lot of power to influence the market. If we choose to buy products that are made ethically and sustainably, we can send a message to companies that these are the products that we want. And if we choose to boycott companies that are not ethical, we can put pressure on them to change their practices.

Businesses often collect a lot of data about their customers without their knowledge or consent. This data can be used in ways that are harmful to consumers, such as targeting them with advertising or selling their data to third parties. By being more transparent about their practices, businesses can help to build trust with their customers and protect their privacy. Even in the first place, we have accepted that a business to collect our data when it shouldn’t be the norm, it just has become the norm because there is little to do to stop it in the light, where we have accepted a paradigm where companies can do as they want to their profits in the general regulations.

The consumer has a higher impact on the market. And I believe that we should use our power to demand better from the companies that we do business with. Think about how the world is shaped around the product you buy, because when you buy you are part of that. And we need a society that thinks of the moral and ethical impact of what they buy, this is an idea not sought in the media instead what is being done is defend consumerism by telling kids “be yourself” and “find your passion” (even kids movies are plagued by these evangelism’s), I will address my thoughts on this on another post I will just mention in general view we should promote a culture of service and aptitude. Believe me, passions are momentary, and it can drop over the years, leaving you in a position that is detrimental, while there is not more pride and satisfaction derived from being actually good at what you do and the best positive affinity is service instead of the ego-centrism honed by just following your passions. Passions and being yourself are better for arts rather than business.

I do not believe in traditional copyright either, especially for art. I prefer the CC BY-SA and receiving donations. I believe that art should have a message to be considered art. Art works with the human psyche and psychological needs, we resonate and have catharsis with it, which gives its actual value. I would also have to mention that we need to accept that not everyone will agree with our personal views on art. I would like to make art, but I don’t want anyone going to jail for my art. Technology has made it easy to make copies, and that is life. Instead, as an artist, you should promote a message and have value, and receive donations to keep making art. Accepting the advances that technology has made and things have come to a different shape. No law should try to be enforced to keep someone in business. If you want people to give their hard-earned cash, then do the dance of value. We as consumers have limited resources comparatively.

I know that it’s not going to be easy to change the way we think about business and the role of consumers. But I believe that it’s worth fighting for, because the future and quality of life of the world depend on it. I hope that my belief that we need to have a conversation about the role of consumers in our world is understood. We need to talk about how we can use our power to demand that businesses respect our rights and our values. And also, the need to talk about how we can support open-source projects and make free software the norm. Together, we can think differently and create a world where consumers are in control, and businesses are accountable to us.

🤝 Towards a Genuine Consumer-Producer Symbiosis

The traditional business paradigm often casts society into two divided roles: the workforce (producers) and the buyers (consumers). This division, driven by the singular pursuit of profit, frequently results in a zero-sum relationship where one side’s gain—usually the company's through cost-cutting and exploitation—comes at the expense of the other’s quality of life and well-being. This preamble argues for a necessary transition toward a model of real symbiosis, where the relationship between consumers and companies is fundamentally restructured by applying principles of civil rights and ethics to both sides of the transaction.

Redefining the Relationship through Rights and Ethics

A genuine symbiosis acknowledges that companies and consumers are not opposing forces, but interdependent partners in a shared economic ecosystem. For this partnership to thrive, it must be founded on mutual respect and accountability:

1. Consumer Rights as Civil Rights: The act of consumption should be protected by the same ethical and legal frameworks that govern fundamental civil liberties. This means consumers have a right to transparency regarding product ingredients and true costs (including environmental impact). They possess the right to non-manipulation, specifically protection from predatory psychological tactics (like those leading to "reverse-racketeering") and designed practices like programmed obsolescence.

2. Corporate Ethical Responsibility: Companies must adopt a revised mission that places the maintenance of collective quality of life and the adherence to high moral standards on par with financial return. This shifts the emphasis from mere legal compliance—where harmful practices are accepted merely because they are "not technically illegal"—to a proactive ethical obligation. This includes ensuring fair labor practices (treating the workforce ethically) and developing products that are durable, sustainable, and genuinely beneficial, rather than simply maximizing short-term shareholder value.

   
   

The Symbiotic Goal

By embedding civil rights into consumption and reinforcing ethical responsibility in production, the new symbiotic model ensures that:

• 1. The Consumer Wins: Consumers gain products and services that enhance their lives, are built to last, respect their privacy, and are produced under humane and sustainable conditions.

• 2. The Company Wins (Sustainably): Companies build long-term trust, secure loyal customer bases, and foster sustainable business models that account for the future, rather than relying on short-sighted exploitation.

This systemic shift—moving from a conflict of interests to a shared value creation—is essential for building a more equitable and functional society where economic activity benefits everyone, not just those at the top.