Extortion as a business model

What do you mean where have I been? Busy. I have a life you know...what? Why are you laughing? Oh, wait, I see it. You've read previous entries on my blog and can't square that with my indignant insistence that I have a life. Irony. 

Pictured: like, the three hundredth post about Star Trek.

"Capitalism? Flawed? How dare you sir!"

-some rich

Anyway, carrying on from last week where I made an observation which I'm sure no one in the history of making observations had ever made before--that capitalism may be, in some ways, flawed--I'd like to talk about YouTube. You know, that thing you can watch videos on for free assuming that you're willing to put up with advertisements. Advertisements which count down to when you can skip them begging the question: why are you having to sit through them in the first place?

Above: Content...and, incidentally, a
grim window into my search algorithm. 

Capitalism, that's why. It seems to be the answer to all the worst questions. Thanks Milton Friedman...But savvy internet users know that you can pay YouTube to remove the ads. I don't do that of course, it's dumb and only plays into their hands. I make it a point to look away or tune the ads out. Yes, I know it's how ugh...I hate this term: content creators, make money, but the algorithm or whatever doesn't know if I actually watch the ads, so win/win, right? Anyway, I bring all this up because I just read this thing about how they've raised the price of the family plan.

"Enjoy some goddamn content!"

-YouTube

Which doesn't affect me at all, because like I said, I don't pay for YouTube and even if I did, I'm a childless shut-in three cats and a pair of crocs away from giving up entirely, and it's only the family plan that's getting the price hike, so what do I care? I don't. I just saw this article and was reminded that there is such a thing as paid YouTube subscriptions and I now want to talk about the insane corporate thought process behind it. Like, they're essentially extorting subscribers, right?

I always skip the ads before I become
invested in toilet car person's plight,
but I do hope it works out for them.

Ok, extortion is a strong word, you don't have to watch YouTube. But their business model is "endure this forty-five second ad for an ulcerative colitis ad or pay us $11.99 per month." The assumption being that ads are terrible and we (YouTube) know they're terrible but we just put them there so you'll want to pay us to take them out. It would be like Kia including a vuvuzela recording that plays while you drive and can't be shut off unless you subscribe to Kia Premium or something. 

And fine, I get that YouTube, like most successful companies now, doesn't actually produce anything and in order to keep the lights on they have to generate revenue somehow and ads are that somehow. I just thinks it's bizarre that it's both in the running of ads and the not running of ads that they make their money.

"Rather than ask subscribers to pay to opt out of ads when they watch videos,
on You Tube, I propose we take the videos and the ads out of the equation
entirely. Let's just bill people. It's called thinking outside of the box."

-some YouTube exec

Breaking News: Commerce is kinda gross.

Hey, do you know what's not news? Huh? Yeah, actually, the pumpkin contest thing from the other day was not news. I'm glad you're with me on that. But do you know what else isn't news? Amazon having a sale.

This just in: a company that sells things is selling things
for slightly less money in the hope that you'll buy more things.

"Give it a rest, not everything's a scoop."

-Some reporter

And yet a simple internet search of the words Prime Day yields a list of articles from news sites falling over one another to tell us all about the best savings and deals and it's gross right? Like, I get that we're past any sense of, uh, what do you call it? You know, that thing that reporters used to have back when the object was to report on things that happened and not sell us shit? Ah! Got it: journalistic integrity. We're past journalistic integrity, as a thing. Which I find troubling. Not in a "back in my day" news sources had standards, but in a--wait, I think they might have?

I don't know. The shift from reporting on news and shilling happened so gradually, I'm not sure I can put my finger on when the changeover happened, but it did. I mean look at this:

Pictured: not news. At best it's free advertising. At least I think it's free?
Wait, does Amazon own CNN? Or maybe a company that owns a company that
owns CNN? Wow...end stage capitalism is a hell of thing, isn't it?

I mean, basically, right?

