#digital atrophy

[saintlouiscries-blog]

I am sick with some sort of flu, and so I hope my logic comes through, and that my writing is not as shoddy as I imagine it probably will be.  It occurs to me now the genius of Netflix's "no late fees" policy.  Of course, I am quite a few years too late, but consider it this way: The policy to do away with late fees is based on the assumption that what people want--things that are easy, convenient, and comfortable--are what they should have, and, even more, that they are things that will make them happier.  However, this is not usually the case.  In truth, the inverse is much more often true.

The policy advertised the ability to keep a movie as long as you like.  What we must remember, though, is that for every day you keep that movie, you are losing time watching other movies.  The best part about a late fee is that it got you to watch the damn movie, instead of sitting around waiting for the "perfect mood" to come along.  This elusive "perfect mood" might not arrive for weeks, maybe even months.  And meanwhile, you're paying to keep that disc sitting there.

This leads to far less movie watching, that's the most obvious outcome.  But on top of that, it's a scam.  You don't have to leave your house--that makes it easy--and you could watch the movie anytime you want--that makes it comfortable and convenient--but does that enhance your enjoyment whatsoever?  The answer is likely no.  But you're paying for those added benefits, which are really just detractors in disguise.

What I'm sure you're thinking now is, "Now instant view is on Netflix!  Who cares?"  But my only concern about that is, most people I know who use instant view don't actually use the "Instant Only" plan, but instead just let their discs collect dust while continuing to pay between $10-20 a month.  Netflix's profits have likely only risen since the instant view feature has been introduced for that exact reason.

The other question I'm sure you've got on your mind is, "Why do you whine so much about Netflix?"  My answer is simply, "I don't know."  Probably because I miss video stores.  A lot.  I'd make the promise that I'm going to stop, but I'm pretty sure I'll break it.  I'm sorry.  What I can say with some degree of certainty is that ease, convenience, and comfort are likely the downfall of our collective culture.  That is, unless we start imposing rules upon ourselves to correct their destructive attributes, which I predict will start happening in the next five years... That is, unless the dismal crumbs of hope in the human race I have left are giving us all way too much credit.

[saintlouiscries-blog]

Just now, I was thinking about recommending a movie to my friend.  I predicted his response: "Is it on instant view?"  This is a reflection of the unfortunate truth that, to many, quality is overruled by convenience.  An idea occurred to me: is it possible, then, that there could be sneaky means of censorship lurking in the private, convenience-based media intake programs?  Of course, this isn't censorship in that it isn't the banning of certain information, but rather in the act of convincing someone that she/he doesn't want that information in the first place.  If you get someone addicted to information at a certain pace, with a certain immediacy, that person is unlikely to accept any slower form of delivery.

Hence, in recent months, I've heard an increasing number of people saying that the instant view portion of Netflix is the only portion of the site that they use.  This suggests that convenience not only trumps quality, but entirely dictates one's media intake, at least insofar as movies are concerned.  However, the same idea may play out with other forms of media on other services. (One must also acknowledge that saturation can conversely apply under the same set of digital circumstances.)

Consider this hypothetical premise: a third party pays Netflix a large sum (larger than they would otherwise get) to keep movies dealing with a certain idea, or produced by certain individuals, off of instant view.  Now, movies dealing with those ideas are not banned from view, but simply made inconvenient.  That means that the majority of subscribers to the most popular movie rental program in the U.S. are now not going to see those movies, and thus not going to get whatever information they have in store.

Of course, this is not a rallying cry; it is an idea, a concept.  I am not certain about these insights, nor the appropriateness of this venue.  However, I felt the need to write it down.  So there.