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 apol

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