3 ms·

Interesting historically (particularly that the U.S. Secretary of War bowed to a British request to have the Red Cross charge), but the parallels between holdin

by dws 14y ago

Interesting historically (particularly that the U.S. Secretary of War bowed to a British request to have the Red Cross charge), but the parallels between holding a grudge for the perception of being treated poorly coming out of combat, and being asked in peacetime to pay for a previously free service, are weak. My Dad, a (peacetime) Marine Lieutenant, had a Sergeant who was livid about being asked by the Red Cross volunteers to pay for coffee on his return trip from the Korean war in the early 50s. That left a lasting impression my Dad, who's saying on that was, "A Marine Never forgets." He never supported the Red Cross, though he was hardly stingy when it came to paying for things he thought deserved to be paid for, and that included accepting raised prices. There's an element of moral indignation in the story that's missing from "Oh, snap, this used to be free and now I have to pay for it. That sucks."

Nav_Panel 14y ago
>the parallels between holding a grudge for the perception of being treated poorly coming out of combat, and being asked in peacetime to pay for a previously free service, are weak That was my thought exactly. I think the main difference between the two scenarios is competition. There is only one Red Cross, but for most apps out there, there are likely a few others that do almost exactly the same thing. So, if one starts charging, you can decide to either switch to a different, free alternative, or you can decide to pay for the app. Being able to even make that decision is empowering (so what if donuts cost money? muffins are still free!). In the Red Cross's case, there was no choice; the soldiers had no power: you either pay for a donut, or you get nothing.