2 ms·

You can cancel a subscription. That's how subscriptions work. That means that any future changes is not a concern for current offerings. And I can't understand

You can cancel a subscription. That's how subscriptions work. That means that any future changes is not a concern for current offerings. And I can't understand why hackers never acknowledge this. I can put gas in the tank of my car. In the future, they might lower the quality of the gas - or even make it more expensive! That doesn't change anything about the gas that I will currently put in my car. > you have disposable income to spend on this sort of stuff Advertisers already know that a hundred percent of the population have $20 in disposable monthly income, because they can pay with credit. So they don't learn anything new.

wright08 5d ago
I am morbidly curious of your definition of 'the population', could you elaborate?
- carlosjobim 5d ago
  So you don't die: The population in the regions where these subscriptions are offered. Every region where a streaming subscription costs $20 per month, 100% of the population has $20 in disposable income per month whether they actually have the money or not, because credit is offered for consumption. Every region where a streaming subscription costs $5 per month, 100% of the population has $5 in disposable income per month for the same reason. The original argument I responded to, is a typical hacker trope and of logical fallacy that gets repeated infinitely. It goes like this: "Just because somebody spent $10 or $20 on something which I would never want to buy, means they must be extremely rich and extremely wasteful with their money. So advertiser are drooling and crawling over each other to get their hands on this cash." If that's the case, then advertisers clearly must also target tattooed people as the most valuable customer group possible, since every tattoo is proof that somebody once had 50 dollars.
wat10000 5d ago
The gas analogy is a good one, because those fuckheads also shove advertising in your face when you're already giving them money for a product. The issue isn't your ability to cancel individual services. The issue is the increasing difficulty of living life as part of society without constantly having advertising shoved down our throats.

wright08 5d ago

I am morbidly curious of your definition of 'the population', could you elaborate?

carlosjobim 5d ago
So you don't die: The population in the regions where these subscriptions are offered. Every region where a streaming subscription costs $20 per month, 100% of the population has $20 in disposable income per month whether they actually have the money or not, because credit is offered for consumption. Every region where a streaming subscription costs $5 per month, 100% of the population has $5 in disposable income per month for the same reason. The original argument I responded to, is a typical hacker trope and of logical fallacy that gets repeated infinitely. It goes like this: "Just because somebody spent $10 or $20 on something which I would never want to buy, means they must be extremely rich and extremely wasteful with their money. So advertiser are drooling and crawling over each other to get their hands on this cash." If that's the case, then advertisers clearly must also target tattooed people as the most valuable customer group possible, since every tattoo is proof that somebody once had 50 dollars.

wat10000 5d ago

The gas analogy is a good one, because those fuckheads also shove advertising in your face when you're already giving them money for a product. The issue isn't your ability to cancel individual services. The issue is the increasing difficulty of living life as part of society without constantly having advertising shoved down our throats.