Your reference to shoplifting is so knee jerk and tired it fails to even apply to this instance
If you read it again you'll see the person paid for the product and then the product they paid for was kept from them
Same thing happened to me, I tried to rent a film on touyube but the stream consistently erred after 2s of low quality viewing.. what really bugged me was I could watch any trending video on the free service without issue on any quality setting but the movie I paid for lacked the same supply attention and was buggy for the entire rental window
Who's going to go after googs for the 6$ I spent trying to watch a movie but an error on touyube stopped me from having the access I paid for?
How is it high ground to withhold sympathy when it is a mega corps stealing from a user?
It really seems to me that the knee-jerk reaction here is the one against the shoplifting analogy. All analogies are approximations; you're meant to focus on the similarities instead of the differences. If you're choosing to focus on the differences, than you're choosing to misunderstand. Why would you do that?
p.s. If you read it again, you'll see that the person asked for a refund. It's somewhat unclear at this point whether that refund was granted, but my interpretation is that they did.
Shoplifting is when someone buys something, then has it withheld from them, then get a refund, then access that product from someone else offering to share it with them?
I guess I was trying to move the conversation away from what I see as a flawed analogy to what I think is technically interesting, and that I have first hand experience with, in that the companies offering paid services fail to support them to the same standard as their free services
For the record the phone time seeking the refund, for me, lacked an appropriate roi so i am out the money and was stunted from exposing myself to the media.. media which the creator and distributor trusted goog with making available to me
There are so many interesting subtleties it's frustrating to bury the conversation in a flawed analogy
To be an issue of entitlement the person would have to say something that sets them apart, akin to: it's ok for me to pirate but for everyone else its bad;
Whereas the gp was just describing their process without applying any opinion on the ethics of others doing the same
an excuse is just an excuse, the special treatment is what makes it entitled
Have you ever pirated anything? If you have then your position would make you the entitled one because you are claiming it is wrong for this person to pirate though you have done so yourself
Why offer your opinion with lazy pithy statements and attempts to compartmentalise complex ideas into a single word?
It reads so demonstrative and finite as if these issues lack any capacity for dialogue
I think your perspective is important to this conversation but I'm unable to access it due to how you are presenting it
Nah. Entitlement is the belief that one is due something unconditionally. Its ego at heart; an entitled person probably has no opinion on what is due others.
Then the confusion arises from you applying your own unique definition stead the one agreed upon by the publically accessible literature chronicling the definitions of words
If you read it again you'll see the person paid for the product and then the product they paid for was kept from them
Same thing happened to me, I tried to rent a film on touyube but the stream consistently erred after 2s of low quality viewing.. what really bugged me was I could watch any trending video on the free service without issue on any quality setting but the movie I paid for lacked the same supply attention and was buggy for the entire rental window
Who's going to go after googs for the 6$ I spent trying to watch a movie but an error on touyube stopped me from having the access I paid for?
How is it high ground to withhold sympathy when it is a mega corps stealing from a user?