You're getting all-you-can-eat from the business for a fixed price in exchange for predictable revenue as opposed to pay-as-you-go. That you think that's exploitative just tells me you don't understand the business model. You want to have your cake and eat it, too.
An all-you-can-eat restaurant where customers don't eat anything and you still keep charging them until they notice months or years later is indeed exploitative.
For something like an apartment, there's reasonable justification for long-term contracts and continuing to charge people without regard to use, in that it's an expensive good that has exactly one user at a time and where it can take a while to find a new tenant.
But that entirely vanishes with most internet-based subscriptions. If I stop watching Netflix, they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. If I get excited about a NYT subscription but then stop reading, it's the same deal. Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up. I could cancel at any time and they'd have to let me go. If they keep charging me when I'm not getting any value, then it's not a mutually beneficial relationship; they're just exploiting me. And indeed, maybe they were exploiting me from the get-go if their intent was to just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it.
People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites, but quite a lot of them are just scammers, grifters, and frauds. Which is exactly why a law would be especially valuable here, so that their time and attention were devoted to some socially positive activity.
> keep charging them until they notice months or years later is indeed exploitative.
When is it the customer's fault for not cancelling? You're working very hard to avoid responsibility for the business contract you entered into.
> they stop experiencing marginal costs for me.
Which are a small part of the overall cost structure. So what?
> Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up
Absolutely they do. The business is managing its finances under the assumption of subscribers and LTV, and making investments accordingly based on those assumptions and forecasts.
> they're just exploiting me
For charging you for something you signed up for but were too lazy to manage properly?
> just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it
There you go passing the buck again. It's your responsibility to use the thing you signed up for.
> People who take money without providing value are at best economic parasites
You mean the money you're giving them as part of consensual business agreement?
And with that, I'm done. You are very dedicated to both exploitation and victim-blaming as justification. I'm not going to convince you otherwise, presumably because you made or make your living from that. “It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it," said Upton Sinclair, and I have better things to do with my time.
Does that also apply to your car/home/health insurance as well?
If you don't have an accident/get robbed/go to the doctor, are you being exploited by the insurance company?
Edit: BTW, I'm an old guy myself.
That said, those are prime opportunities for parasitism and exploitation, because it's hard to measure risk reduction until actual harm comes along. That's why those sectors need heavy regulation.
You said[0]:
"But that entirely vanishes with most internet-based subscriptions. If I stop watching Netflix, they stop experiencing marginal costs for me. If I get excited about a NYT subscription but then stop reading, it's the same deal. Nobody went out and bought another server just because I signed up. I could cancel at any time and they'd have to let me go. If they keep charging me when I'm not getting any value, then it's not a mutually beneficial relationship; they're just exploiting me. And indeed, maybe they were exploiting me from the get-go if their intent was to just get my money in without regard for whether I was going to get anything out of it."
A subscription with them provides access to the services they sell all the time as long as your subscription is current, in exactly the same way as as insurance provides risk mitigation.
You appear to be arguing that it's the subscription model that's the problem and not those who use it in an exploitative manner.
I'm not a fan of subscription models myself, which can be used in exploitative ways, but the fault isn't in the model, but in those who implement/administer it.
N.B.: I do have insurance, but not Netflix or NYT subscriptions.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31818397
Edit: Fixed formatting, typo.
If you really can't tell those classes of product apart, I don't think I can help you.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything even approaching that.
Netflix sells a service (a pretty useless one, in my view) -- video content -- for which they charge a monthly fee.
Insurance companies sell a service (more useful, in my view) -- covering (or at least reducing) the costs of bad stuff happening -- for which they charge a monthly fee.
One is (at least in my view) more useful than the other, but the business model is the same -- pay a monthly fee for some product/service.
As I said, it's not the model that's the problem, it's those who use it in an exploitative fashion.
Please do go ahead and set up another straw man you can knock down for your own satisfaction, but I won't participate further.
Have a great day!
I was inexact (business vs. payment model) in my previous comment. My apologies.
But my point still stands: Subscription payment models aren't inherently exploitative; rather they can be implemented/administered (or not) in an exploitative fashion.
Don't like Netflix/NYT and others' implementation of said payment model? I'm not surprised. I'm not very high on them either.
But just because you don't like the specific implementation, doesn't make them a different payment model. That payment model being: "pay a monthly fee, get whatever product/service you've paid (and continue to pay) for.
You appear to be claiming that because different companies sell different stuff, that the payment models are not the same.
Which is akin to arguing that since automobiles with ICEs[0] serve a different purpose than automobiles with electric engines. They don't.
And likewise, subscription payment models are subscription payment models, regardless of the product/service being offered.
>If you're not getting it, that's fine, you are free to carry on not getting it.
And you're free to continue making wildly inaccurate statements. Have fun and a good day!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine