3 ms·

The market did handle it, there was enough bad press for YouTube so that it was no longer a good business decision to continue their partnership with Paul.

mc32 9y ago
I think that depends on how you define "market". Is it the viewers, the concerned culture watchdogs who obviously speak for everyone, one gigantic internet medium with outsized influence?
- eastWestMath 9y ago
  Should viewers have decided whether or not Weinstein should still be producing movies? There’s clearly a point where the press around someone becomes too toxic to have a close business relationship with them.
  - mc32 9y ago
    You know, I don't like the guy. Because I don't like the guy, I like that the mob contributed to his fall. But, to answer your question, I don't have an answer. Do I not listen to music because the musicians are not my politics, or do I not read an author because they have horrible views or they belong to the Church of Scientology? When I look at it from that prism, I'm not sure. Then there is the irony of Hollywood, the most misogynistic and misandristic, sexist, exploitative group of people lecturing the rest of the country on what proper conduct is.
    - eastWestMath 9y ago
      Well if you’re not aware of an artists politics you can easily find yourself consuming propaganda. It’d be foolish not to exercise any restraint in that regard.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Sometimes we have to learn to enjoy things as they are without thinking about the meta context. I think Reagan, like him or loathe him, you know, liked Springsteen's "Born in the USA", despite it being a protest song. Beside, propaganda is not in and of itself bad. Maybe propaganda has made me more of a conservationist or environmentalist. Should I have disregarded those readings because of the inherent propaganda?
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  Yes. There is an unstated assumption that giving in to a screeching outrage machine is somehow "better for business" than standing up for free expression (even if that expression is offensive). That assumption is...unwarranted. The actual percentage of neopuritan busybodies (from whatever political perspective they claim to be from) is significantly lower than an estimate based on volume would lead you to believe.

mc32 9y ago

I think that depends on how you define "market". Is it the viewers, the concerned culture watchdogs who obviously speak for everyone, one gigantic internet medium with outsized influence?

eastWestMath 9y ago
Should viewers have decided whether or not Weinstein should still be producing movies? There’s clearly a point where the press around someone becomes too toxic to have a close business relationship with them.
- mc32 9y ago
  You know, I don't like the guy. Because I don't like the guy, I like that the mob contributed to his fall. But, to answer your question, I don't have an answer. Do I not listen to music because the musicians are not my politics, or do I not read an author because they have horrible views or they belong to the Church of Scientology? When I look at it from that prism, I'm not sure. Then there is the irony of Hollywood, the most misogynistic and misandristic, sexist, exploitative group of people lecturing the rest of the country on what proper conduct is.
  - eastWestMath 9y ago
    Well if you’re not aware of an artists politics you can easily find yourself consuming propaganda. It’d be foolish not to exercise any restraint in that regard.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Sometimes we have to learn to enjoy things as they are without thinking about the meta context. I think Reagan, like him or loathe him, you know, liked Springsteen's "Born in the USA", despite it being a protest song. Beside, propaganda is not in and of itself bad. Maybe propaganda has made me more of a conservationist or environmentalist. Should I have disregarded those readings because of the inherent propaganda?
Turing_Machine 9y ago
Yes. There is an unstated assumption that giving in to a screeching outrage machine is somehow "better for business" than standing up for free expression (even if that expression is offensive). That assumption is...unwarranted. The actual percentage of neopuritan busybodies (from whatever political perspective they claim to be from) is significantly lower than an estimate based on volume would lead you to believe.