Netflix to Employees: If you don't like our content, you can quit

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-to-employees-if-you-dont-like-our-content-you-can-quit-11652478092

by goplayoutside • 4 years ago

128 242 4 years ago

jleyank• 4 years ago

"Hey, offending people sells and we're in it for the money...". If this bothers you, chant "we're in it for the money" until it doesn't. If it still bothers you, get outta here.

qgin2• 4 years ago

I think what they’re saying is that the caution needed to avoid offending anyone would be too much of a handicap in the goal of making content that people like.

I know there are specific examples where a person could say “so THIS couldn’t have been avoided?” But as a general policy, they’re saying that they’re going draw their line for what’s acceptable at a place that isn’t intentionally trying to offend, but is sometimes going to end up letting something through that does.

0des4• 4 years ago

Why are they surprised when the org begins to resemble the content?

When Netflix sells outrage, why are they shocked when they cultivate internal outrage?

carlivar• 4 years ago

So basically the newspaper industry for the past century or so, too?

dahart• 4 years ago

Disney offends some people (seriously, as an ex-employee, I was astounded the degree to which some supposedly adult people insisted on being offended by cartoons made for children.)

Facebook actually has a business model based on encouraging people to offend each other and make money off everyone standing around to watch, where Netflix does nothing even remotely close.

Fox News literally manufactures offenses on a daily basis and encourages people to be offended.

Netflix is so completely bland and generally inoffensive compared to so many other things out there, it seems funny to me to call it out and point fingers at Netflix as some kind of example.

ALittleLight• 4 years ago

I find the idea that you shouldn't offend people odd and pretty recent. For example, when I was growing up, my mother would say "We have a G rated household." Meaning: in our household we could not watch any movies or TV shows that would not be rated G. As you might imagine, Netflix hosts lots of content that my parents would find offensive. Likewise, religious people might find pro-atheist content on Netflix offensive, anti-porn people offended by Netflix's borderline softcore pornography, political groups might be offended by various documentaries, and so on.

You really cannot hold a diverse selection of content and avoid offending people. Why is avoiding offending people now supposed to be important for Netflix?

mbostleman2• 4 years ago

I don't think that offending people is truly the first principle. If that were the case there would be zero content. The attempt is to not be offensive to the specific sensitivities a specific group that is vocal in popular culture and that supposedly has the power to take down your brand. It would be interesting to see if that group really has power if all companies would stand up against them instead of folding.

johntb86• 4 years ago

We used to have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority and relatively universal radio/tv enforcement of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words, so there was a time (the 30s-60s) when the impulse was to censor everything to the lowest common denominator. It's not that recent a phenomenon.

SheinhardtWigCo• 4 years ago

Well, yes, this is a much needed clarification for the people working there who think edgy comedy is despicable. Now they know they have the option not to work at an edgy comedy factory, instead of posting about it on Twitter and taking a day off to protest on Twitter.

joemazerino3• 4 years ago

I cancelled my Netflix account after the whole Cuties debacle. While visiting my friends I have noticed that Netflix content quality has been dropping sharply the last few years. Let's hope this exodus of customers and content creators will create a new, more interesting industry for the future.

nicolas_t2• 4 years ago

I actually think that Cuties was widely mischaracterised as a movie by people who didn't watch it and just reacted to what they thought the content of the movie was.

It's actually a good thoughtful coming of age movie that talks about important topics and actually criticises the culture of hypersexualisation of young girls.

_gabe_4• 4 years ago

I respectfully disagree. I haven't seen cuties, but I just watched the trailer. The movie may be a good thoughtful coming of age movie, but the trailer (at least in my opinion) did not characterize that at all. If I watch a trailer and it seems to indicate a movie that's about the sexualization of very young girls, I think it's perfectly fine for me to cancel my subscription without watching the movie. You may disagree with that sentiment, and that's fine, but I think that many people who did not watch the movie had seen the trailer and had a similar reaction that I just had.

krona• 4 years ago

hypersexualisation of young girls

Which is what the producers did to create it in the first place. Hence why it was unethical. I'm sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too.

flavius296633• 4 years ago

would you be fine with a movie criticizing child pornography, but ending up doing a little bit of CP (fake, of course, but still CP)?

I guess the parent is making a similar comparison.

