Twitch streams aren't free though. If nobody paid then they wouldn't exist. It's just a voluntaryist model. Those that pay, do, those that can't or don't want to, don't. So I'm not a sucker for choosing to fund a form of entertainment I find valuable.
I treat museums the same way. When I was young and poor my parents didn't pay to get in since it was optional. But now that I'm older and I make good money, I donate extremely well when I go to museums. I know that it's voluntary and I choose to participate in funding it because I enjoy the experience.
Even if no one paid, they would easily exist through ads and sponsorships. Paying a rich person for something free is just bad money management no matter how you rationalize it to yourself.
Do you think the same way with movies? Many movies could probably survive on ad placement revenue alone. Why do you pay to go to the movies? Do you think the same way with buying a laptop? I'm sure you could fund a laptop with ad and bloatware placement, so why do you pay bill gates for a surface book?
If nobody paid to go to the movies, then nobody would want to advertise in those movies, those movies would lose their sponsorships, and stop being made. If everybody unsubbed from netflix right now they would stop funding original content, even though the content they make has ad placements. Why even ask netflix for money if you can just make a wildly successful tv show with ad placements and release it for free?
Why should you pay to go to a football game? Why should you pay to watch a football game? All the players have sponsors. They're all millionaires. Why did our parents pay for cable? Cable had ads, all the actors were millionaires, the cable company owners were millionaires, the production studios were millionaires. You're saying practically everyone who bought cable in the 1990s-2000s was bad with their money because the actors were millionaires and had ad sponsrships? Give me a break.
I just think it's incredibly disingenuous that because someone is leveraging a SLIGHTLY different monetization model that allows for free consumption, that anyone who pays for it is bad with their money. Maybe if you condemned ALL luxury spending with the same energy I could see you're at least being consistent. But this is just more irrational disdain for the new wave of media consumption.
Some people, on the other hand, like to reward others if they enjoy the product/service/performance they provide.
That's the nature of "pay what you can". If money is tight, then don't pay, and don't feel bad about it. But if you have disposable income, and you value the experience, then give what you can as a form of gratitude.
It doesn't need to be said that if everyone took the "it's free so I don't have to pay anything" route, then there would be no show to see.
I treat museums the same way. When I was young and poor my parents didn't pay to get in since it was optional. But now that I'm older and I make good money, I donate extremely well when I go to museums. I know that it's voluntary and I choose to participate in funding it because I enjoy the experience.