Asklemmy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overchoice

"Attempts to duplicate the paradox of choice in other studies have had mixed success." ... "This phenomenon in particular has come under some criticism[3] due to increased scrutiny of scientific research related to the replication crisis and has not been adequately reproduced by subsequent research,[4] thereby calling into question its validity. "

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Depends on the products. Soda for example is basically all just carbonated sugar water with different flavors. The consumer thinks they have a choice but it's really all the same. Many Linux distros shouldn't exist, but they do. Same idea carries over into politics here in North America. Choice is nice, but only if it's a real choice.

Not this consumer. Choice is wonderful. Its partly why i love Linux. I hear talk of consolidation - but i think, short of making my own OS (which is possible and wonderful, if i wasnt lazy) there are so many options based on developer needs, i cam easily choose something fitting for...or choose two on different machines as i currently do.

Insofar as paid consumption (which i think you are referring to) choice keeps producers on point.

I guess an example, would be the things i cant choose..."Luma" the Canadian electric company that took over PR's electric - I still consistently loose power several times a week and get bill imcreases, but there is nothing I can do, because i have no choice :(

IMO, if choice is being prioritizes over more important things like sustainability, then yes, there can be too much choice. Economies of scale, efficiencies of scale, etc all work better when you're only producing one type of product. This is more applicable/important in some things than others, and the amount of choice should vary accordingly.

For example: There's a reason the Soviets built so many identical apartments in their affordable housing program, it was use the budget to build more housing and accommodate more people, or build more varieties of housing for the sake of being different, but less overall.

In some contexts, two choices can be argued to already be too many.

Say you have two products identical in use but for some reason one is better than the other. Higher demand will make the better one more expensive. The lowest wages will be set so that the poors can afford the cheapest product, and so consuming the better one becomes a class privilege.

Now say the better one is better because it is more ecological. The poors officially have the choice, but are financially constrained to consume the less ecological products. And now the consumption of less ecological products can be blamed on the poors who "choose" to buy them.

Absolutely yes. Obviously having clear guides and help is good to narrow those choices down, but if we go beyond the basic example of Linux distros, just check out the phone market. There are hundreds of new choices each year, without counting the ones from previous years. It's absolutely impossible to get a good deal without tons of research or luck.

Had to deal with that experience personally these last couple of days, after years of not following the smartphone consumerism hype machine.