I am not that enraged by this, but I haven't watched the movie. I am very weary of any "think of the kids" outrage, it's usually bullshit...except the LGBTQ indoctrination at a young age, that is real. We ended up having 21% of young people to identify as LGBTQ. You can't convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out. https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup

justinmchase4• 4 years ago

You don't need to seem much to realize the movie is sick and if you watched it and didn't think it was sick then there's something wrong with you.

ratsmack• 4 years ago

... quality has been dropping sharply the last few years ...

This is the same trajectory that Disney is taking. They are losing subscribers also as people are becoming tired of the agenda driven content.

heartbreak2• 4 years ago

What agenda is being driven by The Mandalorian or Encanto? Disney puts out great content year after year.

woobar• 4 years ago

Are they losing subscribers?

"Disney+ added 7.5 million subscribers in Q2, while Netflix struggles." [1]

[1] https://www.investors.com/news/disney-earnings-q2-disney-sto...

ambrozk4• 4 years ago

Sidebar, but the "Cuties debacle" is nothing more than a moral panic. Cuties is a great movie about an immigrant kid struggling to cope with a broken home by escaping her parents and becoming a "normal French girl." She doesn't know how to fit in so she tries to gain acceptance with her non-immigrant school-friends by hyper-sexualizing herself. The story a searing criticism of the sexualization of children, not a celebration it. The dancing scene that everyone complains about is deliberately constructed to disgust the viewer, not to titillate them: you're meant to see it as the protagonist's lowest point, when they realize that they are pretending to be someone they're not in a bid to escape her parents' marital trauma. People got upset about it without seeing the movie. It's a great movie.

Jiro• 4 years ago

It's really hard to tell the difference between "intended to disgust the viewer" and "intended to tittilate the viewer with a fetish I don't share". I mean, any scene of sexualizing children is going to disgust me. How am I supposed to know which ones are meant that way?

(Also, consider the existence of exploitation films, which loudly proclaim how bad X is in order to have an excuse to show X to people who like seeing X.)

justinmchase4• 4 years ago

Its not a great movie, you don't need to see the whole movie in order to see enough to realize its fucking sick.

joemazerino3• 4 years ago

I appreciate your points but I am not interested in watching a movie about the hyper sexualization of children or funding the service that provides it. Pedophilia is pedophilia no matter if it is satire, fiction or documented.

blendergeek• 4 years ago

Maybe the "Cuties debacle" refers to the promotional imagery put out by Netflix with regards to the film. See here [0] a side-by-side comparison of the original poster for the film and the Netflix poster for the film.

People who only saw the Netflix poster could have a very different view of the movie and some might even refuse to watch the film.

[0] https://cdn.hobbyconsolas.com/sites/navi.axelspringer.es/pub...

adharmad• 4 years ago

Same here. The 365 days movie was quite atrocious and borderline porn.

onlyrealcuzzo2• 4 years ago

Funny - I find Netflix content keeps getting better. Dark, Ozark, Unorthodox, Russian Doll, Sense8, Love Sex & Robots, The OA.

Not as good as HBO - but honestly it seems close. If anything - HBO's content seems to be on the decline more than Netflix. It's still top notch, but it used to be outstanding.

Netflix is really mastering the wide appeal & good enough content: 13 Reasons Why, Elite, Bridgerton, Bird Box, etc...

It seems like the shows everyone is talking about are always either HBO or Netflix.

Disney is obviously dominating in popularity at the box office with Marvel.

margaretdouglas2• 4 years ago

I wish more people would watch Dark. Horrendously underrated.

DangitBobby• 4 years ago

Yeah, I find Netflix content to be fairly high quality. I often have to watch a couple of pilots before I find something that hooks me, but I always find something. And I'll recommend Maniac to anyone who will listen...

justinmchase4• 4 years ago

The OA is amazing... to bad they cancelled it!

mgdlbp2• 4 years ago

Feels like (IME) there's a rather high incidence of discontent over decisions "from above" among the shows listed: The OA being cancelled, 13 Reasons having three seasons too many, speculation(?) that Dark's wonky pacing at the end was due to being approved for too limiting a number of episodes...

dannyphantom• 4 years ago

To be fair, HBO has consistently had an awesome catalog whereas Netflix has been unfulfilling for what feels like years.

tomjen3• 4 years ago

I canceled over the recent price hike, but I think happened was that Netflix got too good analytics, so while their scripts all hit the good points, it feels very bland.

