Netflix And Virtue Signalling

[Xerographica]

It's not the equivalent because there's no middleman.

Yes, there is. Tesla provides the trailer hitch. Blizzard (or another video game company, but presume blizzard) provides the video games.

I'm the middle man.

Try again.

If you're the middleman... then why am I buying your tax services? Is it relevant that I'm buying your tax services?

[Galloism]

Yes, there is. Tesla provides the trailer hitch. Blizzard (or another video game company, but presume blizzard) provides the video games.

I'm the middle man.

Try again.

If you're the middleman... then why am I buying your tax services? Is it relevant that I'm buying your tax services?

You buy Netflix streaming services. You disregard that, so...

I guess it's irrelevant? You've marked it irrelevant before. If it's relevant that you're buying my tax services, then it's relevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services. If it's irrelevant that you're buying my tax services, it's irrelevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services.

Run it both ways.

[Ardrentt]

You can acknowledge that the thing you like doesn't imply that you think it's the greatest shit ever, but simply that you enjoy it, right?

I like a lot of dumb things and my interests in music have shown recently to mix in odd ways (Having the song Grace Kelly be stuck next to My Girls), but I'm not sure about how that implies that I value them equally in terms of whether I think they're any good or not.

Though who the fuck knows, maybe I'm just virtue signalling right now by saying that or whatever the fuck. If I am, then to a larger extent we're all doing that because so much of the shit that we do is ultimately not going to be very important anyways and yet we do them so damn consistently and if we allow ourselves simply to be judged by the aggregate of literally everything we do, then we look like zombified slobs at the end of the day.

[The Holy Therns]

If people's Netflix ratings are untrustworthy, then what does that say about democracy?

This sentence on its own made me laugh.

[Xerographica]

If you're the middleman... then why am I buying your tax services? Is it relevant that I'm buying your tax services?

You buy Netflix streaming services. You disregard that, so...

I guess it's irrelevant? You've marked it irrelevant before. If it's relevant that you're buying my tax services, then it's relevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services. If it's irrelevant that you're buying my tax services, it's irrelevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services.

Run it both ways.

In any case, it sure doesn't make sense to purchase a bundle that includes...

1. tax services
2. Tesla hitch or video games

It's a crazy bundle. I hate crazy bundles. Crazy bundles make me crazy. Because... crazy bundles really don't make any sense. They are nonsensical. Crazy bundles make the world nonsensical. They make me nonsensical. They make everything nonsensical.

Stop the crazy bundles!!!

[Chestaan]

A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.

What does 'value a product correctly' mean?

If I think a product is worth less than the price, I won't buy it. Because a good is excludable and has a price I have to decide what it's value is to me.

[Lady Scylla]

I never gave a damn about whether something had 5 stars or not. So I don't see this affecting me.

[Chestaan]

If you wanted content to be valued at it's "correct" market value then you would have to charge for each individual episode/movie watched. The thing about this more traditional type of market is that it FORCES us to decide if we value it more or less than its price. With Netflix, I will pay the subscription if the utility derived from everything I can watch in the month is worth more than the price of the subscription.

But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?

Now if we could allocate our subscription to various shows, what is my incentive to ensure I allocate it correctly? For example, I might value one show at $3 and another at $7. But what's to stop me allocating all my money to the show I value at more? Because, and here's the critical thing, by allocating the $10 to one show, I don't lose it. I can still get access to both shows, but I might simply decide that I will give all my money to my favorite show despite the fact that I have positive valuations for other shows.

You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?

Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?

You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.

A traditional market has a mechanism inbuilt to ensure that consumers are forced to value a product correctly. Your allocation of funds model doesn't.

Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.

In other words, one price really does not fit all.

You can't know the value of a movie before you watch it. However, if you were to let me into the cinema in order to view a movie and charge me afterwards based on what I value the movie what do you think would happen? I would have an incentive to to understate my value.

With your netflix example, I have no incentive to state my correct value. Firstly my valuation if I buy a netflix subscription is almost certainly greater than $10 per month and I have absolutely zero incentive to pay more than that, so all valuations will be false firstly on that basis. Secondly, some of the value I derive from a netflix subscription will be based on content I might like to watch but haven't watched. I may value the fact that I have the ability to watch it in the future or if some unforseen event occurs pushes me to watch it. How would I include those values?

And as well as all that it is really really hard for someone to decide on the exact value to them of a particular product. How would you actually go about figuring that out? It would take time and effort. Time and effort are costs. What incentive have I to undertake these costs in order to give an accurate valuation?

