> The original adage of “if you’re not paying, you’re the product” doesn’t necessarily rule out the converse.
replyI believe the logical term "converse" means swapping the conclusion and the condition in a logical statement, ie converse(if A then B) = if B then A
So here the converse would be "if you're the product, you're not paying". Which doesn't exactly make sense to me as a claim to make here. Did you just mean to reinforce your first sentence? In which case, I think you mean "the inverse", not the converse. However, I have only used the word converse in a "formal logic" scope (proofs) so I'm not sure if it has a more flexible meaning in informal language use.
The converse and inverse are logically equivalent by contraposition, so it doesn't really matter which one you use. If you think through it, you can see that "if you're the product, you're not paying" is equivalent to "if you're paying, you're not the product".
replyHear hear! And those who say paying is the only time one has a chance to not be the product should look at getting involved with a genuine charity or volunteer program too. There are no universal rules about this kind of thing.
reply