Then of course the classic stuff they use is classic because it is good, so the average will go down as they no longer have access to it.

tored• 4 years ago

I noticed a sharp decline in quality when Netflix started with their own original content, some of it was good but most of it was mass produced low quality trash.

But it also an inherit problem with any movie streaming service that wants to have fresh content, you have to fill the content bucket with something and mass produced low quality stuff is both cheaper and faster to produce.

diebeforei485• 4 years ago

They shouldn't shy away from controversial content for fear of offending people.

0des4• 4 years ago

Their core demographic is offended though.

rajup3• 4 years ago

Is it? If this easily offended demographic were really so big the execs at Netflix are not so stupid to alienate them. The more mundane reason is this demographic is very tiny though they may be very vocal.

datalopers• 4 years ago

I'm not offended by their content, I just think the quality declined faster than they've raised prices. That's why I cancelled. Most of their original content is about as exciting and predictable as talking to a GPT-3 bot.

PolygonSheep2• 4 years ago

It's good for engagement. Get everyone talking about the latest Netflix controversy. Release Cuties and piss off all the stupid uptight conservatives who don't understand it's just a coming-of-age story, then release a Chappelle comedy special and upset all the right-thinking leftists who don't understand it's actually pro-trans.

Then no matter whether you go to get your daily Two Minutes Hate in, all you see is NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX everywhere.

elcomet2• 4 years ago

Why shouldn't they ?

oaiey2• 4 years ago

Because films are art?

akmarinov2• 4 years ago

They shouldn’t be surprised if their userbase fades away, taking its stock price with it, then.

rajup3• 4 years ago

Again I see no evidence this is the case. Why would they self destruct like that? Their recent woes don’t have anything to do with “offending” people though some would like to believe that to push a narrative.

robonerd14• 4 years ago

They will of course, and I think few people actually have a problem with the general principle of shying away from controversial content if you drill into the specifics. For instance, I think fairly few would be surprised or offended at Netflix refusing to stream Triumph of the Will.

marcooliv• 4 years ago

Finally.

agilob• 4 years ago

if you don’t like that, you can quit.

Someone will be doing layoffs soon and want people to leave voluntarily

zxcvbn4038• 4 years ago

More like they don’t want to waste their time on managing lot of prima-donnas.

rajup3• 4 years ago

An excellent business decision.

rossdavidh2• 4 years ago

Quite possibly, but if you had a labor shortage you would waste your time managing the prima-donnas for lack of alternatives. If you're about to do layoffs anyway, no need.

akmarinov2• 4 years ago

This + their hiring freeze and also Meta and Twitter freezing hiring, along with people displeased with Apple’s remote work policy.

Google and Microsoft are probably raking in top talent at bargain prices right now.

Beldin• 4 years ago

Because top talent has no clue what Google or MS would/should value them at?

I don't think the brains of top talent stop working when they are unhappy with certain aspects of their current job. Also not with respect to their total compensation.

paulcole2• 4 years ago

We let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices

This is a funny take on it. Of course Netflix censors specific artists and voices by choosing to just not produce their content.

LatteLazy• 4 years ago

Getting censored because we think there is no demand is very different to getting censored because 1 person at the company doesn't like your work or opinions or something...

robonerd14• 4 years ago

It's the difference between being the censor, and being the censored. Both sides in the dispute want to be the censor, neither wants to be the censored.

robonerd14• 4 years ago

What they mean is they want the selection of content to be done by the people specifically hired and empowered to select content, using the official channels created specifically for this selection process. What they don't want is mobs of workers lower on the totem pole trying to impose their will on management through walkouts/etc.

Wowfunhappy2• 4 years ago

I broadly agree that some people, mostly on more extreme ends of the political spectrum, are trying to censor views they disagree with in a way that is potentially dangerous for a free society.

However, I strongly believe that every employee of a company (and every shareholder) carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company's actions. To purposefully choose an extreme example, would you be willing to help develop spyware for Russia to hack into phones and surreptitiously monitor communications, if your company asked you to do it?

One of the most fundamental problems in society right now is that we've decided corporations should be exempt from any kind of ethical standards. A corporation's responsibility is to make as much money as possible, we say. If it makes money, we can't expect them to do anything else.

