Food is a bad example because it will never have a subscription fee on it.
The point of my post was if there’s any way reasonably that you can get around not buying it, then just don’t buy it.
That’s why I chose a microwave. Do you really have to have a microwave? Not really
do you really have to have a TV to watch TV? No you don’t have to watch TV.
Do You really have to have an electronic alarm clock? No.
Headphones same thing, …
Are there instances where you might not have any choice? Yeah of course. But the vast majority of purchases do not fall in that category. That’s my point. If there is a realistic way to not buy something then don’t.
Car is a great example: do you really have to buy a NEW car? No. You are choosing to buy a new car. There’s used cars out there.
Don’t need to know the ins and outs of every industry. Just ask a couple of simple questions: does this have a subscription fee? Do I really have absolutely no other choice but to buy this item?
Not sure why that would be tough for people to ask.
jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you want to limit consumer decisions to subscription vs no-subscriptions than sure, but subscriptions are just one element of the choices people have to make.
You also have issues like data privacy, ethical labor, maintainability, etc. Too many things for everyone to keep up with and effectively vote with their wallet.
andrewta@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
All of those things are important, and no, we don’t have to fix them all at the same time, but let’s fix one of them. choose , which one do you wanna fix first. Then let’s start working on it. That is true if we try to tell the average person out there to work on all these, it’s too much it’s overwhelming. They’re not gonna try but if we focus Then there’s possibility.