Netflix is planning to raise prices... again
Lmao, what a weak ass troll response. Git gud, fucking idiot.
I mean literally anyone not knowledgeable about piracy wouldn't be immediately clued in to that meaning from a quote from a fucking kids TV show song.
So "sort of" literally covers it. You're literally claiming no nuance where nuance was already handled.
Go fuck yourself.
only one sort of mentions piracy
I think they covered that. You're just a fuckin dunce.
That's sad because it's absolutely trash. Writing is trash, sets are trash, costumes are trash, makeup is trash, CGI is trash.
Also, super unpopular opinion: Cavill wasn't a very good Geralt, yet everyone wants to jerk him off like he's the only saving grace of the show. Nah, he fucking sucks, too.
I mean, they employ people who are clearly completely out of touch and don't give a shit about anything but making money. They don't care about controversy as long as people are just talking about it and not suing them or bringing legal charges against them.
Ryan Murphy apparently can't figure out that since nobody wants to talk to him about this that maybe it was a bad idea to begin with. Pretty much all the families and friends of victims thought the whole thing was in incredibly poor taste. Apparently all of them rejecting being involved wasn't enough to clue Ryan Murphy into this being incredibly offensive to them.
But Netflix doesn't care about anything but money.
Like when they removed an episode Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj's show in Saudi Arabia because they didn't want to offend anyone.
Reed Hastings on that decision:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/11/netflix-reed-hastings-saudi-arabia-patriot-act
“We’re not in the news business,” Hastings said at the New York Times’ DealBook conference, per Variety, of the decision to remove the episode after Saudi Arabia threatened legal action. “We’re not trying to do ‘truth to power.’ We’re trying to entertain…We don’t feel bad about that at all.”
Same reason they consulted with suicide prevention organizations on 13 Reasons Why: got told that this show would increase copycat suicides and it was written in a way that glorified suicide, but fuck it, who cares, let's make some money and throw this up on Netflix!
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/05/05/526871398/facts-about-teens-suicide-and-13-reasons-why
Even when they're told by everyone not to do it, Netflix does it because money matters more.
Just gotta say you fucking nailed it. The long-term knock-on effect of people not wanting to start a new Netflix show only to like it and for it to be cancelled is too real.
lost subscribers to their no password sharing policy.
What, we're just gonna gloss over how absolutely dogshit their in-house "Netflix Originals" media has become?
It's also because their current shows suck, and because any shows that are actually good get shitcanned after season 2, because Netflix sees less consumer growth after two seasons.
Their saving grace is stuff like Black Mirror but to be fair that didn't start out as a Netflix original and Charlie Brooker has tight control over his property.
When they started Netflix Originals, they knocked a bunch of them out of the park, now they just make weak trash with bad CGI, costumes, and makeup.
Stuff like 13 Reasons Why or The Witcher are just straight up irredeemable trash.
But will it actually be ad-free, or just personalized ad-free?
Because if it's actually ad-free, you might find a decent number of people willing to pay it. (Especially those without the technical know-how to block ads, a small fee is probably worth it to them.)
If it's just personalized ad-free, and still has generic ads, you'll have basically nobody who gives enough of a shit to pay.
Yar Har Fiddle Dee Dee!
unpopular opinion: I only like GUNSHIP instrumentals. I'll take a pass on the lyrics.
Gotta have that reach.
Username checks out.
It's a SubStack site which hosts a Judd Legum project called Popular Information.
He was formerly the editor-in-chief at ThinkProgress.
EDIT: Just to be clear, not being snarky, this is a super valid question to ask regarding the source.
My contribution from a few weeks ago:
Your last paragraph is such an important one. One of the things I see most is people citing a source, but then the sources their source cites may be dubious at best. It's so important to be able to keep going backwards in sourcing. Where did every little piece of information come from? Humans make mistakes, sometimes data can get misunderstood or corrupted over time. A mistake in the past may result in printing a falsehood that's generally accepted as true in the future. People often struggle following a path of information gathering beyond the first few steps. I do think that traces back to, like you said, we were taught what were reputable sources (NYT vs National Enquirer) but never given any knowledge that their might be bias even in our trusted sources. So many people, instead of considering where the information is sourced when it comes to outlets with a "reputable" history, just stop at "it was in the New York Times" as if they haven't had their share of scandals (like when they sat on information the Bush admin was illegally spying on US citizens for over a year at the request of the Bush admin).
I think, unfortunately, it's also why some people turn to really ridiculous sources, because they're just smart enough to see the bias in legacy institutions, but they don't have the media literacy to accept what they can research as true from legacy media but also to be skeptical and looking for evidence for what is presented, instead of treating is as fact. This, I think, has fueled the rise in conspiracy theories, from people who know everyone is lying to them, but lack the ability to be able to parse or deal with that in any healthy way. Yes, there is a lot of bias in legacy media, but turning to online media grifters who are selling you survival kits isn't the healthy or literate solution.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
I guess it's too hard to consider real people with real opinions might populate a niche website with small userbase and an active anti-advertising attitude.
I guess it's also too hard to just look at an account and decide if it seems spammy or if it seems like a real person, and easier to just cast aspersions because they... annoyed you?
Anyway, thanks for standing up for us both.
To highlight the points you're making, Sport England itself has data on its main page that stipulates that women are less active than men in general and that starts at a young age.
https://www.sportengland.org/research-and-data/research/gender
Our new 10-year strategy launched in 2021, Uniting the Movement, is our plan to make being physically active a normal part of life for everyone in England – to make it easier for all of us as we go about our everyday lives.
Because currently, it’s not always a level playing field.
We know that women are less active than men, and this gender gap starts with girls being less active from a very young age.
This inequality, as well as others, is at the very core of Uniting the Movement and we have a laser focus on tackling them in all that we do, because providing opportunities to people and communities that have traditionally been left behind, and helping to remove the barriers to activity, has never been more important.
So, surprise, it's probably not just "genetics" or "testosterone" as people keep claiming that all men are naturally stronger, when the statistics say that women are by and large less active, and that since this starts at a young age, it can have a long-term affect on women's sports abilities.
On top of this, socially, women with lots of muscles are often not viewed as sexually desirable, despite being stronger than a lot of men in their weight class. So it's also justified to consider maybe women don't pursue strength as a virtue in the way a lot of men do, due to social expectations.
As Sport England points out, they're often not being told socially that they can and should be active and involved, and on top of that, they often have negative social consequences for doing so.
Literally a huge part of what Sport England is supposed to do is supposed to be about outreach and inclusivity, to make all Britons more active.
That should include making trans people more active, instead of looking for more reasons to remove them from activities.
I'm over 40 and while I was taught to do research on a Microfische, I was regularly told not to trust anything on the internet.
As for media literacy, no way in hell. Especially after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 started allowing mass consolidation of media empires. In the 1980's, majority of US media was owned by around 80 companies, in the modern era, it's five that own the majority of the US media landscape.
You say the name "Marshall McLuhan" or even "the medium is the message" and you get confused fucking looks.
Nothing can break me... except being expected to pay up for things. No, that's on you plebes.
What can I say, I got time to waste on dumbfucks like you who think they're clever.