The piece above doesn't even have that little "sponsored" disclaimer. Just a line of fine print at the top explaining that:

"Content is created by CNN Underscored's team of editors who work independently from he CNN newsroom. When you buy links through our site, we may earn commission. Learn more."

-CNN's legal department's Fig Leaf division

"Must...buy more...fulfillment..."

-Some consumer

Learn more? Ok. If you click on the link it takes you to an explanation of CNN Underscored: "an online shopping and product review guide covering deals, tech, style...and more. We research and test to find the best products and deals so you can live a smarter, simpler, and more fulfilling life." And--wait, a more fulfilling life? Through shopping? That's bleak, right? Like, it's not just me? Anyway, they go on to say that the Underscored Team works with editorial independence. And gets commissions.

Wait, people like money, don't they?

So they're editorially independent from CNN, but also get money from the manufacturers whose products they review every time you buy one. And look, I'm not a business person, but if I follow, they make money when we buy the things they review. And if they review things positively, we might be more likely to buy them. So if they write more reviews, then the Underscored team makes more money. But we can totally trust their impartiality, right? Because journalistic integrity. God, why am I so cynical?

Oh, right, observation. Look, I'm not picking on CNN. A lot of news sites are running similar "articles" about Prime Day and presenting them as consumer guides and reviews while at the same time accepting money for--what? Why are you laughing at me? Is this--what's that? Going on for years you say? Journalism is dead and these are just the corpses of news sites being operated by corporate interests like that fungus that turns ants into zombies? 

"C'mon, zombie brain fungus is a little harsh don't
you think? I prefer to think of it as synergy."

-some guy

A grower and a shower.

"So wait, it just sits there?"

-some jerk (me)

Look, I don't want to rain on anyone's, uh, gourd festival and I get that I'm just being a huge jerk here, but I mean, the pumpkin does most of the work, right? I'm referring, of course, to yesterday's Safeway World Championship Pumpkin Weigh-off in Half Moon Bay, California, which is only an hour away for me and I can't believe no one told me about it. Anyway, according to this NPR article, the winner was Travis Gienger, horticulture teacher from Anoka Minnesota and, you know, congratulations. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving, uh, person who's pumpkin grew to be a remarkable size. 

Skills like owning at pumpkin
patch and...uh, patience?

I'm the worst, I know. There probably is some kind of skill involved in growing unusually large pumpkins, even if that skill absolutely eludes people like me who see articles generously described as news online and then writes sarcastic blog posts about them. But still, I have questions. For one, what would motivate someone to grow and then haul a twenty-five hundred pound pumpkin more than two thousand miles to Half Moon Bay. A trip of around thirty hours. Huh? Ok, fine, it's obviously the glory.

Tens of pumpkin weigh off
enthusiasts apparently think it is.

But it kind of seems like you'd have to know how much it weighed to begin with, right? Like before you load it onto the flatbed or whatever, you'd want to know how much it weighed, so can't they just, you know, tell the Safeway World Championship Pumpkin Weigh-off committee or whatever regulatory body governs pumpkin-related world records? It just seems like it'd save on gas, you know? And if cheating is a concern, it kind of seems like it'd be easier just to fly a judge out to Anoka to confirm the results right? I guess it's less fun that way. Wait, is it fun?

And yes, it's come to this. After twelve years of this blog, I'm down to ragging on pumpkin contests, but I mean, I'm not wrong, am I? Sure, Travis Grienger planted and watered it or whatever, but otherwise the pumpkin did the growing. It just seems like gambling or the stock market. Sure, people who do it have to have some knowhow but at some point it's down to dumb luck. But then, this is Grienger's second win, so what do I know?

What? I just don't think using money to make other money is an achievement.
More like a serious flaw in out civilization's economic system.

I'm not proud of it, but they had me at Moriarty.

I'm not sure what bothers me more: the lazy nostalgia grab of deep cut references or the fact that I am 100% there for it. What am I talking about? Why this of course:

Pictured: Jean-Luc Picard about to tuck in to his breaded cod and chips
only to be interrupted by the call to adventure in the Picard Season 3 trailer.
Not pictured: the part where he looks around wearily and mutters "I'm too
 old for this merde." Before answering the aforementioned call to adventure.

The internet: 20% fans weighing in 
on trailers they watched on Youtube, 25%
 unfocused rage. The rest is just ads.

Surely you didn't think I was not going to have opinions about the Picard season 3 trailer, because I do and as per usual, please take this opportunity to ask yourself, I mean, really ask yourself if you're prepared to fall down this nerd-hole with me. If you're not, or are but would rather not discuss spoilers, I suggest you bail out now. Still with me? Cool. Did you watch it? No? Well going on, think of it as required reading. I'll wait. Back? Super. Now I think you'll join me in saying: "what the actual?"

Pfft...something new. Screw that.
Give me more crossovers.

Recently Star Trek, like as a thing, has been kind of about eating itself. The newer entries in the--and I hate this word--franchise, have relied very heavily on references to earlier incarnations. Which, I mean, sure, that's what being a--ugghh--franchise is all about. It has to build on previous installments. Everyone loves franchises. Why would anyone want to watch something new or original when they can consume additional entries in a single, interconnected narrative universe? But the degree to which Star Trek shows do this fluctuates pretty wildly. 

There's also The Orville which is basically
Star Trek with the serial numbers filed off
and more Seth MacFarlane jokes.

Discovery is probably the most out there in terms of departing from the source material while Strange New Worlds feels the most like a twenty-twenties version of the original series. Lower Decks relies fairly heavily on lore and references, but gets away with it because it's played for laughs, while Picard is...well it's for the fans. Which is a nice way of saying both seasons started really strong and then kind of devolved into something only the people who read Memory Alpha could love.

Fine, me, but the Enterprise-F
was in it. I mean, I'm only human...

So me. And this trailer for the new season definitely feels like the writers are inserting some kind of long, hollow, metal tube into my skull, hoping to extract subscription fees directly from my nostalgia gland. From go, the trailer definitely gives me J.J. Abrams Trek movie vibes: quippy dialogue, sinister-looking starships emerging from dark and foreboding space clouds, a mysterious voice talking about vengeance. There're plenty of pew-pews and exploding corridors and blink-and-you'll miss it moments for nerds to scrub and pause through and the--huh? No. Not me. Other nerds...not me.

Twisted, cunning, and in the public domain,
Moriarty is truly a force to be reckoned with.
Unless of course, you turn off the holodeck.

And three villains? Three. There's the aforementioned vengeance stan (the kids still say "stan" right?) played by Amanda Plumber. Lore, because of course Brent Spiner is in it, but not playing Data. And professor goddamn Moriarty--who, I mean...deep cut, right? Even casual Trekkies are probably aware of Lore and even if they're not, "he's Data's evil twin brother" is pretty easy to grasp. But a sentient hologram based on Professor Moriarty? He was created by the holodeck when someone asked for an adversary capable of defeating Data's android intellect, but that's some serious "last time on Star Trek" stuff right there. 

"Hm...needs more social commentary couched
in sci-fi tropes. And maybe some more Ferengi?"

Except the target audience--again, me--doesn't need a "last time on." And I'm not sure that's a good thing for either of us. From a writing perspective, it's kind of lazy. Just take a bunch of episodes of the TV series, shove a stick blender in there and come up with a nostalgia smoothie. And as the nerd in this equation, I'm just drinking another ten hours of that smoothie. Which is, you know, probably full of sugar and--ok, the analogy falls apart here, but I think you get my point. Of course there's the other side of this argument which is, who cares?

Sure, maybe it won't bring anything new to the table and will just rehash stories and ideas we've already seen a dozen times over. Fine. And maybe it will pit the crew against another rando bent on revenge against the Federation for murky, illogical reasons. Whatever. If Micheal Dorn is willing to sit through five hours of latex forehead application to bring back Worf one more time, I'm going to watch it, damnit. 

