3 ms·

My knee-jerk reaction was "well, if you don't want to, then just don't mince the words". It's not too far a stretch that to abbreviate "toll-free" or "fare-fre

by mmt 8y ago

My knee-jerk reaction was "well, if you don't want to, then just don't mince the words". It's not too far a stretch that to abbreviate "toll-free" or "fare-free" as "free". TANSTAAFL. I think everyone understands (to varying degrees) that someone has to pay, though it's arguable how much anyone understands just how much these things cost in the end. :) However, as others have pointed out, the instant situation makes the criticism of calling it "free" more apt. It's not that all riders aren't paying a fare. It's that only riders that are, in effect, voting with their taxes, to the tune of 1000 euro per year, by registering as city residents, don't have to pay the fare. Suburban commuters might want that annual kilobuck to go the municipality where they actually sleep, instead, in which case, no "free" ride for them. > But the accomplishment is much bigger (and requires a larger financial commitment) than that. I think even that is arguable in many locales, given how high the existing public/tax subsidy of public transit already is as well as how high it costs to collect fares.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
"I think everyone understands (to varying degrees) that someone has to pay," I see it differently. 1) I'm absolutely certain "free" and "taxpayer funded" would result in two very different impressions. 2) Along the same lines, how many times do you hear "...government grant..." as if that's manna from heaven. Not at all. It's a euphemism for "tax dollars that Uncle Sam took from taxpayers, took a cut, and then gave it back after we begged for it." As subtle as it is, the use of "free" is vague, lacks transparency, and in most cases misleading. Why don't we get better language? Better communication?
- mmt 8y ago
  > 1) I'm absolutely certain "free" and "taxpayer funded" would result in two very different impressions. Maybe, but that's a false dichotomy, anyway. It's "taxpayer funded" either way. You'd have to say "fully tapayer funded" to be accurate, and then the difference in impression may have nothing to do with the content of the message but the tedious verbosity of the form. It certainly would for me, and I'd smell an agenda on the part of the person using those words in, say, a headline. > As subtle as it is, the use of "free" is vague, lacks transparency, and in most cases misleading. Again, maybe you're right, but, without even basic psychology research showing that's the case with that word, by intuition says it's not misleading for most cases. > Why don't we get better language? Better communication? A combination of there being no incentive (or incentives to the contrary), or we just don't want it. Headlines are especially notorious for having something like the opposite of "better language". Ultimately, who are you to say what's better? Language is usage is language.

by mmt 8y ago

chiefalchemist 8y ago

"I think everyone understands (to varying degrees) that someone has to pay," I see it differently. 1) I'm absolutely certain "free" and "taxpayer funded" would result in two very different impressions. 2) Along the same lines, how many times do you hear "...government grant..." as if that's manna from heaven. Not at all. It's a euphemism for "tax dollars that Uncle Sam took from taxpayers, took a cut, and then gave it back after we begged for it." As subtle as it is, the use of "free" is vague, lacks transparency, and in most cases misleading. Why don't we get better language? Better communication?

mmt 8y ago
> 1) I'm absolutely certain "free" and "taxpayer funded" would result in two very different impressions. Maybe, but that's a false dichotomy, anyway. It's "taxpayer funded" either way. You'd have to say "fully tapayer funded" to be accurate, and then the difference in impression may have nothing to do with the content of the message but the tedious verbosity of the form. It certainly would for me, and I'd smell an agenda on the part of the person using those words in, say, a headline. > As subtle as it is, the use of "free" is vague, lacks transparency, and in most cases misleading. Again, maybe you're right, but, without even basic psychology research showing that's the case with that word, by intuition says it's not misleading for most cases. > Why don't we get better language? Better communication? A combination of there being no incentive (or incentives to the contrary), or we just don't want it. Headlines are especially notorious for having something like the opposite of "better language". Ultimately, who are you to say what's better? Language is usage is language.