4 ms·

Are you concerned about physical DVD purchases shifting to subscription-based websites?

• tptacek 9mo ago
  Not remotely. As someone who came of age in the 1990s, I can say with complete confidence that it has never, ever, in the whole of human history, been easier for ordinary people to access more film content than it is today. If I had to pay every single time I watched a film, as opposed to opting to "buy" (say) Big Night, I'd still take that in preference to going to a fucking video store. But either way this has nothing at all to do with housing affordability.
  • immibis 9mo ago
    My point is that the rent vs own model is taking over every industry and it's never good long-term. If you had to watch the same movie every day, and you knew that fact in advance, and your only option was pay-per-view, wouldn't that suck?
    • tptacek 9mo ago
      You're doing my job on this thread for me by trying to set rental up as some kind of second-class residency we should be skeptical of. I agree, that's the subtext of this corporate investment stuff: that renters are bad.
      • immibis 9mo ago
        > renters are bad Uh, no, don't equivocate "forced rent" with "renters". That's bad faith.
        • tptacek 9mo ago
          No, it isn't. This is literally the subtext behind the policy. You see it all over this thread: the idea that converting an owner-occupied unit to a rental, even though it lowers area median rent, is a bad thing. There's no other interpretation. If reading that makes you uncomfortable, recheck your priors on the policy itself!