Corporations, of course, are imaginary constructs which cannot truly be responsible for anything. Luckily, they are staffed by people, who should have just as much of a moral compass as any other human being. Your moral compass should not evaporate the moment you walk through the company door.

paulcole2• 4 years ago

What they don't want is mobs of workers lower on the totem pole trying to impose their will on management through walkouts/etc.

The horror lol.

0des4• 4 years ago

This is what being placated feels like. They're only interested in a very one-sided depiction of "diversity".

wly_cdgr2• 4 years ago

Fair enough. Seems pretty reasonable to expect your employees to be willing to work on what you ask them to work on, given that you're paying them and they voluntarily signed up to work for you. And as people who were able to get a job at Netflix, they surely had other options.

manicdee• 4 years ago

I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to hire someone to help produce documentaries and then expect them to produce “ow my balls”.

I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to hire someone to produce web sites in Flask/Vuex and then expect them to dedicate themselves to maintaining your PHP legacy systems.

wly_cdgr2• 4 years ago

Are those things that specific people were actually promised in an explicit, demonstrable way when they were hired? It sounds like the kind of thing that people like to convince themselves they were promised because that's what they hoped and wanted to be true

Also, there's nothing in the article about this? - all the article talks about is some Netflix employees being upset that management didn't obey their wishes and pull Chapelle's special.

chasd00• 4 years ago

I can’t think of anything worse for a company like Netflix than the woke crowd coming for them. Isn’t every horror movie filled with violent hate and evil?

frr149• 4 years ago

The woke horde is already inside Netflix and running the show.

rajin444• 4 years ago

It’s not about bad tactics it’s about bad targets.

chiefalchemist2• 4 years ago

Meanwhile, the long standing normalized usual suspects (e.g., the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street, poverty, etc.) get a free pass? And the proud woke believe Netflix is an evil worth expending energy on? Talk about doing the usual suspects a favor.

If anyone wants to exercise their consumer-ness and cancel their Netflix subscription, they should. But cancel culturing Netflix while real issues continue to run free and unchallenged undermines "woke" in the eyes of anyone reasonable.

Note: This isn't a knock on the idea of woke, or even cancel culture. It's about priorities.

okareaman3• 4 years ago

I can't help but feel this is aimed at trans activists who protested the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that's what comedians do.

I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. I have problematic issues (bipolar, recovering alcoholic) but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me and calling people who won't listen to me haters.

cr__• 4 years ago

Are there people passing laws to fuck with people with bipolar disorder? Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?

nahnahno• 4 years ago

You clearly don’t have mental illness or a drug addiction. Yes, absolutely, you are severely discriminated against with either of those. People see you as utterly unreliable, weak, and unworthy of the kinds of respect afforded to able minded people.

chris_wot• 4 years ago

Well, yes, - there are lots of people who do this. And no, the law is not particularly kind to those who are alcoholics or have mental illnesses.

bhhaskin• 4 years ago

Except that quite a few people with bipolar disorder and addiction issues would say they are mentally ill.

bryanrasmussen2• 4 years ago

is Alcoholism a mental illness - https://www.portstluciehospitalinc.com/ufaqs/is-alcoholism-a...

Yes. According to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), alcoholism, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a diagnosable mental illness.

okareaman3• 4 years ago

I've lost a lot of friends. I've had people tell me they can't stand me because their Dad was an abusive alcoholic. I lost a job because of a manic episode. I know it's hard for normies to understand so I have compassion for their lack of understanding.

perihelions• 4 years ago

We've had recovering-alcoholic presidents (USA), but it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon. The intensity of ostracization is not at the same level.

(e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Alcohol_abuse )

throwaway0x7E6• 4 years ago

really bro? there are plenty of laws that fuck with alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, etc, and every single civilized society in the world does everything they can to prevent children, teens and young adults from picking up those habits. and it is also perfectly acceptable to express negative feelings about addicts in general

as for bipolar disorder and other such things, at least it is acceptable to call them what they are - mental illnesses, and to suggest to get treatment

ryan_j_naughton2• 4 years ago

This comment screams of lack of awareness. We actively drug test people for jobs and deny them employment. It is literally baked into the acceptable reasons to discriminate against people. The stigma is massive. It has been changing primarily because white, suburban people have been losing family members to opioid overdoses, but the stigma is still very real in most the country.

parkingrift• 4 years ago

Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Wanting something to be different doesn’t actually make it different.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...

robonerd14• 4 years ago

Right. This memo is directed at offended Netflix employees, not offended [ex]Netflix customers. Conservatives on facebook complaining about Netflix being too woke and weird (Cuties, etc) isn't what this memo is about. This is about netflix management reasserting their position of power (particularly with respect to content selection) over netflix workers.

texaslonghorn5• 4 years ago

I don't think that supports your argument, I think you actually would be justified to ask the world to accommodate you.

robonerd14• 4 years ago

No more alcohol consumption in movies then? Romcom heros can't enjoy champagne at their wedding in the end of the movie, because that doesn't accommodate recovering alcoholics who suffer in the mainstream culture of drinking during special occasions?

I understand the logic of that, but I don't think the industry should actually go through with that. Such well-meaning content restrictions would unduly restrict artistic expression. Content warnings about alcohol/drug use should be sufficient to warn away anybody who (understandably!) wants to avoid that sort of content.

nautilius9• 4 years ago

Not sure what that steep price is you would pay to 'accommodate' trans people? It requires nothing on your part except for acknowledging and respecting their existence.

h3cate5• 4 years ago

Where did they say they weren't acknowledging or accomodating trans people? Original comment clearly acknowledges trans people exist?

chmod6006• 4 years ago

Is it OK to have sports leagues that exclude biological males in order to promote athleticism among biological females?

justinmchase4• 4 years ago

Not correct, it harms people and they attempt to convert others which can result in harm to your family and friends.

fsociety3• 4 years ago

You should read up on Bedlam Hospital and learn more about how privileged we are to not be born in that place and time. Trans people don’t have the same luxury of safety today.

dehrmann• 4 years ago

It's also a reaction to the Spotify Joe Rogan drama.

thomasfedb6• 4 years ago

The main point being raised by trans activists is "please let us live our lives and not be horrible to us". There's really not a whole lot more to it than that.

So if somebody's "pushing back" on that, I think it's pretty fair to call them transphobic.

chmod6006• 4 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

gnlad• 4 years ago

There is a lot more. You are forced to list pronouns, declare your gender at conferences, read daily articles about trans people in all major newspapers.

Prospective Supreme court justices have to delegate the definition of "woman" to a biologist.

And you'll be called transphobic at the slightest infraction of the ever growing set of rules.

The whole rainbow movement exists to gain positions, money and power and to have a free pass to yell at dissenters.

aeturnum4• 4 years ago

I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists.

You say you're part of several vulnerable populations, but you don't ask the world to "accommodate" you - but the complains trans people have about Chappelle are not about 'making their lives easier.'

Where transphobia (or any prejudicial viewpoint) comes into play is refusing to take vulnerable populations' viewpoints seriously. When trans people point out that they are at much greater risk of violence and also point out studies on how rhetoric contributes to dehumanization promotes violence - you need to take the idea that this isn't "what comedians do" because the impact of saying things about different groups will be different.

Transphobia isn't "disagreeing with trans people" - in this case it's not taking peoples' views seriously because they are trans. When you say "I have problems too but I don't bother people about it" - you suggest that your problems are similar to trans peoples'. It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions, but trans people have far fewer protections[1]. Considering that Texas just recently criminalized being trans under the age of 18, I would really ask you to consider if that view is correct and how it makes you look to say it.

Edit: I got a little ramble-y - in general: oppression is possible when vulnerable populations' descriptions of why and how they are treated worse are not taken seriously. People in vulnerable populations can be wrong (like all of us!) - but in order to point that out in a way that doesn't promote oppression you have to start your disagreement from a point where what you are disagreeing with is a position that the vulnerable population agrees they hold.

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/depression-ptsd-other-men...

shephardjhon2• 4 years ago

I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them.

Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first.

All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.

Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.

h3cate5• 4 years ago

I don't think it's in a comedians job description to take anything seriously

okareaman3• 4 years ago

You're bringing the law into this but I'm not. That's a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights.

The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."

vba616• 4 years ago

It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions

If the mentally ill are so privileged, it's ironic that people have fought for generations to not be defined as such (e.g. in the DSM).

yibg• 4 years ago

Seems like part of the general pattern of “if you are not with us you are against us” attitude. Now a days it’s not enough to not be for-[some injustice], you have to be actively anti-[some injustice] and tell the world that you are. Otherwise you are a bad person.

alexander-litty• 4 years ago

It’s transphobic in the “hydrophobic” sense. I don’t think he merely pushes back on activists; I find he delegitimizes the movement altogether.

Which, disclaimer, I do think anyone should be free to do. But people who are offended must be free to share their thoughts as well, then.

It’s akin to saying alcohol addiction isn’t a real addiction. It’s not that you’re making fun of alcoholics, the idea of an alcohol addict, or the behavior and recovery of an alcohol addict — You’re instead devaluing the idea that someone can be addicted to alcohol, falsifying their reality.

Sure, many people can laugh at that, but it’s only going to be the people who can’t relate. The people who have never been familiar with or been victim to substance abuse can probably laugh at the idea that you can just “stop drinking right now, there, problem solved, now what was so hard about that?” because the idea is so foreign to them.

Humor will always be divisive, which means as a comedian you alone wield the responsibility for where that line will be drawn. Chapelle intentionally draws it on personal identity.

I think we can support better comedy than that. Anyone can make an in-crowd; A great comedian makes you the subject and makes you laugh about it too.

HWR_144• 4 years ago

the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that's what comedians do.

I want him to stop doing trans jokes because he's not good at them. They aren't funny. As far as I can tell, they are attempts at cheap shock humor that might make sense for a new comedian to try to get some headlines, but not something someone with fame and talent should have to stoop to.

devwastaken• 4 years ago

The Chapelle special acts opposite from its criticism. People are already generally discriminatory to the idea of trans. Chapelle brings this to the front, and makes a number of compelling arguments for why it's "real". Yes, he makes a number of poor arguments about the trans "community" (it's not one community), but if he were to be on stage talking up everything trans nobody is going to listen. People can have opinions without being evil.

ryzvonusef• 4 years ago

on trans issues:

one thing that struck me is how different views on transgenderism are in the US, for example, than my country.

In my country, transgender actually FOUGHT for the right to NOT be counted as a man or a women, and finally won the right to be counted as a third gender, with the rights that follow it.

That mean that, the slogans here are NOT, for example, that "Transwomen are Women" but instead, "transwomen are TRANSwomen" (i.e. don't lump them with man/women, labels which are considered cis-specific.) or that they demanded SEPERATE bathrooms for their gender, and DON'T want to be forced to be use men/women bathrooms.

Such opinions would be considered extremely transphobic in the US, but are what trans-people actively fought for here.

I'm not saying my country is a beacon for LGBTQ+ rights, simply pointing out that issues that the western Transgender community face (Gender Identifications issues from TERFs, or bathroom related panics) would simply be a non-issue here because the clash simply doesn't arise in the first place!

Women wouldn't feel threatened by transwomen, because they would never want to step into each other's territories in anyway.

I am not sure what the ideal is, just that western trans community might need to look at a global view and realize that perhaps what they consider transphobic, are actually sought-for rights by members of their own community in the East, and how they can better move forwards in this regards.

----

also, I do need to highlight that rules do not translate into ground realities, which are often bleak regardless of legislation. Discrimination and violent attacks are rampant here, we are in no way a utopia.

but here are some links which might better explain what I was trying to convey:

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pakistan-s-1st-trans...

https://www.reuters.com/article/Pakistan-transgender-census/...

https://www.npr.org/2012/09/03/160496712/pakistans-transgend...

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pakistan-issues-land...

pseudalopex2• 4 years ago

Trans people in Pakistan fought for the state to recognize a traditional 3rd gender. Most European cultures and offshoots don't have an equivalent.

1 of the biggest issues now in the US is if trans youth should receive any affirming treatment. Even puberty blockers. Calling them a 3rd gender wouldn't change the sides.

hemreldop• 4 years ago

Dave Chapelle is a hero. Downvote me all you want but drawing a distinction between sex and gender is pure delusion at best and a mental disease at worst.

antifa7• 4 years ago

but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me

I think you'd feel very different about what this sentence really means if people maliciously assumed you were drunk driving or a pedofile just because you wore a budweiser shirt.

Or if there were plans for laws making bipolar specialists illegal, or outlawing non-christian addiction programs.

Or if there were laws forbidding teachers from mentioning that psychological disorders in general (but especially bipolar) exist and required them to snitch on you to your parents and the state if it were suspected that you were bipolar.

justinzollars• 4 years ago

I now know, that if I lived in Ancient Rome I wouldn't have been wind swept by Christianity and converted, or If I lived in Salem I wouldn't have hunted witches. This is a religion we are dealing with. A mob and a stupid time in history to live. Netflix pays very well, you shouldn't need to protest at work. Grow up.

mgh28• 4 years ago

As if Netflix is not filled with woke propaganda already...

Note: Expect sentiment downvotes in HN

oaiey2• 4 years ago

When I understand it right, is not the whole point of this change that also topics which are not "woke"/left can also show up?

Not sure if I get it completely :)

trenning• 4 years ago

What is woke propaganda?

mgh28• 4 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

andrei_says_• 4 years ago

Some examples? And could you please define “woke propaganda”?

Asking because the term is used to mischaracterize a broad range of views by, ironically, large scale propaganda / fear mongering outlets.

dimgl• 4 years ago

Have you not seen their content lately? I wouldn't say it's woke propaganda, but a lot of their content is clearly trying to tick the diversity boxes.

mgh28• 4 years ago

Snowpiercer (series): Gave up after the main plot focused on maintaining a lie, not discovering a truth (conventional screenwriting).

Other examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/pwp3t4/im_tired_of...

Eventually got tired of Netflix's money cow strategy by sacrificing quality - buying original ideas and ruining them with more seasons for the sake of engagement: Designated Survivor, Money Heist, etc. Piggybacking on categories that rate higher on IMDB: Korean copycats, cheap documentaries, reality shows.

They know how to cater to public sentiment because biased reviews lead to higher ratings, hoping the brainwashing is not apparent - recent drop in subscribers proves them wrong.

wronglyprepaid• 4 years ago

Colin in Black & White

mgh28• 4 years ago

Hollywood series

rossdavidh2• 4 years ago

Problem for not only Netflix, but any other mammoth media company that wants to appeal to >50% of the population: you can't exclude half the political spectrum (either half).

In the last part of the 20th century, the utterly drab and lackluster Three-Letter Networks were drab and lackluster in part because they were trying to avoid offending as large a portion of the population as possible. But, with way more than 3 networks competing now, you can't be drab and get anyone's attention. Which means either you have content that's offensive to lots of people, and hope that it is offset by other content that appeals to those people, or you shrink down to a niche provider that appeals only to a much smaller portion of the population.

The third factor is that many companies cannot get financing or keep up their share prices unless they can pretend they will be as big as Facebook, so just existing in your little niche may not work well either. Unstoppable force meets immovable objects...

linspace• 4 years ago

I think the quality of content is not related to whether is for or against some part of the population. As a matter of fact I find it quite dull and artificial when is so obsessively centered on some aspects like race or sexuality.

It reminds me of Don Quixote: it's a masterpiece of literature but I find different parts of varying quality. Some parts are eternal and you can relate to the glories and miseries of people from 500 years ago. Other parts, like when Don Quixote starts to ramble about honor, what is honorable or not, and so on and on, are quite boring. Not because honor is not important, we have laws nowadays about defamation after all, but you cannot make it the center of your life.

Making your content either offensive to some part of the population or making it all about some political agenda results in low quality content, IMHO.

chmod6006• 4 years ago

"you can't exclude half the political spectrum (either half)"

That is a changing dynamic. For one, the "halves" keep changing, sometimes it's more polarized and sometimes more moderate.

And during a lot of the 2010's, it was perfectly viable to exclude the conservative "half". They just didn't push back much, at least when it came to spending.

But now things are changing. In Florida, Disney World may be losing their special political status due to Disney's political posturing. That would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Now, as you say, large companies have to worry about alienating anyone.

Whether this will cause further fracturing, or we go back to "drab and boring", I don't know.

There's also a young/old dynamic. Some companies feel safe appealing to young people, who they perceive as progressive. That may work, but young people are also unpredictable, so it's not necessarily a good long-term strategy.

sascha_sl2• 4 years ago

What is isn't going to do is make Netflix a partner to something really out there, like Blaze TV.

