4 ms·

You know, you're right, it would affect that use case. On the other hand, "I would have to pay a higher amount of money for my teevee if they stopped bleeding p

You know, you're right, it would affect that use case. On the other hand, "I would have to pay a higher amount of money for my teevee if they stopped bleeding people for no services rendered" is a really funny thing to get on the the Personal Responsibility bicycle about. Like, you could've just said "I don't want to pay more" and I guess that'd be mildly unfortunate for you, maybe I could've found some sympathy for that viewpoint. Instead you got on that bicycle, just like the other person, and doubled down on the Fun At Parties thing. "I don't want to pay more because I practice Personal Responsibility, please bask in my my perceived moral value." And that makes me think a little more. So after doing that thinking, here's what I realized. It can still be about Personal Responsibility for you and the other person if you have to pay your own freight about it. In fact--it's more! You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't being subsidized by other people, even. When you are standing on your own two feet in such a Personally Responsible manner. Isn't that nice?

themacguffinman 3y ago
It appears like rationalization to you (edit for context: the parent comment said it was rationalizing before it was edited) because you've already made up your mind about the malicious intent of companies who use this model. The reality is that companies can't know if they're "bleeding people for no services rendered" because of bingeing behavior. Someone watching a lot then staying off for a few months is difficult to distinguish from someone who has forgotten about their subscription for a few months. The easiest and most efficient way for a company to know that you're not providing value to them is by cancelling your subscription. I agree that companies making this difficult is bad, but many services don't make this difficult. Instead, you're asking them to read the mind of their customers which is not easy. Netflix does treat extreme periods of inactivity (IIRC more than a year I think?) as a reasonable signal that you've forgotten about it. > You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't free-riding off other people, even. I don't think you're really understanding the point. People who don't exercise any personal responsibility over their finances are the ones who are free-riding off people who do. That's because when you don't manage your finances and you refuse to shoulder the cost for that, the time & effort and complexity it costs to accommodate that has to be paid by someone who isn't you. Edit: I'm not sure there's anything I can say to sway your mind about this since you've really honed in on the emotional angle to this but I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't really a moralizing thing to me, I have been and know many people who fall short, I don't treat it morally. It's largely about resource allocation and behavioral incentives. Asking central organizations like a corporation to infer the correct thing for lots of consumers is very difficult and costly, it's overall much more efficient to ask consumers to signal their desires themselves, it's why markets tend to be more efficient. Making consumers pay the cost of mismanaging their finances also discourages them from doing it, increasing efficiency.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  Not signing in to a service you have a subscription to is a pretty clear signal that it is not being used. I'm not aware of any streaming service that automatically pauses a subscription if you don't sign in for a full month.
  - themacguffinman 3y ago
    I strongly disagree, I have media subscriptions right now that I won't sign into for a month or even multiple months but I don't intend on giving it up. This is especially true for niche streaming content where production costs aren't exactly cheap but their niche nature means not everyone is consistently in the mood for that content.
    - smogcutter 3y ago
      Ok so why do you want to pay for that time? Why not have payments paused during the period of inactivity, and resume when you want to use it? The point is that this is a choice by content businesses. Pausing and resuming payments could easily be frictionless, but it isn’t.
      - themacguffinman 3y ago
        I described the reason in more detail in my previous comments up-thread: because I understand the cost is amortized and it's an intuitive billing system that supports two different watching habits: consistent watching as well as bingeing. Refusing to pay because I binge means prices increase for people who don't binge. Pricing issues like this are really killer for niche streaming sites that I want to support. I generally disagree with dark patterns that make it onerously difficult to cancel, but many streaming services (like Netflix) don't make it that difficult and pausing and resuming payments is already easy enough. I just have to actually do it, not ask them to read my mind.
        smogcutter 3y ago
kortilla 3y ago
Should I get a refund for not using my insurance?
- bruce511 3y ago
  I know you're being somewhat flippant with this question, buy I'll bite. So you -did- use your insurance this (and every) month. You didn't-claim- from insurance, but that's incidental. Insurance exists to give you peace of mind (or more technically act as a hedge against your risk). You got that benefit/peace/hedge so you used your insurance. Now, if we take this thought, you could argue that Netflix isn't there to provide "show x" which you may, or may not, watch. Rather its there yo provide you with the -option- to watch show x. Whether you watch it or not is up to you. I feel this comparison is not equivalent though because risk is very real, while selling a "Netflix option" seems very contrived.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Similar, though not quite the same. With insurance, I would rather not have to use it. With Netflix, I would rather use it.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  Everyone uses their insurance - an insurance claim denotes when you get snake-eyes, not when you roll the dice.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    No, I don’t use it when I’m not driving.
    - richev 3y ago
      What if someone does a hit and run against your unattended car?
      - kortilla 3y ago
        That’s not covered by my liability insurance.

themacguffinman 3y ago

It appears like rationalization to you (edit for context: the parent comment said it was rationalizing before it was edited) because you've already made up your mind about the malicious intent of companies who use this model. The reality is that companies can't know if they're "bleeding people for no services rendered" because of bingeing behavior. Someone watching a lot then staying off for a few months is difficult to distinguish from someone who has forgotten about their subscription for a few months. The easiest and most efficient way for a company to know that you're not providing value to them is by cancelling your subscription. I agree that companies making this difficult is bad, but many services don't make this difficult. Instead, you're asking them to read the mind of their customers which is not easy. Netflix does treat extreme periods of inactivity (IIRC more than a year I think?) as a reasonable signal that you've forgotten about it. > You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't free-riding off other people, even. I don't think you're really understanding the point. People who don't exercise any personal responsibility over their finances are the ones who are free-riding off people who do. That's because when you don't manage your finances and you refuse to shoulder the cost for that, the time & effort and complexity it costs to accommodate that has to be paid by someone who isn't you. Edit: I'm not sure there's anything I can say to sway your mind about this since you've really honed in on the emotional angle to this but I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't really a moralizing thing to me, I have been and know many people who fall short, I don't treat it morally. It's largely about resource allocation and behavioral incentives. Asking central organizations like a corporation to infer the correct thing for lots of consumers is very difficult and costly, it's overall much more efficient to ask consumers to signal their desires themselves, it's why markets tend to be more efficient. Making consumers pay the cost of mismanaging their finances also discourages them from doing it, increasing efficiency.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
Not signing in to a service you have a subscription to is a pretty clear signal that it is not being used. I'm not aware of any streaming service that automatically pauses a subscription if you don't sign in for a full month.
- themacguffinman 3y ago
  I strongly disagree, I have media subscriptions right now that I won't sign into for a month or even multiple months but I don't intend on giving it up. This is especially true for niche streaming content where production costs aren't exactly cheap but their niche nature means not everyone is consistently in the mood for that content.
  - smogcutter 3y ago
    Ok so why do you want to pay for that time? Why not have payments paused during the period of inactivity, and resume when you want to use it? The point is that this is a choice by content businesses. Pausing and resuming payments could easily be frictionless, but it isn’t.
    - themacguffinman 3y ago
      I described the reason in more detail in my previous comments up-thread: because I understand the cost is amortized and it's an intuitive billing system that supports two different watching habits: consistent watching as well as bingeing. Refusing to pay because I binge means prices increase for people who don't binge. Pricing issues like this are really killer for niche streaming sites that I want to support. I generally disagree with dark patterns that make it onerously difficult to cancel, but many streaming services (like Netflix) don't make it that difficult and pausing and resuming payments is already easy enough. I just have to actually do it, not ask them to read my mind.
      - smogcutter 3y ago

kortilla 3y ago

Should I get a refund for not using my insurance?

bruce511 3y ago
I know you're being somewhat flippant with this question, buy I'll bite. So you -did- use your insurance this (and every) month. You didn't-claim- from insurance, but that's incidental. Insurance exists to give you peace of mind (or more technically act as a hedge against your risk). You got that benefit/peace/hedge so you used your insurance. Now, if we take this thought, you could argue that Netflix isn't there to provide "show x" which you may, or may not, watch. Rather its there yo provide you with the -option- to watch show x. Whether you watch it or not is up to you. I feel this comparison is not equivalent though because risk is very real, while selling a "Netflix option" seems very contrived.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Similar, though not quite the same. With insurance, I would rather not have to use it. With Netflix, I would rather use it.
Qwertious 3y ago
Everyone uses their insurance - an insurance claim denotes when you get snake-eyes, not when you roll the dice.
- kortilla 3y ago
  No, I don’t use it when I’m not driving.
  - richev 3y ago
    What if someone does a hit and run against your unattended car?
    - kortilla 3y ago
      That’s not covered by my liability insurance.