this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
844 points (89.0% liked)
Fuck Subscriptions
3666 readers
1 users here now
Naming and shaming all "recurring spending models" where a one-time fee (or none at all) would be appropriate and logical.
Expect use of strong language.
Follow the basic rules of lemmy.world and common sense, and try to have fun if possible.
No flamewars or attacking other users, unless they're spineless corporate shills.
Note that not all subscriptions are awful. Supporting your favorite ~~camgirl~~ creator or Lemmy server on Patreon is fine. An airbag with subscription is irl Idiocracy-level dystopian bullshit.
New community rule: Shilling for cunty corporations, their subscriptions and other anti-customer practices may result in a 1-day ban. It's so you can think about what it's like when someone can randomly decide what you can and can't use, based on some arbitrary rules. Oh what, you didn't read this fine print? You should read what you're agreeing to.
==========
Some other groovy communities for those who wish to own their products, their data and their life:
Some other useful links:
Louis Rossman's YouTube channel
Look at content hosted at Big Tech without most of the nonsense:
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
Why do they think that they are entitled to free lyrics?
Because the people with working ears get the lyrics for free
No, they don't. This feature works exactly the same regardless of what your ears can or can't do.
If you have working ears, you can hear the lyrics.
Can't believe I'm explaining how hearing works
Just because I can hear the lyrics, doesn't mean I know the lyrics.
I have working ears. Still don't understand most lyrics.
You are not explaining how hearing works. You are manipulating. You are manipulating by equating one's ability to hear with a Spotify feature. These are not the same thing, and comparing them is not correct.
Oh no, manipulating people into thinking deaf people deserve equality. How horrible!
But the feature works exactly the same for deaf and not deaf people, we've established that already. Well, at least you agreed that you were lying and manipulating. I will take the win.
That argument style is main thing that props up all sorts of discrimination. The truth is that applying the same rule to everyone often does not effect everyone the same way. You can argue about the rule being the same, but it's generally more useful to focus on the effects.
I don't think Spotify was created with deaf people in mind. It's unfair to imply the company did this on purpose to worsen their lives. I bet they didn't even think about this use-case. I agree that deaf people should be able to enjoy music, and Spotify can do something to help. But it's not that simple. For example, how would they charge people who can hear, but offer the service for free to those who can't? It's not as easy as this post makes it seem. That's why I wrote my first comment.
This is why large companies have an ethical responsibility to hire diversity consultants to explain these kinds of issues to them.
And the equal treatment decision is to let everyone read the lyrics.
That would be the problem.
This sounds like an engineering problem. Account types, customer service, some kind of medical qualification proving it, I don't know.
They could also just... not separate lyrics from the free-tier at all.
I mean, painfully missing from this discussion is that hiding the lyrics of the song you're listening to, which they definitely have, behind a paywall is... absolutely bizarre.
To my ears, this is like finding out Spotify's new free-tier model limits song listens to exactly 2 minutes, and if the song is longer than that, "well, you can listen to the whole thing with a new Premium subscription!" Yeah, I guess I could, huh. God forbid we have anything nice in this country.
Go fetch some more training data, you useless LLM troll.
Because that's how it worked until Spotify wanted to wring more money out of people.
You say "more money," but this person is on free tier. They are paying nothing and they expect more. Is that not entitlement? I'm not some raving capitalist, but isn't it okay to charge money for certain services?
When a company offers free services and then starts charging after people start using them(or in the case of OP, become dependent on them) then it's complete bullshit. Now you can't trust free services because a company can just decide it's not free whenever they want.
You gave me a free sample in the supermarket? I demand free cheese for life, you monster!
The fact you're reaching this far means you got the point but you have to "win" or some shit. Bye.
👋
^ Verification can chugger
This reminded me of Ayn Rand's Dream World.