19 ms·

It won't work for me, because I hate being interrupted by ads on Spotify. I'm anti-subscription. I only subscribe to basic home utilities.

websap 5y ago
I’m anti paying for entertainment. I’m sure you use YouTube with an Adblocker and think it’s your right.
- bm3719 5y ago
  Nice to see other people out there with this life philosophy. Thought I was the only one. Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube. Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.
  - wfme 5y ago
    OOI how do you reconcile not paying for entertainment while also wanting to supporting professional entertainers?
    - bm3719 5y ago
      I'm not sure the degree to which I want to support professional entertainers as they currently exist in most cases. As I said in another reply, I'd rather it worked more like FOSS does. Do FOSS advocates want to support the professional developers at MS, EA, and Blizzard? Most are probably ambivalent about them at best.
  - dchuk 5y ago
    How can this statement: “Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.” Logically coexist with this: “Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.” I’m being serious. Stuff costs money to make, seems logical that somehow compensation can be acquired for creative work somehow.
    - moonchrome 5y ago
      I think they could just avoid using it and find entertainment in things that are not monetised - which sounds OK, unfortunately society isn't structured this way so you're both missing out on huge parts of it and ostracizing yourself. But when I think about it the fact that it seems outrageous at first glance really tells me how consumerist I am, not sure that I like this.
      - bm3719 5y ago
        Reduction of embodying a consumer is another positive from trying one's best to not pay for entertainment. It cuts out a large swath of entertainment outlets that are a net negative to one's life, and often, for the environment as well. Simple example: Say you want to have fun with your children. Instead of buying an entertainment outlet, like going to an amusement park, maybe go on a hike, write some code, or tell stories. If you insist on spending money, don't pay for the entertainment as a product, but buy some supplies to build something. As a grown-up now, I look back on those events more fondly from childhood than any of the purchased activities.
    - bm3719 5y ago
      The first statement acknowledges the economic reality of the entertainment industry as-is. In that, I occasionally tolerate the things I dislike about it, and pull out the wallet or reluctantly tolerate an ad. The other statement is my ideal where creators are free to make things they actually enjoy, and that I might. Take video games, for example. I find the deepest and most rewarding experiences to be had in free games (e.g., Dwarf Fortress, ToME, and various rogue-likes), compared to the output of the for-pay video game producers, like EA. Creating stuff does cost money, energy, and/or time. In the former example, I might be inclined to donate to the project, and if I don't, others usually will. Or, they can just give it away and not ask for donations too, which many (including me) do. Imagine the world of entertainment working similar to FOSS, as a good example we're all familiar with. Like with FOSS, it changes the nature of the product produced, arguably for the better.
    - pope_meat 5y ago
      This comment took a few calories to write. You can read it for free, but by your logic, perhaps I should charge you a monthly service fee, or start each comment with a ad spot... Technically this comment is costing me money to make, internet isn't free, neither is the food I eat to sustain myself. Logically coexisting none the less.
  - dangus 5y ago
    To me it sounds like you're just lying to look like you're "not like the other commoners." You're telling me your TV, computer, video game console, sound system were all free? Or that you own none of those things? If you're not willing to watch ads nor are willing to pay, but also aren't entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free (i.e., you don't engage in piracy), you just don't watch videos? At all? Or I guess you only watch PBS and listen to NPR? (But of course those both have sponsor messages in their content sooo...) Even if you only get books from the library or hang out in the public park you're still paying for those things with your tax dollars, right? You don't buy gas or pay a bus/train fare to go socialize with your friends and family? When you are with friends and family you don't buy any food or drink that you wouldn't buy if you were alone? You eat purely for sustenance? Quite literally everyone pays for entertainment, and I don't think I'm interpreting "entertainment" too broadly here.
    - bm3719 5y ago
      I'm not trying to convince anyone with my post. It was more in solidarity to another person that seemed to feel the same. However, my life is inarguably better (for me) this way, and for anyone interested, I'd recommend at least pondering the concept. I only have a computer, which I need for work and other activities, like programming. I do use it for entertainment purposes too, however. Think what you will about that. For the rest, I do my best not to purchase entertainment as a product, i.e., exchanging money for "fun". Obviously I do buy goods and services, like everyone (except freegans, I suppose).
      - dangus 5y ago
