890
Commercials Are Streaming’s New Norm, and Creators Aren’t Happy: “It’s Almost Worse Than Broadcast”
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
890 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
58150 readers
4922 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dude, your answer to excesses of capitalism is “let the market solve it”. The only person you’re fooling is yourself and that only because it is the lowest bar possible
What am I fooling myself about, exactly?
That the market actually responds to consumer desires.
Unfortunately with the excessively oversized conglomerates that do vertical integration in an ever increasing number of industries, there is only the illusion of choice left for consumers. Not using any type of media (books, movies, etc.) is not actually a solution or a choice. So consumers are left with no choice but what is offered, and the offering is not dictated by their desires but by the companies who will screw you over to increase already obscene profits. The "vote with your wallet" argument you use leaves you with "pile of crap A" and "pile of crap B" to choose from, with no alternatives. Your solution is social disconnect from everything and everyone, that is not actually a solution or a real viable choice.
My guy, I'm talking about not paying for Netflix. Social disconnect? You're so dramatic. I haven't had Netflix in years.
You're cutting one...but now they're all doing the shit that made you quit Netflix, and you have no (legal) way of getting access to pop culture without endorsing the shitty behaviour that doesn't listen to consumer desires. That is why "voting with your wallet" doesn't work, because there is no alternative to vote for with your wallet. So unless you keep endorsing the shitty corporate behaviour, you're pulling the plug on basically everything, and that is definitely a disconnection from many social interactions since you'll have no clue what they're talking about.
You don't have to watch the latest, hippest new show of streaming services so participate in society. I can't believe I'm even having this conversation, truthfully I'm baffled that I need to repudiate this.
But despite my sanity, I will engage with it... You know people still have dvd players, right? And libraries still exist? To be clear, I'm just trying to rebuke the absurd claim that you have "no way of getting access to poop culture" without streaming services.
How do you think people and libraries obtain their material? They dont get it for free, they buy it. So that still puts money in the hands of companies you're trying not to give money. Every time you borrow something from the library, they pay a little to the copyright owner of that material. So you're still supporting anti-consumer companies with your wallet by doing it like that. Like I said, voting with your wallet only works when there are alternatives, and we pretty much have none left.
We’re a day deep in you not understanding that proposing a market mechanism (consumer choice) as a solution to a problem created by markets is risible. I could try and explain it you again but I can’t understand it for you, so let’s call it a day. i’m happy for you to be the only person in the room not getting it.
What solution do you propose?
Ok, tell you what. i’ll engage with you as a good faith participant if you can meet the minimum bar. everyone else here knows what’s wrong with your suggestion. if you can persuasively explain that you also understand it (without reusing my words) i’ll happily believe you’re not an idiot and a waste of time and we can dig into what else might be an appropriate response
That doesn't seem like good faith at all.
As a reminder, this exchange between you and I begun because you called me a billionaire bootlicker. When I replied that I didn't think billionaires should exist, you said I was fooling myself. Instead taking me at face value when I told you my belief, you insinuated I don't know how I feel about my own beliefs.
You've been nothing but antagonistic when I'm pretty sure you'd find we would agree on probably a lot of things. We apparently disagree on the matter of if someone doesn't like the rising prices of Netflix, they should stop paying for it, though.
That is a lot of words to say “no i can’t explain what’s wrong with my argument” but at least you’ve saved me a bunch of time champ