3 ms·

>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

>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
    Your theory is that Netflix isn't selling entertainment, they're selling boredom insurance? That somebody might have a sudden, unexpected, and catastrophic need for sitcom reruns that might cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so to mitigate that risk they pay Netflix just in case? If you really can't tell those classes of product apart, I don't think I can help you.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >Your theory is that Netflix isn't selling entertainment, they're selling boredom insurance? That somebody might have a sudden, unexpected, and catastrophic need for sitcom reruns that might cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so to mitigate that risk they pay Netflix just in case? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything even approaching that. Netflix sells a service (a pretty useless one, in my view) -- video content -- for which they charge a monthly fee. Insurance companies sell a service (more useful, in my view) -- covering (or at least reducing) the costs of bad stuff happening -- for which they charge a monthly fee. One is (at least in my view) more useful than the other, but the business model is the same -- pay a monthly fee for some product/service. As I said, it's not the model that's the problem, it's those who use it in an exploitative fashion. Please do go ahead and set up another straw man you can knock down for your own satisfaction, but I won't participate further. Have a great day!
      - wpietri 4y ago
        The business models are not the same. Insurance is deeply different in an economic sense than selling videos. Willfully ignoring that distinction is ridiculous, and I tried to make the difference apparent in the comment you're quoting. If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it.
        nobody9999 4y ago
        While the business models are different (obviously), the payment model is the same. I was inexact (business vs. payment model) in my previous comment. My apologies. But my point still stands: Subscription payment models aren't inherently exploitative; rather they can be implemented/administered (or not) in an exploitative fashion. Don't like Netflix/NYT and others' implementation of said payment model? I'm not surprised. I'm not very high on them either. But just because you don't like the specific implementation, doesn't make them a different payment model. That payment model being: "pay a monthly fee, get whatever product/service you've paid (and continue to pay) for. You appear to be claiming that because different companies sell different stuff, that the payment models are not the same. Which is akin to arguing that since automobiles with ICEs[0] serve a different purpose than automobiles with electric engines. They don't. And likewise, subscription payment models are subscription payment models, regardless of the product/service being offered. >If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it. And you're free to continue making wildly inaccurate statements. Have fun and a good day! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

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
  Your theory is that Netflix isn't selling entertainment, they're selling boredom insurance? That somebody might have a sudden, unexpected, and catastrophic need for sitcom reruns that might cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so to mitigate that risk they pay Netflix just in case? If you really can't tell those classes of product apart, I don't think I can help you.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >Your theory is that Netflix isn't selling entertainment, they're selling boredom insurance? That somebody might have a sudden, unexpected, and catastrophic need for sitcom reruns that might cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, so to mitigate that risk they pay Netflix just in case? Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything even approaching that. Netflix sells a service (a pretty useless one, in my view) -- video content -- for which they charge a monthly fee. Insurance companies sell a service (more useful, in my view) -- covering (or at least reducing) the costs of bad stuff happening -- for which they charge a monthly fee. One is (at least in my view) more useful than the other, but the business model is the same -- pay a monthly fee for some product/service. As I said, it's not the model that's the problem, it's those who use it in an exploitative fashion. Please do go ahead and set up another straw man you can knock down for your own satisfaction, but I won't participate further. Have a great day!
    - wpietri 4y ago
      The business models are not the same. Insurance is deeply different in an economic sense than selling videos. Willfully ignoring that distinction is ridiculous, and I tried to make the difference apparent in the comment you're quoting. If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it.
      - nobody9999 4y ago
        While the business models are different (obviously), the payment model is the same. I was inexact (business vs. payment model) in my previous comment. My apologies. But my point still stands: Subscription payment models aren't inherently exploitative; rather they can be implemented/administered (or not) in an exploitative fashion. Don't like Netflix/NYT and others' implementation of said payment model? I'm not surprised. I'm not very high on them either. But just because you don't like the specific implementation, doesn't make them a different payment model. That payment model being: "pay a monthly fee, get whatever product/service you've paid (and continue to pay) for. You appear to be claiming that because different companies sell different stuff, that the payment models are not the same. Which is akin to arguing that since automobiles with ICEs[0] serve a different purpose than automobiles with electric engines. They don't. And likewise, subscription payment models are subscription payment models, regardless of the product/service being offered. >If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it. And you're free to continue making wildly inaccurate statements. Have fun and a good day! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine