3 ms·

> What's wrong with people putting on their adulting pants and actually being responsible? What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you

> What's wrong with people putting on their adulting pants and actually being responsible? What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you don't use the service? You can play the blame game all day, but that doesn't actually give us any reason why not. "Cars shouldn't have seatbelts because you can just not crash your car" is a similar line of thinking that also doesn't make very much sense. Why shouldn't the car manufacturer take some level of responsibility?

bee_rider 3y ago
Does this analogy actually explain or clarify anything, or is it just an attempt to raise the stakes for rhetorical effect? Dying in a car crash is much worse than accidentally paying for Netflix so carmakers have a heightened responsibility to try and prevent it. It doesn’t really map to the scenario at all, “dying in a car crash” isn’t a service people intentionally sign up for and then change their minds about.
- skeaker 3y ago
  Not my intent to claim equivalence. The comparison just shows that it's possible and in fact very reasonable for a company to take some level of responsibility on behalf of their customers. I guess the difference in stakes do factor in somewhat: If car companies can do it when it's life or death and requires tons of R&D and manufacturing, why can't Netflix do it for something as mundane as charging their users that can be done with only software? Obviously the answer is that they CAN do that, but don't. It's nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with them making a cheap buck off of human forgetfulness.
Izkata 3y ago
> Why shouldn't the car manufacturer take some level of responsibility? They do, through safety tests and improving it over the decades.
taffer 3y ago
> What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you don't use the service Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions. Any subscription model works by amortising costs over a large population, which always means that some people will benefit more than others. To prevent businesses from charging for unused subscriptions, the only solution would be to ban subscriptions altogether and have everything on a pay-per-use basis. That would also include internet subscriptions and transit passes.
- eropple 3y ago
  > Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions. If Netflix will let you pay $2 to buy something from them, they sure don't advertise it. So this assertion requires what the customer wants to buy to be fungible. It's a mindset that requires one to implicitly accept the idea of content-as-gruel, and I think most people don't do that. It also implies that people are rational and responsive actors and habituation doesn't exist, which isn't true either.
  - taffer 3y ago
    I have no idea what you want to say. Is this what you mean when you talk about riding the personal responsibility bicycle, only this time it is the jargon bicycle?

bee_rider 3y ago

Does this analogy actually explain or clarify anything, or is it just an attempt to raise the stakes for rhetorical effect? Dying in a car crash is much worse than accidentally paying for Netflix so carmakers have a heightened responsibility to try and prevent it. It doesn’t really map to the scenario at all, “dying in a car crash” isn’t a service people intentionally sign up for and then change their minds about.

skeaker 3y ago
Not my intent to claim equivalence. The comparison just shows that it's possible and in fact very reasonable for a company to take some level of responsibility on behalf of their customers. I guess the difference in stakes do factor in somewhat: If car companies can do it when it's life or death and requires tons of R&D and manufacturing, why can't Netflix do it for something as mundane as charging their users that can be done with only software? Obviously the answer is that they CAN do that, but don't. It's nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with them making a cheap buck off of human forgetfulness.

Izkata 3y ago

> Why shouldn't the car manufacturer take some level of responsibility? They do, through safety tests and improving it over the decades.

taffer 3y ago

> What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you don't use the service Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions. Any subscription model works by amortising costs over a large population, which always means that some people will benefit more than others. To prevent businesses from charging for unused subscriptions, the only solution would be to ban subscriptions altogether and have everything on a pay-per-use basis. That would also include internet subscriptions and transit passes.

eropple 3y ago
> Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions. If Netflix will let you pay $2 to buy something from them, they sure don't advertise it. So this assertion requires what the customer wants to buy to be fungible. It's a mindset that requires one to implicitly accept the idea of content-as-gruel, and I think most people don't do that. It also implies that people are rational and responsive actors and habituation doesn't exist, which isn't true either.
- taffer 3y ago
  I have no idea what you want to say. Is this what you mean when you talk about riding the personal responsibility bicycle, only this time it is the jargon bicycle?