3 ms·
System is funded by X. One day, some smart people fed up of paying X invent a way of evading. «It's not fair to pay X!» they say. Most people follow them, why
by galfarragem 10y ago
System is funded by X.
One day, some smart people fed up of paying X invent a way of evading. «It's not fair to pay X!» they say. Most people follow them, why wouldn't they?
Next day, same smart people: «Humm, how about people paying X/? to us instead of paying X to the system? Let's make a compelling argument explaining the fairness of it as some people feel that evading is somehow immoral. They will bite.»
-- Devil's advocate
- RhodesianHunter 10y agoMore likely: System is funded by X. People evade X. System gets progressively shittier.
- int_19h 10y agoThe reason why people feel that it's not fair to pay X, is because they don't perceive the value of what they're getting to be worth that. And the reason for that is that there are many other places they could go to, to get a similar thing (as far as value perception goes). In other words, it is an oversupply issue. If ad blockers do indeed make this business model unprofitable, the size of the market will shrink rapidly, and at some point supply will become lower than demand. And at that point, the remaining content suppliers will be able to charge X, and people will pay it, because they won't have anywhere else to get their fix from. So this all is one case of the market working things out on its own. There's no reason to interfere here - it'll find a balance eventually. The only reason to complain is if you dislike what that balance will look like (e.g. if you'd prefer more sources of content than the market can actually bear). But the only way to maintain a different balance is by subsidies, direct or indirect. If ad blockers are banned, for example, that is, in effect, a government subsidy to the content creators.