Well my point is they wouldn't be subscribed to all the services. They'd pick one. You wanna watch "Show A". None of these platforms are allowed to have exclusivity rights to it. So do you choose Netflix? Hulu? Amazon? It's up to you, since you don't have to choose only the one that has it. Now your decision to give money to Netflix, for example, is based on the fact that the service they're providing--UI, ease of access, streaming speed--instead of them being the only ones who have "Show A"
I don't think it's quite that simple, though I suspect there is a grain of truth to it, that apolitical or less emotional music is manipulated out of popular and financial success. Mostly, though, I think it's just the nature of reaching wide audiences. The "blander" (here meaning simply not particularly heavy on any subject matter) something is, the fewer people will be put off by what it has to say. If all there is to a song is just enjoying the piece of music for entertainment, there are simply more people who would appreciate that over, say, black metal, that is designed to evoke certain specific strong emotions
I also suspect that your premise is not so much flawed, but a disingenuous oversimplification, and that popular music probably involves heavier and "angrier" themes then you are giving it credit for. Or maybe you're right entirely. I couldn't name a single Taylor Swift song. I'm a metalhead, and whenever I go outside that comfort zone, it's never to pop music. I look for artistry in music, and the top 100 don't guarantee artistry, only sales, which if you wanna get into, is a whole lot of conspiring, just not political
Sales as a measure of success is entirely flawed in a capitalist society well after the invention of the field of psychology. When you know how to manipulate people, you can manipulate populations into buying shitty music. If you have the money, you can pay for advertising, which will make your artist seem more popular than they are, and then give you even more money to pump into yet more advertisement. It is certainly political, but not in a "we can't have people having revolutionary thoughts" way, just in a "capitalism must perpetuate itself" way
lmao AI is going to be used by the capitalists to, well, not end humanity, but certainly to make capitalism better at taking your money. Capitalism will be what ends humanity
Now ideally, AI is supposed to do away with capitalism, lead us to that full automation where we are free to enjoy orgies and wine like the Greeks of old had always hoped, but capitalists are tenacious and shrewd, and will devour, co-opt, and vomit back anything used against it like so many Che Guevara shirts in a Hot Topic. As long as AI is held by the rich--as long as anything is held by the rich and made to be paid for, requiring either your money or your time, the rich will always have more of it, and they will then use it against you
If you want AI to benefit humanity, you have to do away with capitalism first. You have to put in place a system that allows for people to not only survive, but truly live, despite all the jobs taken by automation. Capitalists don't want this. They need poor people to exist in order to have power, and they use the power they already have to maintain capitalism, including AI
You can use technology in the best interest of mankind, but capitalism will always use it to benefit capitalism
Theoretically, having multiple streaming platforms should be good, as it prevents a monopoly. Problem is, they all have monopolies, on specific shows. Choosing the streaming services you want isn't about choosing the better product, but on which shows you have. All streaming shows should have all shows available. That's the only way to properly decide which service is worth paying for
I'm an atheist, formerly a devout catholic. I shifted away from it as I was realizing how little sense it made, and eventually, much later into my atheism, I realized that my need for God was specifically to feel like the kids who bullied me were gonna go to hell, and that my suffering would be rewarded. It was very eye-opening about why people might seek out religion, but I'm already digressing
It's comforting to know that no one is judging me for my mistakes, that I'm allowed to try and fail. It's also comforting to know that there IS an end, that I don't have to worry about what comes after it. It allows me to live life thinking about the things that matter, the people here on earth, my body, the planet itself, whether or not my single measly life will actually feel fulfilled. It leads me to seek and desire actual happiness instead of delusional wish-fulfillment. I don't want false hope; I want real happiness that isn't informed by a need to cope. Shit's hard enough without a judgemental abusive father figure threatening to set me on fire if I don't worship him the right way
See, I'm a nature lover. I love animals, and tress, and the beautiful magnificence of this earthly space. There is beauty in the shining sun, and the songs of birds, and in a grizzly way, even in the cycles of life and death. There is a grotesque beauty in shear chaos of reality, even when it sucks to live through. Christianity, at least contemporaneously, feels like such a strict divide between the earthly and the divine. The words profane, arcane, and mundane are all connected, mundane, meaning "of this earth" and arcane meaning of "heaven". The profane and arcane are explicitly separated from the natural world in a way that just disgusts me. Through thousands of years of dogma and mutable mythology, the implication of ourselves as earthly, strictly separated from the divine is borderline insulting. We are explicitly called filthy and dirty and lesser, below the arcane, and then demanded to worship by threat of being thrust even lower, into the profane, by a God who swears he's too good for us. Fuck him
God reminds me of my abusive father. He says he loves you, unconditionally, but you have to worship him, else you go to hell. He's the best at everything, knows everything, yet doesn't have the foresight he forces you believe he has to maybe just put the tree of Eden in an inaccessible place, and then when something goes wrong because of his failings, he blames his children, and then punishes their children for mistakes they never committed. God is a narcissist, and in seeing that, I have learned how to escape from the abusive men in my life
(And just a disclaimer here that I understand people will interpret god differently. Someone else may have an entirely different perception of God, but if you're gonna tell me I'm misinterpreting him, someone from one of the countless other sects of that religion will say the same of you)
Yes, but you could tell they weren't real. They still needed real voice actors, real sound design, studios and stages and resources. Anyone with a halfway decent rig can fake shit to a very believable degree. Even with CGI you swear is fantastic, you see its fakeness once the novelty wears off
Well my point is they wouldn't be subscribed to all the services. They'd pick one. You wanna watch "Show A". None of these platforms are allowed to have exclusivity rights to it. So do you choose Netflix? Hulu? Amazon? It's up to you, since you don't have to choose only the one that has it. Now your decision to give money to Netflix, for example, is based on the fact that the service they're providing--UI, ease of access, streaming speed--instead of them being the only ones who have "Show A"