3 ms·

> can't see that approach as exploitative You're getting all-you-can-eat from the business for a fixed price in exchange for predictable revenue as opposed to

> can't see that approach as exploitative You're getting all-you-can-eat from the business for a fixed price in exchange for predictable revenue as opposed to pay-as-you-go. That you think that's exploitative just tells me you don't understand the business model. You want to have your cake and eat it, too.

wpietri 4y ago
Ah yes, the old "people who disagree with me must be ignorant" routine. Not a good sign, but I'll take one more swing at it. An all-you-can-eat restaurant where customers don't eat anything and you still keep charging them until they notice months or years later is indeed exploitative. For something like an apartment, there's reasonable justification for long-term contracts and continuing to charge people without regard to use, in that it's an expensive good that has exactly one user at a time and where it can take a while to find a new tenant. But that entirely vanishes with most internet-based subscriptions. If I stop watching Netflix, they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. If I get excited about a NYT subscription but then stop reading, it's the same deal. Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up. I could cancel at any time and they'd have to let me go. If they keep charging me when I'm not getting any value, then it's not a mutually beneficial relationship; they're just exploiting me. And indeed, maybe they were exploiting me from the get-go if their intent was to just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it. People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites, but quite a lot of them are just scammers, grifters, and frauds. Which is exactly why a law would be especially valuable here, so that their time and attention were devoted to some socially positive activity.
- tomnipotent 4y ago
  If you eat a buffet and only have one plate, you don't get to complain and ask for a refund. > keep charging them until they notice months or years later is indeed exploitative. When is it the customer's fault for not cancelling? You're working very hard to avoid responsibility for the business contract you entered into. > they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. Which are a small part of the overall cost structure. So what? > Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up Absolutely they do. The business is managing its finances under the assumption of subscribers and LTV, and making investments accordingly based on those assumptions and forecasts. > they're just exploiting me For charging you for something you signed up for but were too lazy to manage properly? > just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it There you go passing the buck again. It's your responsibility to use the thing you signed up for. > People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites You mean the money you're giving them as part of consensual business agreement?
  - wpietri 4y ago
    You are an excellent example of how people who are abusive have consistent worldviews that justify the abuse. You are placing 100% of the responsibility on the weaker party in the contract, and 0% on the people who designed the contract plus everything that leads up to and comes after the contract. At the same time you clearly understand the human cognitive limitations that make people susceptible to carefully-designed exploitations, you act as if the people who design the scams are not just innocent but justified in taking advantage because money. And with that, I'm done. You are very dedicated to both exploitation and victim-blaming as justification. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, presumably because you made or make your living from that. “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it," said Upton Sinclair, and I have better things to do with my time.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites, but quite a lot of them are just scammers, grifters, and frauds. Which is exactly why a law would be especially valuable here, so that their time and attention were devoted to some socially positive activity. Does that also apply to your car/home/health insurance as well? If you don't have an accident/get robbed/go to the doctor, are you being exploited by the insurance company? Edit: BTW, I'm an old guy myself.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    It of course does not apply, because you're getting risk-mitigation value every month. (If you don't think so, feel free to drop the insurance.) That said, those are prime opportunities for parasitism and exploitation, because it's hard to measure risk reduction until actual harm comes along. That's why those sectors need heavy regulation.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      And so how does that not apply to Netflix or The New York Times? You said[0]: "But that entirely vanishes with most internet-based subscriptions. If I stop watching Netflix, they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. If I get excited about a NYT subscription but then stop reading, it's the same deal. Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up. I could cancel at any time and they'd have to let me go. If they keep charging me when I'm not getting any value, then it's not a mutually beneficial relationship; they're just exploiting me. And indeed, maybe they were exploiting me from the get-go if their intent was to just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it." A subscription with them provides access to the services they sell all the time as long as your subscription is current, in exactly the same way as as insurance provides risk mitigation. You appear to be arguing that it's the subscription model that's the problem and not those who use it in an exploitative manner. I'm not a fan of subscription models myself, which can be used in exploitative ways, but the fault isn't in the model, but in those who implement/administer it. N.B.: I do have insurance, but not Netflix or NYT subscriptions. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818397 Edit: Fixed formatting, typo.