This entire change to their guidelines feels dishoenst. They paint it as their duty to encourage pluralism, but they in fact just want to platform just enough content on the sidelines to make off with the largest profit profit margins.

It's another surrender to the power of the almighty dollar. I'd much prefer if Netflix was smaller and other competitors were around to fill that hole in the market so I could, as they say, vote with my wallet. (That phrase is never a dismissive sham, I swear!)

AlwaysRock• 4 years ago

I don't really see how this is news. That is how companies work. Don't like what the company is doing? Leave... Any job is weighing the positives vs the bad.

cletus• 4 years ago

So Activision-blizzard has been mired in controversy for several years now. Lawsuits, scandals, etc. A lot of content creators have quit producing content for their games and people wonder if Blizzard can recover. IMHO Blizzard is one good release away from people forgetting all these controversies.

Netflix has thrown money at creating original content. If you look at some of their releases it's clear they've had more money than they know what to do with. Money will only take you so far. I agree they needed to do this. I disagree with how they've gone about it.

This has forced them into price hikes. In their most profitable markets they're now losing subs. The share price is like 75% off its peak.

How does this relate to Activision? Easy. If things were going well at Netflix (eg the share price was hitting new heights, sub numbers were up) I guarantee you no one would care about any of this. But things aren't going well and that foments dissent.

So while employees may have legitimate complaints (and they do) the main story is that things aren't going well at Netflix and they may have overspent themselves into a really tough spot. I know I no longer perma-subscribe to Netflix. It's more expensive than HBO. I'll pay for 1-2 months a year to catch up and that's it.

I fully expect Netflix to stem this kind of bleeding at some point by only having 6 month or annual subscriptions or those will be at the current price and the monthly price will be $20+.

kif• 4 years ago

This wasn't a good look on Netflix employees back then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPp6kdXUek

peanut_worm• 4 years ago

Netflix feels like the discount dvd bin at walmart now. Hulu seems like a much better option these days.

oblib• 4 years ago

FWIW Daphne's sister Becky said “Dave was the biggest bright spot for Daphne” before her suicide.

“Blaming Dave is beyond the wrong thing to do, “He helped her and let her be comfortable while talking with him. She had many demons; Dave Chappelle was NOT one of them.”

Source: https://nypost.com/2021/10/11/dave-chappelle-is-an-lgbtq-all...

freebuju• 4 years ago

Major studios give creative concessions to foreign markets like China in order to be allowed into their film market. It was incredibly naive of Netflix to think they were too big that they could ignore feedback and input from strong audience bases. You can't build a mass market product based on servicing the needs of a woke minority in a functional market. The market will quickly remind you of this mistake when you don't have any more investors pumping funds into the business.

They need more than an ad-supported tier to come out of this. In the midst of a shaky market and lowest ever subscription numbers, they have no choice but to cater to all walks of audiences if they are to survive.

And spend less on shows, I was seeing crazy budgets to the tune of $30M per episode[0] on the new upcoming season of Stranger Things. That's now bad for the bottom line.

[0] https://decider.com/2022/04/21/stranger-things-season-4-30-m...

walkhour• 4 years ago

It's somewhat surprising how quickly Netflix has given up on their "progressive"values, which probably they thought were the right path to making more money, as soon as they found out they can actually be detrimental to them.

Now they have new values! Free speech, and they think they are a very serious topic that must be treaded carefully and thoughtfully. Because values are very important, not profit.

But you can be sure that if showing 10 year olds in a bikini was profitable, and society wasn't shocked by this, we'd have some new made up value supporting doing so.

blindmute• 4 years ago

Based. The pendulum has begun its return swing

RickJWagner• 4 years ago

Good for Netflix.

Coca-Cola, Disney and others have recently been reminded that businesses are there (wait for it....) to make money for their owners!

Business should be professional and all about business. Politics belongs elsewhere.

BonoboIO• 4 years ago

I think the best years are over for Netflix.

The hard awakening is here to make content that the users want and they are a movie/tv content company, not a „tech company“.

Their Engineering Blog is great, some really great projects, but sometimes and even more and more there are projects that left me asking: „Why so complicated“

At scale everything is a problem, but some „solutions“ seem „well we have staff, money and time for nice funny stuff“ vibe.

Like inventing batch jobs, but more complicated

Netflix to Employees: If you don't like our content, you can quit

Related Stories