It doesn't require it, but even if some people are doing it on the paid plan - ignoring for the moment that the argument is asinine because this is a fixed recurring payment, not pay-per-use - why do you care? Some people have fun and it involves paying other people; if you're neither, it's still none of your business.
Why so defensive? I never stated any such opinion on it. I just pointed out the fact that it's not some sort of anti-capitalist activity that doesn't involve monetary transactions - billionaires are actively getting richer out of this.
> I just pointed out the fact that it's not some sort of anti-capitalist activity that doesn't involve monetary transactions
Nobody wants or cares about it being anti-capitalistic. It's just free snacks or up-front pay for an all-you-can-eat buffet. Yes, somebody pays for this, but no, this is not in scope or relevant for people enjoying the meal.
> billionaires are actively getting richer out of this.
As they should. Yes, we know they are, and it's fine. That is just the fundamental of market economy: someone earns money by providing useful goods or services. It's not a problem in itself, and neither is the fact that there may be a billionaire involved.
Getting wound up about billionaires specifically is a shtick of people who want to sell your eyeballs to advertisers, and/or sell you their ideology. The former is a cancer on modern society. The latter is even worse.
(Yes, there is growing income inequality, unfair concentration of wealth and power, and such. But putting it all on "billionaires" - the modern witches and demons - is just a trick that conveniently redirects any blame from people, organizations and systems contributing most to the core problem.)