wpietri 4y ago

Ah yes, the old "people who disagree with me must be ignorant" routine. Not a good sign, but I'll take one more swing at it. An all-you-can-eat restaurant where customers don't eat anything and you still keep charging them until they notice months or years later is indeed exploitative. For something like an apartment, there's reasonable justification for long-term contracts and continuing to charge people without regard to use, in that it's an expensive good that has exactly one user at a time and where it can take a while to find a new tenant. But that entirely vanishes with most internet-based subscriptions. If I stop watching Netflix, they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. If I get excited about a NYT subscription but then stop reading, it's the same deal. Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up. I could cancel at any time and they'd have to let me go. If they keep charging me when I'm not getting any value, then it's not a mutually beneficial relationship; they're just exploiting me. And indeed, maybe they were exploiting me from the get-go if their intent was to just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it. People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites, but quite a lot of them are just scammers, grifters, and frauds. Which is exactly why a law would be especially valuable here, so that their time and attention were devoted to some socially positive activity.

tomnipotent 4y ago
If you eat a buffet and only have one plate, you don't get to complain and ask for a refund. > keep charging them until they notice months or years later is indeed exploitative. When is it the customer's fault for not cancelling? You're working very hard to avoid responsibility for the business contract you entered into. > they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. Which are a small part of the overall cost structure. So what? > Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up Absolutely they do. The business is managing its finances under the assumption of subscribers and LTV, and making investments accordingly based on those assumptions and forecasts. > they're just exploiting me For charging you for something you signed up for but were too lazy to manage properly? > just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it There you go passing the buck again. It's your responsibility to use the thing you signed up for. > People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites You mean the money you're giving them as part of consensual business agreement?
- wpietri 4y ago
  You are an excellent example of how people who are abusive have consistent worldviews that justify the abuse. You are placing 100% of the responsibility on the weaker party in the contract, and 0% on the people who designed the contract plus everything that leads up to and comes after the contract. At the same time you clearly understand the human cognitive limitations that make people susceptible to carefully-designed exploitations, you act as if the people who design the scams are not just innocent but justified in taking advantage because money. And with that, I'm done. You are very dedicated to both exploitation and victim-blaming as justification. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, presumably because you made or make your living from that. “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it," said Upton Sinclair, and I have better things to do with my time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
nobody9999 4y ago
>People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites, but quite a lot of them are just scammers, grifters, and frauds. Which is exactly why a law would be especially valuable here, so that their time and attention were devoted to some socially positive activity. Does that also apply to your car/home/health insurance as well? If you don't have an accident/get robbed/go to the doctor, are you being exploited by the insurance company? Edit: BTW, I'm an old guy myself.
- wpietri 4y ago
  It of course does not apply, because you're getting risk-mitigation value every month. (If you don't think so, feel free to drop the insurance.) That said, those are prime opportunities for parasitism and exploitation, because it's hard to measure risk reduction until actual harm comes along. That's why those sectors need heavy regulation.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    And so how does that not apply to Netflix or The New York Times? You said[0]: "But that entirely vanishes with most internet-based subscriptions. If I stop watching Netflix, they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. If I get excited about a NYT subscription but then stop reading, it's the same deal. Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up. I could cancel at any time and they'd have to let me go. If they keep charging me when I'm not getting any value, then it's not a mutually beneficial relationship; they're just exploiting me. And indeed, maybe they were exploiting me from the get-go if their intent was to just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it." A subscription with them provides access to the services they sell all the time as long as your subscription is current, in exactly the same way as as insurance provides risk mitigation. You appear to be arguing that it's the subscription model that's the problem and not those who use it in an exploitative manner. I'm not a fan of subscription models myself, which can be used in exploitative ways, but the fault isn't in the model, but in those who implement/administer it. N.B.: I do have insurance, but not Netflix or NYT subscriptions. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818397 Edit: Fixed formatting, typo.