And I don't understand your point on CS. A market in the presence of 1st degree price discrimination has the exact same supply demand and welfare, all else being equal, as one in which a single price is charged. Transferring all welfare to the producer doesn't result in a net gain, it just means that the producer is happy with the trade and the consumer is indifferent to it.

[Xerographica]

You can acknowledge that the thing you like doesn't imply that you think it's the greatest shit ever, but simply that you enjoy it, right?

I like a lot of dumb things and my interests in music have shown recently to mix in odd ways (Having the song Grace Kelly be stuck next to My Girls), but I'm not sure about how that implies that I value them equally in terms of whether I think they're any good or not.

Though who the fuck knows, maybe I'm just virtue signalling right now by saying that or whatever the fuck. If I am, then to a larger extent we're all doing that because so much of the shit that we do is ultimately not going to be very important anyways and yet we do them so damn consistently and if we allow ourselves simply to be judged by the aggregate of literally everything we do, then we look like zombified slobs at the end of the day.

My point is that it's a bit more costly to virtue signal with your own money. We're all a bit more honest when we spend our own money. Spending our own money forces us to decide what's more or less important.

There are a gazillion songs that I love. And I say that I "love" them but "love" is an easy word to toss around. If Youtube charged a very reasonable fee... but allowed us to spend our fees on our favorite songs/videos... then, because our fees would be limited, we'd have to decide which songs we truly love.

It is these needs which are essentially deficits in the organism, empty holes, so to speak, which must be filled up for health’s sake, and furthermore must be filled from without by human beings other than the subject, that I shall call deficits or deficiency needs for purposes of this exposition and to set them in contrast to another and very different kind of motivation. — Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being

The bigger the hole in your heart a song helps to fill, the more you love it, the more fees that you're willing to spend on it.

For example, right now Plain Material by Memory Tapes is helping to fill a pretty big hole in my heart. And if it was super easy to spend some Youtube fees on this song, then for sure I'd be happy to. Because doing so would transmit/broadcast this information to others.

Ideally on the song's page there would be a list of all the people who spent their fees on it. The list would be sorted by how many fees the person spent on the song. At the top of the list would be the person who was willing to spend the most fees on that song. That person exists!!! For sure there is one person in the world who would be willing to spend more fees on Plain Material than any other person in the world.

That person exists!!! But right now I don't know who that person is. This ignorance is a hole in my heart and mind. Youtube could help fill this hole by letting me know who in the world is willing to spend the most fees on Plain Material. Let's pretend that it's a woman named Samantha.

I'd be able to click on Samantha's name and see a list of her favorite songs/videos sorted by how much she values them. Then I'd be able to see if there are other songs that she values more than Plain Material. If there were, then perhaps they would also help fill holes in my heart. And then I'd spend my fees on them.

Do you want to overlook valuable things? Do you want to overlook really valuable things? No. Nope. Nobody does. Yet, everybody overlooks the Invisible Hand (IH). There is no bigger problem in the world because the IH is the most valuable thing in the world. The IH is the most valuable thing in the world because it is the best way to spot the most valuable things. The IH is all about people using their money to bring valuable things to each other's attention. The IH is all about people using their money to eliminate ignorance of valuable things.

Have you heard of Netflix? Of course! Lots of people have used their money to bring Netflix to each other's attention. Voila! Here we are! Talking about Netflix. You know what Netflix is. So do I. So does every member of this forum. Thanks to the IH, we really haven't overlooked Netflix.

The problem is that Netflix doesn't allow subscribers to use their fees to bring the most valuable movies and shows to each other's attention. Voila! Here we aren't! Not talking about ___________ . You probably don't know what ___________ is. I probably don't either. Maybe a few members of this forum know about it. Thanks to the absence of the IH, most of us have overlooked ___________ . This a problem because ___________ is really valuable.

Well... here I am telling you not to overlook the IH. Word of mouth can certainly work to bring valuable things to each other's attention. But it can't work as well as willingness to pay/spend/sacrifice. Simply saying that we "love" something is easy. Talk is cheap! The more money that we're willing to spend on something, the more credible and reliable and trustworthy our love is. In order for love to be believed, it has to be proved. Prove your love! Sacrifice your money to bring your most beloved songs and shows to more people's attention!

[Xerographica]

What does 'value a product correctly' mean?

If I think a product is worth less than the price, I won't buy it. Because a good is excludable and has a price I have to decide what it's value is to me.

How do you value this thread correctly?

[Galloism]

You buy Netflix streaming services. You disregard that, so...

I guess it's irrelevant? You've marked it irrelevant before. If it's relevant that you're buying my tax services, then it's relevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services. If it's irrelevant that you're buying my tax services, it's irrelevant that you're buying Netflix's streaming services.

Run it both ways.

In any case, it sure doesn't make sense to purchase a bundle that includes...

1. tax services
2. Tesla hitch or video games

It's a crazy bundle. I hate crazy bundles. Crazy bundles make me crazy. Because... crazy bundles really don't make any sense. They are nonsensical. Crazy bundles make the world nonsensical. They make me nonsensical. They make everything nonsensical.

Stop the crazy bundles!!!

All bundles are crazy bundles from someone's perspective.

It's absolutely wild that people use the same person for accounting and tax in a single bundle, given they are so vastly different fields.

Documentaries and chick flicks are a crazy bundle. Video games and movies and work is a crazy bundle, yet my computer was built to handle all of it.

[Juristonia]

Ridiculous premise.
Just because I watch more of something, doesn't mean I don't actually like other things more.

A lot of my favourite shows get cancelled after a season or two, because I like shitty unpopular scifi stuff.
Meanwhile, I'm on season 5 of Arrow and season 12 of Supernatural, despite not really liking either of them very much.
I watch them because it gives me something to laugh at, there's not much else on, and I might as well see where it goes now.
So statistically, I supposedly like things I don't like more than I like my favourite shows, purely because there's more of them.

Then there's not always being in the mood to watch my favourites.
I like Wes Anderson flicks, but I need to be in the mood to watch them, so I don't watch them very often.
Meanwhile, there's a world of throwaway movies I'll check out when I'm pulling an all nighter and don't have anything else to do.
Does that mean I like that stuff better just because I've had it on more often? Of course not.

Comes down to length, quantity, availability (seriously, our Netflix selection sucks) and mood.
Not necessarily virtue signalling.

And trying to tie that to democracy somehow is entirely bonkers by itself.

[Galloism]

But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?


You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?

Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?

You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.


Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.

In other words, one price really does not fit all.

You can't know the value of a movie before you watch it. However, if you were to let me into the cinema in order to view a movie and charge me afterwards based on what I value the movie what do you think would happen? I would have an incentive to to understate my value.

With your netflix example, I have no incentive to state my correct value. Firstly my valuation if I buy a netflix subscription is almost certainly greater than $10 per month and I have absolutely zero incentive to pay more than that, so all valuations will be false firstly on that basis. Secondly, some of the value I derive from a netflix subscription will be based on content I might like to watch but haven't watched. I may value the fact that I have the ability to watch it in the future or if some unforseen event occurs pushes me to watch it. How would I include those values?

And as well as all that it is really really hard for someone to decide on the exact value to them of a particular product. How would you actually go about figuring that out? It would take time and effort. Time and effort are costs. What incentive have I to undertake these costs in order to give an accurate valuation?

And I don't understand your point on CS. A market in the presence of 1st degree price discrimination has the exact same supply demand and welfare, all else being equal, as one in which a single price is charged. Transferring all welfare to the producer doesn't result in a net gain, it just means that the producer is happy with the trade and the consumer is indifferent to it.

It's also worth noting that unless a movie is rewatchable (IE, you want to watch it again), your value immediately after watching it drops to zero. Asking people to value a movie after they've already seen it will lead to chronic undervaluation, even if they WERE honest (which they won't be).

[Xerographica]

But how can you truly know the value of a movie before you watch it?


You clearly realize that how you spend your fees won't have any effect on the present supply of content. So why spend $10 on a show that you only value at $7?

Also, with the current system... how many of your dollars does Netflix spend on the show that you value at $7 dollars? If Netflix spends $10 or $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars then there wouldn't be any improvement to allowing you to spend your fees. If Netflix spends anything between $10 and $4 dollars on a show that you value at $7 dollars... then allowing you to spend your fees would make you worse off. But how in the world would Netflix know that you value the show at $7 dollars?

You're the only one who can truly know how much you value things. Even if you can choose how you spend your Netflix fees, and you spend $7 dollars on a show, there's no way that I can truly know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know how closely your payment matches your valuation. Only you can know the degree to which you're misleading and misinforming producers. Only you can know whether you perceive it's worth it to deceive beneficial producers to any degree.


Consumer surplus and shortage (buyer's remorse) means that the amount of money that consumers spend on things rarely accurately communicates their true valuation.

In other words, one price really does not fit all.

You can't know the value of a movie before you watch it. However, if you were to let me into the cinema in order to view a movie and charge me afterwards based on what I value the movie what do you think would happen? I would have an incentive to to understate my value.

Right, of course you'd have an incentive to understate your value. This is a problem because... honesty is the best policy?

With your netflix example, I have no incentive to state my correct value.

But what's your incentive to state your incorrect value? Clearly it doesn't allow you to spend more money on clothes or food!

Firstly my valuation if I buy a netflix subscription is almost certainly greater than $10 per month and I have absolutely zero incentive to pay more than that, so all valuations will be false firstly on that basis.

Well... yeah... there's no point in paying $10/month for Netflix if you get less than $10/month of value from Netflix. But...

It's super important to distinguish between...

1. relative accuracy (compared to other shows/movies on Netflix)
2. absolute accuracy (compared to all goods)

The amount of fees that you spent on a show would certainly be relatively accurate but it probably wouldn't be absolutely accurate.

Absolute accuracy is certainly optimal. But why do you have any confidence that the amount of money that Netflix currently spends on a show is relatively accurate? Netflix has no idea how much I truly value the show "The Sound of Your Heart". This means that Netflix has no idea how much any subscriber values this show. This means that it's virtually impossible that the amount of money that Netflix spends on this show will be anywhere close to relatively accurate.

Given that the amount of money that Netflix currently spends on specific content isn't even anywhere close to being relatively accurate... I hope you realize how absurd it is criticize my approach for its lack of absolute accuracy. Absolute accuracy is obviously the standard... but my approach is so much closer to this standard than Netflix's current approach that it's not even funny.

Secondly, some of the value I derive from a netflix subscription will be based on content I might like to watch but haven't watched. I may value the fact that I have the ability to watch it in the future or if some unforseen event occurs pushes me to watch it. How would I include those values?

Rollover fees? If you think that Netflix is going to add some super valuable content 6 months from now... then I don't see any reason why your unspent/unallocated fees can't simply rollover into the next month.

You gotta appreciate though that the amount of time it takes subscribers to spend all their fees is what Netflix would use to decide if it should increase the fees. If all the subscribers are rolling over their unspent fees... then Netflix really shouldn't increase the fees. But if subscribers aren't rolling over any unspent fees... then Netflix should really give its subscribers more fees to spend by increasing the fees.

If every subscriber spends all their $10 dollars in 3 weeks... then Netflix should increase the fees to $14/month. If every subscriber spends all their $10 dollars in 2 weeks... then Netflix should increase the fees to $20/month. If every subscriber spends all their $10 dollars in 1 week... then Netflix should increase the fees to $40/month.

And as well as all that it is really really hard for someone to decide on the exact value to them of a particular product. How would you actually go about figuring that out? It would take time and effort. Time and effort are costs. What incentive have I to undertake these costs in order to give an accurate valuation?

Once subscribers have the option to use their fees to signal the value of specific content... then they are going to see and know the value of specific content. Knowing the value of specific content will help subscribers decide which content to watch. So if you want other people to watch something, then it would behoove you to spend your fees on it. The more fees that you're willing to spend on some content, the more enthusiastic you are about other people watching it.

It's essentially crowdfunded advertising. We'd all be chipping in to help promote our favorite shows and movies.

And I don't understand your point on CS. A market in the presence of 1st degree price discrimination has the exact same supply demand and welfare, all else being equal, as one in which a single price is charged. Transferring all welfare to the producer doesn't result in a net gain, it just means that the producer is happy with the trade and the consumer is indifferent to it.

Think about Netflix subscribers spending their fees on their favorite content. In this context... what's the point of consumer surplus?

Let's consider a super simple example Netflix that only consisted of two shows...

The Sound of Your Heart
Parks and Rec

I have $10 dollars to divide between these two shows. Here's my valuation of the shows...

The Sound of Your Heart: $6
Parks and Rec: $4

My valuations are relatively accurate. How should I divide my $10 dollars between these two shows? If I spend $0 dollars on "The Sound of Your Heart"... then my consumer surplus would be $6 dollars. But then I'd spend $10 dollars on Parks and Rec... which I only value at $4 dollars. So my consumer shortage would be $6 dollars.

There's absolutely no point in trying to maximize my consumer surplus. In this context, the idea of a "deal" is entirely nonsensical. This is true regardless of how many shows and movies Netflix supplies. There would be absolutely no point in trying to get a deal. Every dollar of consumer surplus results in a dollar of consumer shortage. Therefore, honesty is the best policy. Well... relative honesty.

[Xerographica]

Ridiculous premise.
Just because I watch more of something, doesn't mean I don't actually like other things more.

A lot of my favourite shows get cancelled after a season or two, because I like shitty unpopular scifi stuff.
Meanwhile, I'm on season 5 of Arrow and season 12 of Supernatural, despite not really liking either of them very much.
I watch them because it gives me something to laugh at, there's not much else on, and I might as well see where it goes now.
So statistically, I supposedly like things I don't like more than I like my favourite shows, purely because there's more of them.

Then there's not always being in the mood to watch my favourites.
I like Wes Anderson flicks, but I need to be in the mood to watch them, so I don't watch them very often.
Meanwhile, there's a world of throwaway movies I'll check out when I'm pulling an all nighter and don't have anything else to do.
Does that mean I like that stuff better just because I've had it on more often? Of course not.

Comes down to length, quantity, availability (seriously, our Netflix selection sucks) and mood.
Not necessarily virtue signalling.

And trying to tie that to democracy somehow is entirely bonkers by itself.

1. Few people can lowly value a show
2. Many people can lowly value a show
3. Few people can highly value a show
4. Many people can highly value a show

True or false?

Netflix shouldn't cancel valuable shows.

True or false?

If Netflix subscribers could spend their fees on their favorite shows, then Netflix would know the value of its shows.

True or false?

[Galloism]

But what's your incentive to state your incorrect value? Clearly it doesn't allow you to spend more money on clothes or food!

I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.

Some guy told me that was important.

[Xerographica]

But what's your incentive to state your incorrect value? Clearly it doesn't allow you to spend more money on clothes or food!

I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.

Some guy told me that was important.

You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.

You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.

It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.

[Lady Scylla]

I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.

Some guy told me that was important.

You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.

You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.

It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.

Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite. Or intentionally adopt a policy that said X is complete and utter shit, even if I may like it just for the sake of ruining it for said person.

[Xerographica]

You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.

You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.

It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.

Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite.

You're going to downvote a show that lots of people spent lots of their fees on?

[Lady Scylla]

Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite.

You're going to downvote a show that lots of people spent lots of their fees on?

Yes.

[Galloism]

I'm not sure what the incentive is to state any value or bother with it at all or even waste 5 seconds time on it. There's no personal gain or personal sacrifice in doing so.

Some guy told me that was important.

You'd spend your fees to help people decide which content to consume. You'd spend your fees to help Netflix and other producers decide which shows to continue rather than cancel.

You'd spend your fees to positively reinforce beneficial behavior. You'd spend your fees to empower the most beneficial creators.

It's called specific and substantial civic engagement. Of course it would be entirely optional.

None of which involves any personal gain or any personal sacrifice (other than time, which you already said was insufficient).

I was told that it was sacrifice that makes the allocation insightful and valuable. Some guy keeps telling me so. You ever met him? His name is Xerographica.

[The Holy Therns]

Netflix gets shows based on contracts. Often times when things get pulled, it wasn't Netflix's fault but the people that actually own the show. Secondly, as pointed out before, I couldn't care less what you want me to watch. If someone walked up to me and was like 'you should watch this' -- I'd tell them to go fuck themselves with a cactus. Do this enough times and I might just downvote something out of pure spite.

You're going to downvote a show that lots of people spent lots of their fees on?

Probably.

[Xerographica]

You're going to downvote a show that lots of people spent lots of their fees on?

Yes.

Let's say that people could choose where their taxes go. If lots of people spent a lot of taxes on public healthcare, would you vote against the government supplying healthcare?

[Lady Scylla]

Yes.

Let's say that people could choose where their taxes go. If lots of people spent a lot of taxes on public healthcare, would you vote against the government supplying healthcare?

If they could do that without telling me where I should stick it, then no. Otherwise, yes. I'm a spiteful person, irritating me is never a good idea.

[Xerographica]

Let's say that people could choose where their taxes go. If lots of people spent a lot of taxes on public healthcare, would you vote against the government supplying healthcare?

If they could do that without telling me where I should stick it, then no. Otherwise, yes. I'm a spiteful person, irritating me is never a good idea.

I honestly don't quite understand how you could get irritated if lots of people spend lots of their fees on a show. Unless it was a show that you really didn't like.

I'm sure pacifists would get irritated if lots of taxpayers spent a lot of taxes on national defense/offense.