3 ms·
No, people mostly won't pay because ad-supported free alternatives exist.
by thfuran 2y ago
No, people mostly won't pay because ad-supported free alternatives exist.
- fooker 2y agoYes that is my point. If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.
- dns_snek 2y agoFar from authoritarian, dealing with business models that seem fine on an individual level but that are detrimental to society as a whole is precisely the type of problem that governments are supposed to solve.
- fooker 2y agoI don’t disagree. But that’s literally the definition of authoritarian. Doing things because you have the authority to, because $REASONS. It’s all flowers and sunshine when you agree with what they are doing but it’s incredibly easy to abuse the power. And suddenly, like compounding interest, you have dictatorship.
- thfuran 2y ago>But that’s literally the definition of authoritarian. It very much is not.
- consteval 2y agoWe’ve successfully kneecapped many industries that we figured out where gander onto society. For example, tobacco. No ads, you can’t smoke anywhere. The result? Way less smoking! And we’re all in agreement that’s a good thing. Ads are private sector propaganda. They’re manipulative material attempting to exploit the weakness of the human mind to get YOU to spend money you don’t actually want to spend. Yes, YOU. We know things that exploit the weaknesses of the human mind, like nicotine, have the potential for extraordinary evil when left to the hands of the private sector. We haven’t all come to this consensus on advertisement, but we will.
- thfuran 2y agoNo more authoritarian than minimum wage.
- fooker 2y agoPeople surviving is a core government responsibility. Business models or companies surviving, less so.