Weird number of downvotes here – I thought they were meant for low-effort or non contributive comments, not an “I disagree” button. This person is giving a unique perspective as a subscriber (in this thread, anyway) and should be met with curiosity, I think. It is helpful to know that there are people who enjoy paying for it, so thanks for giving your opinion here.
I disagree because they have a dominant position for reasons other than having a good product – they squash competition trying to make the space better while themselves actively making it worse. Subscribing means supporting that style of inhibiting innovation, not to mention the other user-hostile practices they embrace (extend, extinguish). They are an ad company and obligated to make a profit, I get that, but I refuse to abide this style of using investor money to operate at a loss for years while deceptively capturing the market before raising prices. If your product is good, it shouldn’t need to be artificially propped up.
but I refuse to abide this style of using investor money to operate at a loss for years while deceptively capturing the market before raising prices.
Indeed, no company should be praised or rewarded for emulating the moves that made companies like Walmart and Amazon big.
This capitalist hellscape would be slightly more tolerable if there was ample competition in every space. Companies need to be motivated to make their profit in ways that please the consumer, but also in ways that are increasingly more ethical.
But truly, as they say, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Modern slavery and third-world exploitation…even literal child slavery are rampant in our supply chains and offshore manufacturing.
Even Google indirectly uses child slavery. The court threw the case raised against them (and other giants) out last year because these companies simply purchase “unspecified amounts” of cobalt through “global supply chains” - never mind how it came to be on the global supply chain to begin with and how much obscene profit these companies make off these resources.
Weird number of downvotes here – I thought they were meant for low-effort or non contributive comments, not an “I disagree” button. This person is giving a unique perspective as a subscriber (in this thread, anyway) and should be met with curiosity, I think. It is helpful to know that there are people who enjoy paying for it, so thanks for giving your opinion here.
I disagree because they have a dominant position for reasons other than having a good product – they squash competition trying to make the space better while themselves actively making it worse. Subscribing means supporting that style of inhibiting innovation, not to mention the other user-hostile practices they embrace (extend, extinguish). They are an ad company and obligated to make a profit, I get that, but I refuse to abide this style of using investor money to operate at a loss for years while deceptively capturing the market before raising prices. If your product is good, it shouldn’t need to be artificially propped up.
Indeed, no company should be praised or rewarded for emulating the moves that made companies like Walmart and Amazon big.
This capitalist hellscape would be slightly more tolerable if there was ample competition in every space. Companies need to be motivated to make their profit in ways that please the consumer, but also in ways that are increasingly more ethical.
But truly, as they say, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Modern slavery and third-world exploitation…even literal child slavery are rampant in our supply chains and offshore manufacturing.
Even Google indirectly uses child slavery. The court threw the case raised against them (and other giants) out last year because these companies simply purchase “unspecified amounts” of cobalt through “global supply chains” - never mind how it came to be on the global supply chain to begin with and how much obscene profit these companies make off these resources.