you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Free entertainment is a way to occupy and distract the festering masses. And yet they remain determined to scrub all capacity for such.

If most people using free streaming could pay most would be already.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Being able to extract profit is more important to individual capitalist than maintaining the system in the long run. See: climate change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Climate change is still nebulous. It’s like population decline. Few will face the impact of it with anything practical or human until the negative impact personally stares them in the face.

    George Floyd protests and riots happened, in large part, because people were bored, unoccupied, and angsty about the world. Human behavior points rarely happen under the influence of a single variable.

    If anything, people are more fed up with their daily world, now, than at the time of Floyd. I think that’s a piece of why people kept reporting a sense of impending doom all year.

    Now we’ve hit a point where one guy with everything to lose said “enough” and went after a health care CEO. And we have plenty of people in this nation with nothing to lose. I wouldn’t be surprised if stage 4 cancer people started throwing themselves at CEOs.

    The wall of inactivity and learned helplessness has broken with Luigi.

    They’re not seeing how this scrubbing of entertainment access will impact the masses going forward? Plenty of people will steer away from action if you just give them free distraction.

    But here we are, instead, working hard to scrub all free distraction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Competition is won by those who extract profit now. Those who refrain from profiting even if they want to preserve the ability to profit in the future for whatever reason lose competition and are removed from making decisions. So only the most shortsighted capitalists remain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    If most people using free streaming could pay most would be already.

    Surely this gets less true when every streaming service raises their price every 3 months, however.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -29 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I work 40hrs a week. No kids in the house. If I can’t stream, then what? Reading news and Reddit, probably. That’s probably the least healthy option.

    Subbing everything isn’t sustainable for working class. It kills the monthly with bug bites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -38 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I have that, insomniac Lemmy ramblings aside. I’m making a point. There are many individuals out there without that capacity, financially or otherwise.

    Art supplies, sewing supplies, woodworking supplies, metalworking supplies, stained glass supplies, even gardening supplies, and all the tools that go with these activities, these are all things that have become quite expensive across the last decade. More so in the last 5 years. That’s the point. It’s not free.

    There’s a reason woodworking tools, art supplies, and sewing notions have been locked behind glass or mesh for a while now.

    Writing is free. That said, an industry complaint of the last decade is the number of prospective writers is, proportionally, too large compared to active readers of late. And many of those prospective writers don’t read books to feed their craft. I’m sure you’ve noticed the quality decline in fiction, minus a couple notable exceptions.

    The point is, what’s free for people to occupy themselves with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment