What you described is the same as cancelling because it’s too expensive, you’re just describing the value side of the equation.

Yeah, it's too expensive because the _service_ is too poor. If the service was good, it would be a fair price.

… if it was offered for the same price as the current service.

	▲	simianparrot 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		No? I would be willing to pay more if it actually had things I wanted to watch. Right now it's technically cheap enough where it's not painful when it lapses for months where I don't use it, but it's still a waste of money so I finally cancelled it about half a year ago. I'd be willing to pay a lot more if it had and retained a sizeable library. But it keeps rotating in nuggets of gold with a deluge of cheap trash. At least in Norway, I am aware it varies wildly by region. Not my problem as the customer, that's theirs to solve.

the_af 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's one way of framing it (pro provider). A pro consumer way of framing it is that it's a service problem.

Since I'm a consumer, not a provider, I side with consumers.

Streaming sucks today -- I should know, I'm subscribed to most platforms.

Really voting with your wallet there.

Anyway I’m not taking platforms side just stating that “I don’t get enough value” and “it is too expensive” are the same thing.

	▲	the_af 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Really voting with your wallet there. Sadly, you're right. But it's a Catch-22 here, if I pirated everything people would accuse me of being part of the problem, etc. I enjoy the moral high ground of paying for everything yet still supporting piracy (with caveats, and not for everything): it makes my position unassailable. And I disagree with your last statement, as I said it's a framing issue and framing matters. I'm pro consumer, and therefore, it's not the same thing .