Comment

SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

It’s an outlook developed by watching the peers I grew up around and the things that they accepted and didn’t question because it was just “normal” by the time they were children.

For example, a lot of kids in my generation grew up with Cable Television, but by the time I was a kid, cable had lost it’s initial “we’re better than broadcast because we don’t have ads” and people just accepted the ads. Most people never knew there was a “time before” when there weren’t any ads, and because of their lack of knowledge of it ever being any different, they never had reason to question why cable television needed ads now when previously it had not.

Once things become a societal “norm,” the people who grow up around that norm tend not to question it simply because they have never known anything else. It’s not meant to be an indictment on the youth as much as the obvious “you can’t know what you don’t know.” If they don’t ever know it was ever any different, how can they expected to do anything but accept how things are? Especially when the adults around them don’t kick up a fuss and keep paying for Netflix when they keep getting screwed. They are learning that this is normal behavior and that it’s normal to get screwed by a company and just keep paying for it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Wait, did the pitch for cable TV at one point really include that there were no ads?

source
- SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yes, it could be argued it was the pitch, much like Netflix originally was. It’s actually kind of wild how the streaming services are literally following the same path as cable television.
  
  source
  - thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Wow, I had no idea. I didn’t even really know that cable was at one time the fancy premium version of TV.
    
    One thing I think we can say though is that a big part of why Netflix was disruptive was the promise of watching uninterrupted-- No ads. So even though folks thought “of course cable has ads, that’s the norm,” they also flocked to services that provided ad-free alternatives.
    
    I’m always surprised when I see someone just sit through a YouTube ad or something, instead of beating their chest and screaming “WHERE uBLOCK? HOW ADS?” which alarms the neighbors but they’re used to it at this point (which is what I do)… But it’s encouraging that people still voted with their feet by dropping cable as soon as a less extractive experience emerged. It gives me hope that the endgame of enshittification is irrelevance.
    
    source
- grue@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Have you ever seen cable TV abbreviated “CATV?” That’s because the original original pitch for it was as “Community Antenna TV,” wherein it would receive local over-the-air broadcasts and then send them over a wire to folks who couldn’t receive them properly because they lived behind a mountain or whatever.
  
  The second pitch was getting original content on cable-only channels, but because your subscription was helping pay to license it (unlike the over-the-air channels, which they – at least initially – got for free), they would be ad-free.
  
  Of course, nowadays cable companies have been made to pay retransmission fees to broadcast TV networks and cable-only channels are showing ads too, so both content sources are double-dipping revenue streams.
  
  (Side note: that link is to a site trying to sell some kind of service, so ignore the last part of the page – the explanations at the beginning of it are quite good, though.)
  
  source
  - thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Wow TIL. The double-dipping is pretty sketchy, but not at all surprising. It seems hubristic for Netflix to court the same concepts… I guess cable/network TV probably thought they were untouchable so they could squeeze the consumer, then Netflix happens… Now Netflix thinks it’s untouchable and it can squeeze the consumer. Hmm, seems familiar.
    
    source