CBC Radio⁠46%

How 'surveillance pricing' uses our personal data to charge us more ⁠31%

By Brent Bambury⁠0%

4/17/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 40.9% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 203 faulty-reasoning hits from 110 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (14,197 of 20,540 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

As we buy more and more things online, companies are using personal data to offer different prices to different people with the goal of finding the maximum price you will pay at that moment. 
PLUS: What's behind the Trump administration's feud with the Pope? 
The case for putting Mariah Carey in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Can community ownership decommodify real estate? 
Canadian actor Sugith Varughese's one-man play about how he came to play a doctor 26 times Remembering the Krofft brothers' weird, trippy vision for kids TV Riffed from the Headlines, our weekly musical news quiz. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 4.2%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 3.2%CBC: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 40.9%Brent Bambury: 25.6%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect40.9%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.9%Brent Bambury: 39.9%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias40.9%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 30.9%Brent Bambury: 9.8%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error30.9%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 7.3%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 6.3%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.9%Brent Bambury: 27.9%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization30.9%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 10.8%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 3.2%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 3.2%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 4.2%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 6.3%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 3.2%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 40.9%Brent Bambury: 34.4%CBC: 4.9%Biased Writer Voice40.9%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 8.3%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent Bambury: 0.0%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

110 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.