Wait, again? This is like the fourth time the final voyage has begun.

You'll be hearing from my space lawyer...

The other day, Raw TV, a London-based production company, came by the bookstore in which I work to do an interview with the owner about how Amazon is a cancer on the industry and ruining everything. Or something like that, I'm paraphrasing. Anyway, they asked us to print out and then post this notice on the entrance:

You're trying to read it aren't you? Well stop squinting.
I'll tell explain the part that gave me pause.

Is this how Fred Astaire ended
up in that vacuum cleaner ad?

It's, I understand, a fairly common legal notice designed to cover the asses of the production crew should someone take issue with being in the background of B-roll or whatever. And I have questions. First, are they even serious with this? Like, that's my hand in the frame for scale. and the font is, I don't know, eleven point? All caps sure, but I make it a point to ignore things written in all caps. And it's not exactly eye-catching. One might quite easily breeze past the door without examining every piece of all caps paper scotch taped to it and in doing so have waved all rights to the use of their image. 

Have you very stopped to read a Prop 65 warning? No, me neither. In fact, I suspect no one has. Ever. And they're about cancer, so why would we stop for this? 

Um...if something at Starbucks or whatever causes cancer maybe
get rid of it instead of just posting a sign with the vague warning
that something, somewhere is slowly killing us?

Hers's some of the language in this iron-clad contract everyone who's ever walked past it is now bound to forever:

"Fool! There's no escaping our lawyers."

-A Raw TV spokesperson

"By entering this area, you hereby irrevocably consent to the use of your photograph, image, voice, and likeness in the production, and in promotion thereof, in any and all media, throughout the universe, in perpetuity, without payment."

-some piece of paper you 

may have walked by once

The universe itself will one day run out of
thermodynamic energy and simply grind to a
halt, but this document will still be in effect.

Does this really work? Can any rando type up any nonsense they want, throw in some hereby's and therefore's, and expect it to hold up in court? Every court? Throughout the universe in perpetuity? Do they mean to tell me that if I walk past their cameras, my image belongs to them in all media, even on other planets? Other galaxies? What about The Lesser Magellanic Cloud? Does this proclamation hold water there? And what about other universes? Did they even factor the multiverse into this? 

We live in a country where "well regulated militia" can be interpreted to mean any asshole with access to a Cabela's, and where decades of legal precedent can be thrown out the window because a gameshow host most of us didn't vote for lucked into/straight up stole three Supreme Court seats, but this gibberish that I printed out and taped to the door has the full force of law through all time and space? 

"I rule in favor of the paper. Perhaps in the future, the plaintiff will be more careful
about what nondescript, difficult to read notices they happen walk past."

-Some Judge

No really, what's with the eyes?

Are uh...are we just not, as a civilization I mean, going to talk about this Happy Meal for adults thing? Specifically the figurines? Because:

"Four eyes, why do they have--what the actual...what?"

-Everyone, like actually everyone

"It's ok, I don't literally hyper-understand
what the hell I'm talking about either."

-Hassan

Happy Meals for adults are, at least according to the company, an attempt to cash in on nostalgia. Nostalgia for Happy Meals, which, I don't have, do you? Whatever. Here's a statement from the company on why they've done this thing:

"We're taking one of the most nostalgic McDonald's experiences and literally repackaging it in a new way that's hyper-relevant to our adult fans."

-Tariq Hassan, McDonald's Chief Marketing

executive in charge of befuddling statements

"Hey kids, like Go-Bots? Here's a shittier
version of one with your six-piece McNugget."

