Extremely bad take, lol.
If the company isn’t financially sound without charging customers to no longer be customers, the business isn’t viable.
What an asinine attempt to justify predatory, anti-consumer behaviour from corporations.
Extremely bad take, lol.
If the company isn’t financially sound without charging customers to no longer be customers, the business isn’t viable.
What an asinine attempt to justify predatory, anti-consumer behaviour from corporations.
kromem@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m not sure what part of my “technically are people” language made you think I’m justifying it.
But that is the fiscal conservative argument whether either of us thinks it is a good one or not, and thus a broad “it hurts people” needs greater specificity to scope it to main street concerns and not wall street concerns.
Retrograde@lemmy.world 11 months ago
and there it is, the double down lol
Gross, dude. Listen to yourself.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
That’s… that’s not what they’re saying.
Retrograde@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Any defense, devils advocate or otherwise, supporting early termination fees is disgusting and unacceptable. It’s not really important how they spin it.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is some real ‘paradox of tolerance’ reasoning here. Clearly by ‘will people be hurt,’ they mean the average person, not the investor class.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
Yeah, the “average person” has greater specificity.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 months ago
Seriously. Circular during squad moment.