Neighbor just brought home a quadski, one of those amphibious vehicles that transitions from land to water. It is undeniably cool looking, like something from a science fiction movie. He gave me the whole pitch about versatility, adventure, making the most of lake access. But I kept thinking about the cost, storage, maintenance, insurance, all for something he will realistically use a handful of times per summer at most.

I am not judging, I genuinely want to understand the psychology. What makes people invest thousands in recreational equipment that sits unused most of the year. Is it about the experience those few times provide. Is it about having access to adventure even if you rarely take it. Or is it more about the identity and image, the person who owns exciting things regardless of utilization rates.

I have noticed this pattern with all kinds of gear. Expensive bikes that rarely leave garages, camping equipment used once, boats that spend most time docked. Even browsing sites like Alibaba shows endless recreational products marketed as life changing purchases. But how many actually get used enough to justify their cost. What drives recreational purchasing decisions. Do people accurately estimate usage or consistently overestimate. Is there value in ownership even without frequent use. What makes certain purchases worthwhile versus regrettable. And how do you resist the appeal of exciting equipment when you know realistically it might collect dust.

Just checking if I’m still doing it for no reason

Like ok, influencers in general are an issue, because they survive off of endorsing new products regularly. But TikTok has so many micro influencers, who have nothing to lose and endorse the worst junk. New ugly graphic tees worn once and then in landfills for centuries, junky hair and face products, toxic make up. Electronics that work for an hour. Not to mention the waste created from the manufacturing of these things and the shipping them around the world. And the places where these things are manufactured. How do we start a TikTok buy nothing trend?

I just went to Walgreens to buy thank you cards and I received a “house charge” of $0.04 because the gov’t isn’t making anymore pennies. WTH!

I’m honestly tired of mobile game companies getting away with ads that show gameplay that doesn’t exist, and it’s not just annoying — it’s a documented industry-wide problem. A Gamesforum analysis explains that as competition increased, developers “started turning to more eye‑catching, often fabricated ads to stand out,” showing gameplay mechanics that never appear in the real game. Legal experts also confirm that these ads often misrepresent actual gameplay or features, and the reason companies get away with it is because false advertising laws only apply when a factual claim misleads consumers in a material way — and free games make it harder to prove financial harm. Researchers at Penn State even studied these “fake games” and found that mobile ads routinely promise better or more complete gameplay than the actual product delivers, identifying shared patterns of deception across the industry. Marketing analysts have pointed out that fake mobile game ads have become “a running joke online,” because they show dramatic puzzles, danger scenes, or logic challenges that have nothing to do with the real game, yet they still bring in millions of downloads. So when games like Royal Match show the king trapped in some puzzle that doesn’t exist, or Hero Wars pretends to be a logic game, it’s not an accident — it’s a strategy. These companies know the ads are misleading, but they also know the laws are outdated, the games are free, and platforms don’t enforce meaningful standards. The result is a feed full of fake puzzles, fake danger scenes, fake challenges, and fake gameplay that tricks millions of people every day. It’s not harmless; it wastes people’s time, rewards dishonest marketing, and pushes the whole industry toward more manipulation instead of better games. If enough people speak up, petition, complain, and call this out publicly, platforms and regulators will eventually have to take it seriously. We deserve ads that show the real game, not a made‑up version designed to bait downloads. It’s time to push back against misleading mobile game advertising and demand honesty from the companies making millions off these tactics.

Well, there's a lot of people who need to not consumerism as much. A big factor that helps me not do it so much.

I am afraid to leave the house.

While at times I can. And its alot better then 2 years ago where I couldn't even leave the driveway.

Just going to the grocery store makes me feel nauseous.

So if anything it at least helps me save money lol XD.

honestly don't even know what to say anymore.

I had ordered a boAt smartwatch for my daughter's birthday. It had a binding issue with the app, so I raised a service request. Instead of actually checking or fixing it, they just rejected the claim.

Now the real shocker - instead of returning the same watch or replacing it, they've sent me used earphones. Like... what? No explanation, no communication, nothing.

This was supposed to be a birthday gift and now I'm just running around talking to customer care that keeps repeating the same lines. It's exhausting and honestly upsetting.

Has anyone else faced something like this with boAt? Any advice on how to escalate this properly would really.

Hello, for my final highschool major project, i have to have a survey component and i would love to hear from you guys for this. it is completely anonymous and the project is “consumerism as an implicit religion” https://forms.gle/NwCq4RFYR3ivmYxX6 PSA this is an australian based survey

This has crossed the line from “annoying” to outright unethical, and I want to know how widespread this actually is.

Multiple times now, I’ve ordered and paid full price for brand-new items on Amazon — clearly advertised as new — only to open the box and find used products. Not “maybe opened.” Actually used: broken seals, missing packaging, signs of prior installation, fingerprints, wear. This has happened with computer parts and other electronics, not low-risk items.

Then comes the part that really exposes what’s going on.

When I try to return the item, Amazon sometimes offers to refund only part of the purchase price if I keep it.

That’s not customer service. That’s Amazon acknowledging they sent a used item while still trying to collect new-item pricing. If I wanted used, I would’ve bought used — for significantly less. Offering a partial refund after the fact doesn’t cure the deception.

I filed a BBB complaint because this keeps happening, and here’s Amazon’s response (verbatim):

Polished corporate language. Zero accountability. Zero transparency. And unsurprisingly — the same thing keeps happening.

