Don't Download Apps

Don't Download Apps

Updated: 25 Nov 2025

Home

Calebjay.com

Companies want you to download apps. Here in Taiwan it’s particularly bad: I’ve had shop staff tell
me about some discount if you download their app, and when I decline, say something like “It’s really easy! Here, just give me your phone and I’ll do it for you.”
Once when I was setting up my phone plan, the staff wanted my phone to, idk, note my IMEI or something, and then when I wasn’t paying attention,
installed a local e-commerce app, using my new phone number and name as login details,
then proudly told me, “Now you get 300NTD off your first phone bill!” Thanks, for 10$ I can get weekly text and email
spam from Shopee, great.
So first tip, in Taiwan, never hand your phone over the counter.
Second tip, never download the app. Corps have all sorts of ways to try to convince you: Use the app to order in-store rather than the kiosk,
get free chicken nuggets. Download our app at checkout, get a discount. Whatever the reason, don’t do it, you’re giving more than you’re getting.
Two reasons.
First, we’ve entered an era defined by surveillance capitalism. Companies try to get
as much data on you as possible, and then treat you differently based on the data they have on file for you. We all know this as seeing poorly-tuned
ads (you just bought a refridgerator? You must love refridgerators! Here’s 100 refridgerator ads), but the new trend is surveillance pricing.
A company will know that you just got paid and so charge you just a bit more for your chicken nuggets than they do when you haven’t been paid in two weeks.
Annoying, don’t download them app, don’t give them more data than they already have.
The other scary thing though is that that gives the power of currency valuation to companies. WIthout surveillance pricing, everyone pays the same for a cheeseburger.
Rich people can buy more cheeseburgers, sure, but at least the price of cheeseburgers is pegged against a dollar, so if someone starts charging too much for cheeseburgers,
you can take your dollars to a competitor. Once companies can start charging individual prices, the global economy doesn’t determine how many cheeseburgers your dollars can buy,
McDonald’s does. Way too much power to give to these companies that already have too much power.
Second reason, binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is when you sign an agreement with someone that has a clause that says,
“if there’s a dispupte, we don’t sue eachother, instead we go through a private process outside the court system and let a mediator decide the outcome.”
Bonus, unlike judges, whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayers and therefore you don’t pay a “judge fee” when you go to court (mostly), a mediator
needs to be hired. Guess who hires them? Not you!
Walking into a restaurant to buy a cheeseburger, there’s no way a company can force you to enter a contractual agreement that includes binding arbitration.
Downloading an app, however, requires agreeing to a “Terms of Service,” and those can absolutely include a binding arbitration clause, and that clause
can be applied even to cases outside the app. This happened to Jeffrey Piccolo when his wife died of food poisoning in a Disney World. Disney made a motion
to dismiss because a couple years back, Jeffrey had signed up for a free trial of Disney+, which included a binding arbitration clause, which meant that
if Jeffrey wanted to complain about how Disney murdered his wife, they’d have to settle it out of court with a mediator that Disney hired. No jury, no judge,
no oversight. In the end the only reason Disney dropped this motion is because the news picked it up. That won’t always happen.
At least in the USA, binding arbitration is totally cool according to the Supreme Court, so don’t count on the government to save you. You need to take
personal steps to make sure you aren’t signing your rights away. So, don’t download apps.
Predictions: Sometime in the next 5 years, someone will be forced into arbitration with Uber after being hit by one of their self driving cars, because
they use Uber Eats. Sometime in the next 5 years, someone’s house will burn down from their Tesla exploding, and they’ll be forced into arbitration
because they had a Twitter account, and Twitter is now a subsidiary of TeXla. Sometime in the next 5 years, an Amazon employee who lost a finger on the job
will be forced into arbitration because they have a WaPo subscription.
If you want to learn more, Cory Doctorow covers the topic in much more detail.

© 2025 Caleb Rogers

The article, penned by Caleb Rogers, presents a compelling argument against the widespread adoption of mobile applications, particularly highlighting the risks associated with data collection and contractual agreements. Rogers’ core concern revolves around the increasingly manipulative tactics employed by corporations to incentivize app downloads, ultimately leading to a significant erosion of consumer rights and economic control. The piece advocates for a proactive stance against these practices, urging individuals to resist the allure of discounts and freebies offered in exchange for their personal data.

A central theme is the rise of “surveillance capitalism,” where corporations amass vast amounts of data on consumer behavior, leveraging this information to implement “surveillance pricing”—adjusting prices based on an individual's financial status. Rogers illustrates this with the hypothetical example of a restaurant charging a customer more for chicken nuggets immediately after they’ve received a paycheck, demonstrating the potential for exploitative pricing strategies. This shift moves away from a standardized value system driven by the broader economy and places power firmly in the hands of corporations.

Furthermore, the author emphasizes the dangers of seemingly innocuous agreements like “Terms of Service” which frequently contain binding arbitration clauses. Binding arbitration, unlike traditional court proceedings, bypasses the judicial system and relies on a privately selected mediator to resolve disputes. Rogers contends that this system is inherently unequal, as the mediator is not accountable to the public and the process lacks the safeguards of a jury trial. The case of Jeffrey Piccolo, where Disney attempted to dismiss his lawsuit after he had a Disney+ free trial, serves as a stark example of the potential for corporations to wield this power to suppress claims against them. The article highlights the lack of oversight and the vulnerability created by agreeing to such clauses.

The author’s predictions for the near future – including potential arbitration disputes related to self-driving cars, Tesla malfunctions, and Amazon employment injuries – paint a concerning picture of a world where corporate power intensifies and individuals lack effective recourse. He smartly directs the reader to Cory Doctorow’s work for further investigation of these issues. Ultimately, Rogers’ piece is a cautionary tale about the implications of unchecked technological adoption and the necessity for individuals to protect their rights in an increasingly data-driven world.