        How does your computer entertain you? It's all free? Do you ever travel? What to you is better about goods compared to fun? I always think of it as "you can't repossess a memory." Some of the best purchases I've made have been things like concerts, vacations, experiences with friends and family, while the goods and services don't stick in my memory. I'm definitely not trying to say that your philosophy doesn't work for you, though. Spending money is a balance. You don't take it with you, but it's easy to waste too much.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  What % of the money youtube makes on ads goes to artists? If I pay some random goon 5€ to listen to a song they didn't make, I am technically "paying for entertainment", but that's hardly "doing the right thing" either.
wfme 5y ago
Anti-subscription seems like an awfully limiting belief to live by. Why not support services you like and avoid those you don't?
- pritambaral 5y ago
  Because some things shouldn't have been "services" in the first place. The "service" label allows a business to paper over many ills. Some think the record industry is bad and has been abusing its position for too long; wait until the streaming industry grows big enough and see how they abuse their monopoly. ---- Do note that your parent said they're "anti-subscription", not anti-paying. Like people can be anti-renting without being homeless. Tell me, would you like living in a world where the only way for you to have a home is to rent?
  - wfme 5y ago
    Sure, some things shouldn’t use the subscription model. In the case of streaming services though, I think the subscription model works particularly well. I would much prefer to make a recurring payment and have new content included in my subscription than pay for each additional piece of content I want to consume. The same can be said for SaaS products. Subscriptions are common because updates are generally frequent and a one off payment is not going to provide enough money for continual development. Some people prefer to rent because you get a lot of benefits described above; regular maintenance at an affordable ongoing rate. Living in a world where everyone can rent seems preferable over a world where owning is the only option, effectively meaning those that cannot afford the upfront payment are left without any option for a home.
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      > I think the subscription model works particularly well. For you. And that's okay. Neither me nor your parent are asking for the abolition of subscriptions. > I would much prefer to ... And you're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed from you. > Some people prefer to rent ... And they're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed. > ... a world where owning is the only option You are the only one who has brought this up. Neither me nor your parent are asking for this. All we're asking for is the option to own. ---- This is like when Apple announced they're removing jacks and a bunch of people joined the conversation saying, "Hey, wireless works!". That's setting up a strawman and attacking it instead of addressing the point of the conversation. Wireless already worked. Wireless works with or without a jack. The point was never about whether wireless works. It was always about whether wired, 3.5 mm should be an option.
itisit 5y ago
I would call that being cheap, with all due respect. There’s nothing wrong with a subscription pricing model if the value is there and there’s a relatively easy way to unsubscribe.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Subscriptions can be a little scummy because companies know a lot of people forget to turn them off. They're counting on that. It's far from the biggest evil in the world though. Personally I just vaguely try to avoid them and instead make an effort to pay people for the content I consume in lump sums here and there.
- pritambaral 5y ago
  I would call that being inconsiderate, with all due respect. Your parent said they're anti-subscription, not anti-paying. Conflating the two can lead to some really stupid conclusions, like "Oh, you don't rent? Does that mean you're homeless?"
  - itisit 5y ago
    To help, let's call it "anti-paying-for-a-subscription". Ongoing access to 70 million tracks is not without some form of recurrent payment: money, data, attention, etc. Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads, and there's a reasonably priced alternative to dealing with them. Hence my respectful remark..
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      I don't doubt you're trying to be respectful, but you're still not considering what your parent might have meant, and are still claiming your own assumptions as facts for them. For example: > Ongoing access to 70 million tracks ... It'd be pretty difficult to go through 70 million tracks for a person. I know it will be for me. Maybe your parent also doesn't need so many tracks. It is, after all, common for people to compile/curate their own music library. I still do it. I'm not saying your parent does it too, but maybe they have a similar reason to not need access to 70 million tracks. And: > Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads ... Even if that were the only gripe they've stated, it wouldn't mean that's the only issue they have. In fact, when I read their stated anti-subscription position without an accompanying explanation, I assumed they might have a reason for it, even if they didn't state it here and now.

websap 5y ago

I’m anti paying for entertainment. I’m sure you use YouTube with an Adblocker and think it’s your right.

