I can't call that surprising. This is the same Netflix that almost immediately took down the episode of Hasan Minaj's show criticizing Saudi Arabia because the Saudis told them to.
The films removed from Netflix include "3 Logical Exits"; "3000 Nights"; "A Drowning Man"; "A Man Returned"; "A World Not Ours"; "Ave Maria"; "Bonboné"; "Children of Shatila"; "Chronicle of a Disappearance"; "Condom Lead"; "Divine Intervention"; "Frontiers of Dreams and Fears"; "Ghost Hunting"; "Giraffada"; "Habibi"; "In Vitro"; "Like Twenty Impossibles"; "Maradona’s Legs"; "Mars at Sunrise"; "Omar"; "Salt of this Sea"; "Samouni Road"; "The Crossing"; and "Xenos"
Since this is the first time in human history it's every happened, we will have to wait to see what word or phrase becomes standard to use. Because if it had happened before, we'd have a definition for it.
And it would probably be super illegal beyond being immoral. Like international communities would all agree that anyone committing such acts would be evil and the good nations of the world would act immediately to defend the victims and stop any government or army from continuing.
At least if it ever happens again we will know better.
Remember... There is not a single corporation that gives a shit about you beyond your LTV (lifetime value) as a paying customer. "Pride week" and "Palestinian stories" type things are just mechanisms to get your money.
If they are told they make more money harming you, CEOs literally have a legal responsibility to choose that option. And right after they do, they will have an amazing dinner while laughing at how stupid you are and then sleep more peacefully than you have on the single best day of your entire life.
Yes they actually do. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. A business must be run in the interests of the shareholders, not the public, not the employees, not even the business itself.
Is it morally right? Fuck no. Is it the law? Unfortunately yes.
And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
Plenty are greedy psychopaths, I'm not saying the above as a forgiveness, I'm stating it as a fact. A CEO is a legal "corporate officer" of a company. Seems you need to learn a bit more about fiduciary responsibilities for a CEO. It is a legal obligation.
Maybe you'll do some reading, probably not though, huh? The people in your life must be just fucking exhausted by that energy of yours.
Has anyone ever been under the illusion orherwise? I’ve never seen anyone who thought corporations cared about them. And people don’t care about corporations either. They care about getting the shit they want at the price they want and will sleep very soundly if some corporation goes out of business.
a lot of people have a hard time to believe that facebook, google, microsoft, etc cannot be trusted, or even that they don't have good intentions (anymore?)
It’s nice to think that there is some form of cosmic justice present, and that wealthy people have some sort of unique-to-their-situation guilt that balances out how easy their lives are. But that’s all it is. Nice to think about.
I couldn't figure it out from the bit of the article i could see before the pay wall, but is it stated who they license the content from?
Many times these things are licensed in bundles (especially likely if they all showed up on the service at the same time) and they may not have been able to repurchase the license. It wouldn't surprise me if alot of that content is in flux with all the creators/businesses being killed/destroyed.
Is it possible they just decided to nix all that content during the moment in history it's most likely to be viewed outside of its previously very small audience? Sure. It just feels like there's probably something else going on here.
I gave Netflix a chance because of all the Palestinian content (I'm not even shitting) after being unsubbed for over a year since their underhanded tactics on family sharing, but I guess it's time to cancel again.
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept. Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
There's a pinned post right now where you can vote to kill the bot. I ultimately blocked it because it was at best useless - the sources I didn't recognize it didn't either, and I saw it endorsing British tabloids which is outright harmful. Maybe I would have liked the Wikipedia addition, because the spoiler tag works on my Lemmy client, but people already do this in comments in a more relevant way on an article to article basis.