this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
524 points (82.0% liked)

memes

18521 readers
3950 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 7 points 9 hours ago

We prefer the term "hard-working individual entrepreneur" - those apps, probably

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It made sense during covid as a lifeline to use things like doordash, but it's really metastasized into a blight on food service.

The pizza and chinese food joints I used to have delivered because it was traditionally the foods that delivered, just use those apps now. So even ordering a pizza is jammed up with inflated prices, hidden fees, and tips for corporate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Don't forget the extra charges and price increases along the way which fund the tech billionaires who own these apps.

Previously we had Capitalism (and that already wasn't great). Where a buyer and a seller met and then freely determined the price transaction.

Now via many of these market place apps (ebay, Amazon, AliExpress) we have markets where a third party (the platforms owner) can algorithmically control who sees what prices, and when, acting as a means to promote whatever prices benefit the platforms profitability the most.

That's why the VC tech guru "disruptors" business model is often to run at a massive loss for years then basically owning a whole market.

This new system is called Techno-Feudalism.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

My work has a DoorDash account and uses it exclusively. When management decides to order food for us, it has to go through DoorDash.

The other week I was told they'd buy lunch for my team. Thing is, we all have different dietary needs. I was told to pick something for lunch, and when I did I was told, "Oh that restaurant doesn't use DoorDash. Pick somewhere else. Also it's a $10 limit."

Oookay. My lunch being at an earlier time than many in my team, a lot of places that I would order from aren't open yet. I don't do fast food, which limits my choices further. Then you can't put custom information in your order (like, "the #14 sandwich, but with no cheese") which right out of the gate means a lot of options are out of reach. The $10 limit was also ridiculous, as food prices have been rising higher and now even the most basic things will be around $12 minimum. Navigating the site alone was a headache on top of it all, as it isn't intuitive for someone with dietary restrictions. I eventually gave up and told my manager, "I know this was intended as a treat for us, but this is too stressful for me to try to do while I'm also working."

Thankfully, someone else already knew of an option that would work for me, so I went with that. It sucks that although my work place is trying to be inclusive, being limited to DoorDash (and a $10 price ceiling) makes that incredibly difficult. I'd rather just be given the $10 and be done with it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

They just call them "poors"

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Jokes on you, my neighborhood is so gentrified minorities don't dare enter.

God bless poor white people!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›