bm3719 5y ago
Nice to see other people out there with this life philosophy. Thought I was the only one. Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube. Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.
- wfme 5y ago
  OOI how do you reconcile not paying for entertainment while also wanting to supporting professional entertainers?
  - bm3719 5y ago
    I'm not sure the degree to which I want to support professional entertainers as they currently exist in most cases. As I said in another reply, I'd rather it worked more like FOSS does. Do FOSS advocates want to support the professional developers at MS, EA, and Blizzard? Most are probably ambivalent about them at best.
- dchuk 5y ago
  How can this statement: “Note that this isn't the same as saying I'm entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free.” Logically coexist with this: “Paying for entertainment always seemed "wrong" somehow. That includes paying for it with attention, like watching commercials or enduring sponsorships on YouTube.” I’m being serious. Stuff costs money to make, seems logical that somehow compensation can be acquired for creative work somehow.
  - moonchrome 5y ago
    I think they could just avoid using it and find entertainment in things that are not monetised - which sounds OK, unfortunately society isn't structured this way so you're both missing out on huge parts of it and ostracizing yourself. But when I think about it the fact that it seems outrageous at first glance really tells me how consumerist I am, not sure that I like this.
    - bm3719 5y ago
      Reduction of embodying a consumer is another positive from trying one's best to not pay for entertainment. It cuts out a large swath of entertainment outlets that are a net negative to one's life, and often, for the environment as well. Simple example: Say you want to have fun with your children. Instead of buying an entertainment outlet, like going to an amusement park, maybe go on a hike, write some code, or tell stories. If you insist on spending money, don't pay for the entertainment as a product, but buy some supplies to build something. As a grown-up now, I look back on those events more fondly from childhood than any of the purchased activities.
  - bm3719 5y ago
    The first statement acknowledges the economic reality of the entertainment industry as-is. In that, I occasionally tolerate the things I dislike about it, and pull out the wallet or reluctantly tolerate an ad. The other statement is my ideal where creators are free to make things they actually enjoy, and that I might. Take video games, for example. I find the deepest and most rewarding experiences to be had in free games (e.g., Dwarf Fortress, ToME, and various rogue-likes), compared to the output of the for-pay video game producers, like EA. Creating stuff does cost money, energy, and/or time. In the former example, I might be inclined to donate to the project, and if I don't, others usually will. Or, they can just give it away and not ask for donations too, which many (including me) do. Imagine the world of entertainment working similar to FOSS, as a good example we're all familiar with. Like with FOSS, it changes the nature of the product produced, arguably for the better.
  - pope_meat 5y ago
    This comment took a few calories to write. You can read it for free, but by your logic, perhaps I should charge you a monthly service fee, or start each comment with a ad spot... Technically this comment is costing me money to make, internet isn't free, neither is the food I eat to sustain myself. Logically coexisting none the less.
- dangus 5y ago
  To me it sounds like you're just lying to look like you're "not like the other commoners." You're telling me your TV, computer, video game console, sound system were all free? Or that you own none of those things? If you're not willing to watch ads nor are willing to pay, but also aren't entitled to the output of professional entertainers for free (i.e., you don't engage in piracy), you just don't watch videos? At all? Or I guess you only watch PBS and listen to NPR? (But of course those both have sponsor messages in their content sooo...) Even if you only get books from the library or hang out in the public park you're still paying for those things with your tax dollars, right? You don't buy gas or pay a bus/train fare to go socialize with your friends and family? When you are with friends and family you don't buy any food or drink that you wouldn't buy if you were alone? You eat purely for sustenance? Quite literally everyone pays for entertainment, and I don't think I'm interpreting "entertainment" too broadly here.
  - bm3719 5y ago
    I'm not trying to convince anyone with my post. It was more in solidarity to another person that seemed to feel the same. However, my life is inarguably better (for me) this way, and for anyone interested, I'd recommend at least pondering the concept. I only have a computer, which I need for work and other activities, like programming. I do use it for entertainment purposes too, however. Think what you will about that. For the rest, I do my best not to purchase entertainment as a product, i.e., exchanging money for "fun". Obviously I do buy goods and services, like everyone (except freegans, I suppose).
    - dangus 5y ago
      How does your computer entertain you? It's all free? Do you ever travel? What to you is better about goods compared to fun? I always think of it as "you can't repossess a memory." Some of the best purchases I've made have been things like concerts, vacations, experiences with friends and family, while the goods and services don't stick in my memory. I'm definitely not trying to say that your philosophy doesn't work for you, though. Spending money is a balance. You don't take it with you, but it's easy to waste too much.
howaboutnope 5y ago
What % of the money youtube makes on ads goes to artists? If I pay some random goon 5€ to listen to a song they didn't make, I am technically "paying for entertainment", but that's hardly "doing the right thing" either.

