1615
Teach the children.
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
1615 points (98.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5801 readers
850 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So basically "Don't pay a fee to use a product or service".
I imagine this guy advocates for sneaking onto trains without paying the fare too, and shoplifting, etc. right?
Does he think products and services are magically free just because they're provided through a computer rather than over a counter, and that business shouldn't be allowed to charge money for them?
I get that this guy would rather go back to an internet where ad sales can pay for everything, but that's just not viable for a lot of people now. Heck, many online services today didn't even exist the way they do now 20 years ago, such as Netflix, and wouldn't ever have been viable funded by ad sales alone.
Should we just stop innovating and growing as a society, stop offering new goods and services because they're not viable in an ad sales only marketplace?
Plus, I bet this guy uses an ad blocker too, as most people that talk like this do. If he's actively fighting the very financial foundation he's advocating that we should go back to, what's his end game? How does he see this actually working?
What's his plan for how we're should fund all these global businesses and products and so on? Can't charge money, can't passively fund free at point of use services using ad and anonymous marketing data.... are businesses just supposed to print their own money?
Look, I don't love how expensive a lot of these products and services are, I totally get why people pirate stuff, and I don't like how the world wide web itself is becoming more of a small selection of walled garden services vs the millions of cool web pages and forums and such it used to be. That's a deeper problem outside of this scope granted, but I think this guy longs for those days a little too, and that's part of why he's rebelling against modern online businesses.
I'm not saying every company handles charging for their products well, or that they're affordable (but what is these days), look at Adobe for example. Or look at Unity's recent crazy ideas.
I'm just saying that simply advocating for a boycott of businesses for having the audacity to charge money for a service that costs money to provide is, well, shortsighted to say the least.
These aren't local government services paid for and provided free at point of use by our tax pounds like healthcare or the fire brigade, these are businesses - often global - that need to make money to survive (and yes I know a lot of them funnel too much of those profits to those who don't deserve it rather than their staff, but that's a whole other problem).
Yes, I long for a post scarcity, money free, star trek style society where everybody works for free just because they're passionate about what they do and want to create and share cool things, without actually needing to work to survive or thrive. I would LOVE that. But that civilisation doesn't exist for us yet, and we can't expect one portion of it - the Internet - to become that all on its own in a vacuum.
The problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay for their products, it's the fact that you give companies the little finger and they take the whole hand. They want to have their cake and eat it to. They want you to overpay and to be satisfied with bad service. They re-capitalize on content that has already turned a profit 20 years ago. I'm sorry but if I pay the equivalent of a movie ticket for a subscription and have to watch The Godfather with JPEG artifacts, they can kiss my ass.
Another keyword is "easily reproducible" which is the essence of digital data. If I steal something from the store, I stole a unique physical thing with inherit value attached to it. But if I am presented the choice between paying for lower bitrate movie or downloading the same movie for free in theater quality, I choose the later. Somehow the prices for subscriptions go up every year, but the amount of content and the quality decreases.
Additionally all streaming services take the liberty of revoking your 'license' to a bought (not rented or leased) product at any time. If I buy a movie on Amazon prime, they don't give you a .mp4, no you can only watch it on their app with their quality. They do not disclose that if I buy something with a one-time transaction, it is just a lease and I am in fact not owning what I paid for.
Over the last decade I paid thousands of dollars for subscription services, but I haven't gotten enough use out of them to justify what I paid. Hollywood made enough money off of me, so now I'm just helping myself to break even.
We don't want these conglomerates to survive though.. why do you? Opensource & public alternatives exist because people have a natural urge to help each other get their needs met. Why would you not want that over paying for a privatized internet?
Also, this logic doesn't apply the exact same way for real life services because there are a lot more extra steps in regards to politics. But the principle is the same. Some services should be public and governments should see the incentive to facilitate that when they witness the people provide for each other instead of relying on the whims of industry giants. Where would the money come from, you ask? Probably the "99%".
Let governments panic while conglomerates lose their money. Just let 'em! More people need to do this for it to make a dent though.
Fuck ChatGPT-bots.