-McDonald's, circa 1988

The boxes, which are more properly and ludicrously called: Cactus Plant Flea Market boxes and--huh?--Yeah, I know, maybe they're collectively having a stroke or something? Who can say? They're somehow a marketing tie-in with a street wear clothing company--I don't know, clothes to wear on the street?--called Cactus Plant Flea Market which is some hipster nonsense I've never heard of, but then I am an out of touch shut-in. If I had then maybe I'd get the nostalgia angle. My hazy memories of Happy Meal toys were that they were based on, yet were vastly inferior version of, toys I was already into. 

Reagan, seen here signing one of the many
 bills that continue to ruin lives to this day.

And look, I don't want to tell them how to exploit nostalgia, but the appeal wasn't any toy packed in with the meal, it was a familiar toy. A toy kids actually wanted. Back in the 1980's President Reagan killed any attempts at regulating advertisements aimed at children. Because there's no sating the beast that is unfettered capitalism, fast food restaurants who owed their existences to parents too exhausted after work to cook, quickly started having weird, synergistic business sex with toy manufacturers and the Happy Meal prize was born.

What I'm saying is that this is crass consumerism at its worse, but if you're going to do it, do it right. Put Skeletor or Megatron in these things and not these bizarre, Lovecraftian nightmare versions of McDonald's corporate mascots.

Pictured: A horrifying tower comprised of Grimace, Birdie, The Hamburger
and Shoggoth, an unknowable, shapeless horror for the depths of space whose
very appearance is enough to drive one into insanity. Collect all four!

Terminator? Who said Terminator?

It's like those size comparison videos
that remind us all how insignificant we are
and how we need to close IRS loopholes
and slap some windfall taxes on the Sun.

To be clear, my, whatever, my issue with Elon Musk isn't about him as a person. I mean, maybe it would be if I knew him, but I don't. My issue is with him as the world's richest human. And while I get that no matter what there will always be someone that has more money than everybody else, for me it's an issue of scale. Like, a quick and lazy quarry of the internet tells me that the median net worth for Americans is worth something like a hundred and twenty thousand. Musk is worth two hundred and forty-nine billion. Dollars. Of money. With a "B." 

And that, in my most humble, mere, non-billionaire opinion is ridiculous. It's too much and I think it's probably criminal, or at least should be. But whether the problem is with the system or the person who takes advantage of the system is another question.

"Why can't it be both?"

-Some billionaire

Pictured: Elon Musk's latest invention.
And by "invention" I mean project he green
 lit between selfies with election deniers.

But why am I even on about this? Because robots. Because the headline right now is that Elon Musk has unveiled humanoid robot called Optimus. Ok, fine, Tesla unveiled it, but they're talking to Musk like he was tinkering in his lab someone and eureka'd up C-3PO. Is he even an engineer? I guess I always thought he was an investor. You know, a person who starts with money and uses it to make even more money and then we all talk about them like they're some kind of genius but really they're just really good at being rich.

"You keep his name out of your mouth!
Also marketing materials..."

Bitter? Sure I am, but more like bitter on behalf of everyone who works in exchange for money and no, I don't consider playing the market or whatever it is ka-jillionaires do work. It is, at best, gambling. But back to the damn robot. Optimus, yeah, Optimus--and incidentally, how dare they name it after my generation's surrogate sentient space truck dad--isn't I gather more advanced than other humanoid robots. Evidently what makes this one newsworthy is Musk's name attached to it. 

"Come get your products and services!"

-Some Endoskeleton

Terminator? Who said Terminator? Well, Musk did: 

"This [the robot] means a future of abundance; a future where there is no poverty, a future where you can have what you want in terms of products and services....We always want to be careful we don't go down the Terminator path..."

-Elon Musk assuaging fears 

we didn't have, until now

But what does it do? Good question. So far it just sort of lurches around stage at unveilings, but Musk promises that it "really is a fundamental transformation of civilization as we know it." Cool. But since he recently threw a tantrum at paying taxes in California so pulled up stakes and moved Tesla to Texas, I'm a little suspicious that the company's engineers are helping to build their own replacements. 

"Good work everybody, thank you. Now go clean out your desks."

-Musk, in about fourteen months I suspect