![The way entertainment is headed [1113x688 - 148KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/n3oCC7.jpg){kind=link}
I see it as a good thing. Customers who pay for services are much more difficult to politically pressure than a small number of advertisers. E.g. which is easier to cancel culture, a million customers paying $5/mo or 100 advertisers?
Such a straw man argument.
"Paying $5 a month and us still selling your information is worth it because we will lose $5 when we ban your ass!"
Paying $5 a month wouldn't stop you or anyone else from getting canceled.
The part about it leading less advertisements is egregiously false. Maybe at first, but corporate greed will never let their ads disappear for long.
Cable TV was originally rolled out as an ad-free premium service to bypass ads and have a larger selection of channels. Guess what stuck around?
Online streaming services such as Hulu were formed because people were sick of cable rates hiking and being loaded with ads. Almost all started free with limited ads, or modest fees for none. That didn't last. Even primarily non-mainstream streaming services like youtube had to be bought out and riddled with ads.
The modern internet service industry is a violent response from the MSM to the people who rejected the MSM.
Hey at least this time it isn't as violent as the Catholic counter-reformation period.
I'm not looking at it from the angle of a platform banning customers so much as from the perspective of political action commitees calling up large advertisers and saying "Did you know your ad ran on video made by a rayciss/natzee/badthink". PACs can easily influence advertisers, but not so much random customers.
Shill platforms banning people is going to happen either way.
As long as government backed financial institutions are able to shut down people's bank accounts and refuse to process transactions for wrong think everything else is inconsequential.
(post is archived)