I don’t care if it is digital or not. It’s the principle of the matter. It’s an unpopular opinion, but I think it’s hypocritical to consume the product yet announce you are boycotting the producer.

If we learned a politician was commenting on boycotting something, and then consuming it in secret, it would be pointed out. There is a disconnect there.

The other way the food analogy breaks down is in how food is essential, and entertainment from Disney is not.

[–] modular950@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

however, when it comes to sailing seas, you share product without it taking any from your own pool in a way that causes it to ever leave your pool. so, then one consumption can split into two consumptions, both able to continue existing and being consumed, while further multiplying more. the first consumer could be the last direct consumer from the boycotted producer, while future consumers can still benefit from or otherwise put to use the product provided something back to us.

in my opinion, this concept of eternal growth and multiplying without being forced by laws of reality for the original sources to ever diminish, makes this different than other scenarios like keeping a second-hand market interest in something while boycotting the main source / producer.

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I do take labeling it as akin to a second hand market compelling. That aligns with my views, I think. I dunno, I think I mostly find the discourse very misguided these days. I’ve become really sensitive to people taking in such cavalier ways about media piracy.

I’m not alone in feeling this way, but on lemmy, and maybe elsewhere, I’m in a small minority.

[–] modular950@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

all fair! in my opinion, principles or underlying concepts that make lemmy desirable to a large set of its users are shared with something like "piracy" as a whole. though, arguably there are different offenses of pirating things. for example, things like books and other knowledge resources can be justified easier in some ways than something like that a "today's hot comedy" series. all to say, that'd be my thoughts on why digital shared ownership is likely a commonly accepted thing here.

sort of apart from the original "boycott" point, there's also this layer of Big involved in how much of our available content is stored / accessed / mediated. on the seas, you're resulting moreso in boycotting that Big layer that likely has their stinky mits too far and too deep for what they can really deserve credit for anyway. other methods could be used to support the direct producer of content, if intended, while continuing to boycott the Big that enforces and forces itself between due to convenience, research, pull, etc.

you're not alone in this angle or feeling this way, for sure. as it should be! we're also splitting it at a fairly high-above-ground generalized view, and could both very well be imagining example cases supporting our mindset that happen to live far apart on the spectrum of what this can be pertaining to. there's room to be against it, in favor of it, or anywhere in between based on contexts. I don't know why I'm rambling. thanks for responding with more input! lol :)