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

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.