Consider 2 scenarios:

A) I pay you $x per year not to listen to music on youtube.

B) I give you $x per year. Simoultaneously, Youtube starts charging $x per year to listen to music.

Is there much of a difference between them?

Logically, no. But most of humanity would not treat them equivalently. I'm sure Tversky or Kahneman have done something on this topic.

Yes, lots of differences: - you can invest $10 for a month, get small profit and than start listening music - you can sign-up for Spotify for $7 a month and get $3 back.

How are these differences? You can do this in either case.

Presumably, though, once someone offered you more than $10 a month, you could just pay for another streaming music service. I think the whole idea here is that paying someone to not use a service means they then use that money on some alternative - whether it is a social network, music streaming app, or anything else you can spend money on to pass the time.

I wouldn't spend money on a replacement social network if you paid me not to use facebook, but I certainly would put that money towards something else I found fun and entertaining.