wfme 5y ago

Anti-subscription seems like an awfully limiting belief to live by. Why not support services you like and avoid those you don't?

pritambaral 5y ago
Because some things shouldn't have been "services" in the first place. The "service" label allows a business to paper over many ills. Some think the record industry is bad and has been abusing its position for too long; wait until the streaming industry grows big enough and see how they abuse their monopoly. ---- Do note that your parent said they're "anti-subscription", not anti-paying. Like people can be anti-renting without being homeless. Tell me, would you like living in a world where the only way for you to have a home is to rent?
- wfme 5y ago
  Sure, some things shouldn’t use the subscription model. In the case of streaming services though, I think the subscription model works particularly well. I would much prefer to make a recurring payment and have new content included in my subscription than pay for each additional piece of content I want to consume. The same can be said for SaaS products. Subscriptions are common because updates are generally frequent and a one off payment is not going to provide enough money for continual development. Some people prefer to rent because you get a lot of benefits described above; regular maintenance at an affordable ongoing rate. Living in a world where everyone can rent seems preferable over a world where owning is the only option, effectively meaning those that cannot afford the upfront payment are left without any option for a home.
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    > I think the subscription model works particularly well. For you. And that's okay. Neither me nor your parent are asking for the abolition of subscriptions. > I would much prefer to ... And you're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed from you. > Some people prefer to rent ... And they're free to do that. Neither me nor your parent are asking for that option to be removed. > ... a world where owning is the only option You are the only one who has brought this up. Neither me nor your parent are asking for this. All we're asking for is the option to own. ---- This is like when Apple announced they're removing jacks and a bunch of people joined the conversation saying, "Hey, wireless works!". That's setting up a strawman and attacking it instead of addressing the point of the conversation. Wireless already worked. Wireless works with or without a jack. The point was never about whether wireless works. It was always about whether wired, 3.5 mm should be an option.

itisit 5y ago

I would call that being cheap, with all due respect. There’s nothing wrong with a subscription pricing model if the value is there and there’s a relatively easy way to unsubscribe.

kadoban 5y ago
Subscriptions can be a little scummy because companies know a lot of people forget to turn them off. They're counting on that. It's far from the biggest evil in the world though. Personally I just vaguely try to avoid them and instead make an effort to pay people for the content I consume in lump sums here and there.
pritambaral 5y ago
I would call that being inconsiderate, with all due respect. Your parent said they're anti-subscription, not anti-paying. Conflating the two can lead to some really stupid conclusions, like "Oh, you don't rent? Does that mean you're homeless?"
- itisit 5y ago
  To help, let's call it "anti-paying-for-a-subscription". Ongoing access to 70 million tracks is not without some form of recurrent payment: money, data, attention, etc. Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads, and there's a reasonably priced alternative to dealing with them. Hence my respectful remark..
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    I don't doubt you're trying to be respectful, but you're still not considering what your parent might have meant, and are still claiming your own assumptions as facts for them. For example: > Ongoing access to 70 million tracks ... It'd be pretty difficult to go through 70 million tracks for a person. I know it will be for me. Maybe your parent also doesn't need so many tracks. It is, after all, common for people to compile/curate their own music library. I still do it. I'm not saying your parent does it too, but maybe they have a similar reason to not need access to 70 million tracks. And: > Parent's gripe, as stated, are the ads ... Even if that were the only gripe they've stated, it wouldn't mean that's the only issue they have. In fact, when I read their stated anti-subscription position without an accompanying explanation, I assumed they might have a reason for it, even if they didn't state it here and now.