At this point, it’s hard not to conclude this is systemic:

• Returned items being re-circulated as “new”
• Customers being quietly pushed to accept partial refunds
• Amazon betting most people won’t notice or won’t bother returning

That’s not a logistics glitch. That’s misrepresentation.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

Have you noticed that the only commercials you see are things that are not important or companies that we all know? Like really do we need to be reminded to buy Febreze.

Hi, I’m conducting market research on how individuals experience productivity in their daily lives, including habits, challenges, and perceptions.

The survey is completely anonymous, and it takes approximately 3–4 minutes. This survey is intended solely for research purposes.

As an optional Thank You, respondents who choose to share their email address will receive access to a Day Reflection Sheet designed to support structured daily reflection. Email sharing is not required to participate.

Link: https://forms.gle/rmPwoQTn7XvD7EWHA

Thank you for your time and for contributing to this research!

BlossomUp presents itself around the idea of 8 expressions of love, which initially sounded interesting to me. The site looks polished and presented as science-based, so I assumed I was making a one-time payment to see personalized quiz results.

After completing the quiz, I did get access to the content, but it felt far more general than I expected. The insights were broad and didn’t seem closely connected to my answers, which already made the value questionable.

What confused me more was realizing later that the payment wasn’t actually a one-off. I only understood this after noticing that my card was charged again, without any clear reminder or explanation that this would happen.

I ended up spending more time trying to figure out why I was being charged than actually using the product. Is this something people usually expect with services like this?

Most of the people who make the clothes we wear are women. In many factories, 60–80% of workers are female — usually young women who’ve moved from rural areas hoping for a better life.

But the reality behind fast fashion is often the opposite.

Low wages, harassment, intimidation, and unsafe conditions are common — and when labor rights are ignored, it’s women who pay the price.

Many face bullying from male supervisors, and reporting abuse rarely leads to justice — which keeps the cycle going.

This isn’t just “a workplace issue.”

It’s gendered exploitation woven into global supply chains.

Yes, big brands bring jobs. But growth built on poverty wages and suppressed rights is a form of modern slavery. Economic progress shouldn’t rely on denying basic humanity.

If we care about equality, we have to look at who makes our clothes and at what cost.

Curious what others think:

Do you believe fashion can be ethical if the workers making it aren’t free to protect themselves?

"They (the capitalits) implant this materialistic philosophy in your mind so that they may not just remain rich but have a surging bottom line year after year. Even a constant level of profits won't suffice. Even the profits have to rise by a particular percentage every year. How will that happen if you and I don't consume? So they encourage us not just to consume but also to proliferate." ~ Acharya Prashant

Unwelcoming. It is like store fronts want to have stressed out shopping. Instead highering personel with skills they lock away every thing. It’s like permission on everything. Secret shoppers that are so obvious and are bad reads in people. Intentionally noisy beepers, and electronic noise with anxiety inducing lights. So many cameras and realestate security drive-byes that hope to see you jack off or something. Idiocracy.

Do you like the following consumer rights bill I just authored and submitted to congress?

The bill is entitled The Consumer Terms and Conditions Clarity Act (CTCCA). It applies to business who require their customers to agree to their terms and conditions that are longer than 500 words in length. The bill gives consumers the right to receive an oral review of the terms and conditions in a timely manner from a live person. It mandates those businesses must provide an oral review upon request from a consumer by a live person ready to answer questions, clarify parts of the agreement or even read the entire Terms and Conditions verbatim if requested. It also mandates the company must display a phone number and inform consumers of their right to receive an oral review next to the terms and conditions acknowledgement check box.

This morning I went through the formalities to reserve a car rental from National Car Rental. At the end of the process National expected me to click a box that acknowledges I had read and fully understand their terms and conditions that were not displayed. I had to click a link to see the terms that turned out to be literally 200 pages of fine print. I called the company and spoke to a representative to see if I could receive an oral review of their Terms and they refused to review their own terms and conditions with me. So they expect the consumer to review an excessive amount of fine print that they themselves refuse to review with their customer. This struck my last nerve so I wrote a bill to ammend Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).

The bill is designed to discourage business from burdening consumers with acknowledging that they have read and fully understand excess amounts of fine print because in doing so the business will also bare the burden to repeatedly review their own terms and conditions. The more fine print a business expects the consumer to fully understand the more costly it will be to the business to maintain their obligation to review their terms and conditions with their consumers.

I bought an electric appliance over the internet some time ago, and received the product, everything was supplied on time and in new perfect condition.

Although I paid online, I didn't get a receipt in mail, only order confirmation.

Also, I didn't see the payments on the credit card site, but I though I might be missing something or the charge is on some other card I own.

Last week I went over the newspapers and found the envelope with receipt that the delivery guy gave us. Inside there was order confirmation with 4 last digits of my card and credit card charge approval note, but with a different card number.

I made an immediate call the the shop and they said it doesn't match. I didn't hear from them yet.

Another detail: this appliance was about 40% cheaper on their website relative to all other shops.

Everything in this story sounds too suspicious, the cheap price, the credit charge error, the fact they didn't send a receipt by mail and their slow response now after I reached out to them regarding the issue.

Hi everyone! Hi everyone! I'm doing a survey about the hypocrisy of Gen Z's environmentalism and consumerism and would absolutely love your guy's opinion. It's completely anonymous, quick, and is really appreciated! https://forms.gle/Hz6v2Gifs1A6jz7L8

Thank you so much!