- cross-posted to:
- the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net
You must log in or # to comment.
Seventy-five fucking US dollars per month? To hear about how the ruination of apps is good, actually? I can remember when yearly subscriptions to magazines were like $12, fuck’s sake.
Is it bad?
$75 per month?
Yeah, it’s pretty fuckin’ bad.
This feels like the economic equivalent of climate change deniers promoting forest fires as, exclusively and inherently, a good thing because they ‘make all that new growth’ after
I truly cannot wait to see how evolution adapts all the trees to being constantly on fire.
Financial Times actually as good articles which is why I read them on archive. No way I’m paying for the newspaper of the ruling class, not even if I could afford it
If your cherry pie has even a little bit poop in it, it’s a poop cake. Not hard to grasp.
now hang on a minute, how did poop turn a pie into a cake though?
deleted by creator
So really it’s a fiber cake and fiber is neither good nor bad.
Sorry I got my British in the way.
I thought it was a meme edit…
Hahaha you wish.
75$ per month?
It’s in the name… “enshittification”…
Put this shit into dunk_tank…
Edit: to the article writer, not the poster…
put ur fase in teh dunktank LMAO GOTTEM
f*** you, im takin’ you wtih me
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
$75 for a Financial Times subscription?! Why spend that much when for just $10 a month, I’ll hold you down, put a funnel in your ear, and squeeze pudding directly into your skull
They can charge that much because their entire audience is in the “what could a banana cost, 10 dollars?” demographic
You’re right, I should add a $30 fee for the funnel
Not paying 75 a month for a one word article that says, “Yes.”
deleted by creator
Because breaking “civil” tone gives it impact.
Everyone in the US of a certain age remembers the fried-egg anti-drug ad (and perhaps the even more aggressive follow on a few years later) exactly because it took a much bolder tone than typical messaging on the subject.
Yeah but it isnt breaking civil tone, its as bad as ‘what in the cinnamon toast fuck’
fried-egg anti-drug ad
Oh right, the ableist ad that explicitly implied that people who take drugs are unintelligent brain fried losers, wasn’t that in the same era where they told kids to “just say no”? It didn’t break the civil tone at all. Stigmatizing drug use was the civil tone back then. Treating people who use drugs with dignity was seen in the popular media as “enabling” (spoiler alert: it still is seen as that).
Enshittification doesn’t break the civil tone at all, you’re just whining in a blogpost or bad news article about your favorite nonfree app choosing profit over you when they literally all do that.
I’m surprised we don’t call it rug-pull.
what about “shrabooganism”?
Who’s to say?
Apparently shareholders in those apps’ publishers who own media orgs! Thanks FT
deleted by creator
This is a fair price. If the article can tell you if spending $75 a month on this is bad, reading it could save you as much as $75 a month!
I mean… They’re not wrong. Enshittification of apps (and every other aspect of daily life) is in fact positive to the people a publication like the Financial Times is written for. It sucks ass for the rest of us but for them it means exciting new revenue flows.
That’s the good thing about the business press, they are much more honest when they’re training to themselves then when they are talking to the proles.
Beyond parody.
But think of all the money that could be made!
