>>105301285Okay, think this through: why would Cover even imply that someone is in debt if there was, objectively, no debt? Why not just have Cover pay outright for new videos, or outfits, or sololives? Would Cover being more generous than *any* of their contemporaries hurt their reputation or something?
No, it's because Cover *isn't* actually liable: they take money out of people's paychecks while they work for them, but if they quit, that debt doesn't just go away, because it's fucking *debt.* It's a collar around people's necks to make sure that quitting is expensive.
That is *not* generosity: that's like the VA of Mickey Mouse borrowing money from Disney to make a video for Disney. Yeah, maybe that person has no better options, but it would not exactly be a favor from Disney...
