4 ms·

It's probably best for civility's sake if he didn't. Would it really add much to the discussion if he did? I think it should suffice to say that the range of

by JackCh 8y ago

It's probably best for civility's sake if he didn't. Would it really add much to the discussion if he did? I think it should suffice to say that the range of netflix content is far narrower than the ideological range of the general population.

learnstats2 8y ago
Surely the opposite is true: Netflix is providing content for a broader ideological range. They are still listing Friends and Breaking Bad, you're just not furious about those.
- JackCh 8y ago
  I'm not furious about anything, did you notice that I'm not the guy upthread? Though I do find your assumption that I like Friends and Breaking Bad to be strange. Why do you assume that? > "Netflix is providing content for a broader ideological range." Furthermore, this is not actually the opposite of what I said. ("I think it should suffice to say that the range of netflix content is far narrower than the ideological range of the general population.") You use the word "broader", which is a relative term, but don't specify precisely what you are relating Netflix to. I assume you are relating it to traditional television programming (I assume this since the two shows you mentioned by name were traditional television programming.) But if you'll read my statement again, you'll see that's not what I was relating Netflix to. I related the range of Neflix content to the ideological range of the general population. Not to traditional television, to the general population. Do I really need to explain that traditional television too only covers a small slice of the ideological range of the general population? I'll do so: There are ideas and worldviews out there in which you'll never find mentioned or catered to in any mainstream television show or any Netflix show. The reasons for this are as varied as the ideas and worldviews themselves. Some don't get on TV or Netflix because they are difficult to monetize or run contrary to corporate interests. Some are too niche to bother recognizing, and others are offensive to other larger portions of society (I assume you assume it all falls under this later category, because you're eager to act morally righteous. I assume that about you because you assumed I was furious.) Some ideas and worldviews go unrecognized by television and netflix simply because they've gone unnoticed by television and netflix executives and filmmakers. The sum of human ideology, ideas and worldviews is MUCH larger than the sum of what traditional television and netflix has on display. It's healthy to recognize this because failure to do so necessarily means your understanding of the world is contracted to the intersection of what mass media executives think publishable (that is, what they can agree amongst themselves to publish.)
  - learnstats2 8y ago
    Thank you for clarifying. I now understand your statement meant something like "Netflix content has a narrower ideological range than the ideological range of the whole population" I recognise why you think this is an important claim here, but I don't think it is a useful comparison - no content provider can provide for the complete diversity of 7 billion people: it's not a fair comparison. A content provider can only make decisions within the resources that they have. Meanwhile, I was saying "Netflix content has a broader ideological range [than equivalent TV networks and content providers]". By picking those two shows, I was identifying that Netflix does not exclude people who were previously satisfied with that narrower range of content.
    - JackCh 8y ago
      Netflix is no longer competing with traditional television, they're competing with a user-driver modern web. Youtube doesn't allow all kinds of content but even so it has orders of magnitude more coverage than netflix. And for the content you won't find on youtube, it's usually pretty easy to find it on other sites. I think this is a problem for Netflix that is only going to get worse as the older generations that were primed by traditional television become less economically relevant and new generations of "internet natives" come in. Personally if I'm going to sit down and passively consume media, I usually like it to be about people making things, ideally with constrained resources. Preferably nonfiction. At any point in time Netflix may have a handful of documentaries that fit the bill, but compared to a platform like youtube it's basically nothing.
rtpg 8y ago
But given they have normal TV shows _and_ their own content, they are covering more ground than anyone The real complaint being dog whistled is that there is _any_ content not matching GP's worldview.
tvh 8y ago
That may very well be true, but this point becomes moot IMO if you compare Netflix's range to typical studios' range. We can complain about the fact that it's not diverse and broad enough for all, but surely it's broader than superheroes and chick flicks all in English language, isn't it?

by JackCh 8y ago

learnstats2 8y ago

Surely the opposite is true: Netflix is providing content for a broader ideological range. They are still listing Friends and Breaking Bad, you're just not furious about those.

JackCh 8y ago
I'm not furious about anything, did you notice that I'm not the guy upthread? Though I do find your assumption that I like Friends and Breaking Bad to be strange. Why do you assume that? > "Netflix is providing content for a broader ideological range." Furthermore, this is not actually the opposite of what I said. ("I think it should suffice to say that the range of netflix content is far narrower than the ideological range of the general population.") You use the word "broader", which is a relative term, but don't specify precisely what you are relating Netflix to. I assume you are relating it to traditional television programming (I assume this since the two shows you mentioned by name were traditional television programming.) But if you'll read my statement again, you'll see that's not what I was relating Netflix to. I related the range of Neflix content to the ideological range of the general population. Not to traditional television, to the general population. Do I really need to explain that traditional television too only covers a small slice of the ideological range of the general population? I'll do so: There are ideas and worldviews out there in which you'll never find mentioned or catered to in any mainstream television show or any Netflix show. The reasons for this are as varied as the ideas and worldviews themselves. Some don't get on TV or Netflix because they are difficult to monetize or run contrary to corporate interests. Some are too niche to bother recognizing, and others are offensive to other larger portions of society (I assume you assume it all falls under this later category, because you're eager to act morally righteous. I assume that about you because you assumed I was furious.) Some ideas and worldviews go unrecognized by television and netflix simply because they've gone unnoticed by television and netflix executives and filmmakers. The sum of human ideology, ideas and worldviews is MUCH larger than the sum of what traditional television and netflix has on display. It's healthy to recognize this because failure to do so necessarily means your understanding of the world is contracted to the intersection of what mass media executives think publishable (that is, what they can agree amongst themselves to publish.)
- learnstats2 8y ago
  Thank you for clarifying. I now understand your statement meant something like "Netflix content has a narrower ideological range than the ideological range of the whole population" I recognise why you think this is an important claim here, but I don't think it is a useful comparison - no content provider can provide for the complete diversity of 7 billion people: it's not a fair comparison. A content provider can only make decisions within the resources that they have. Meanwhile, I was saying "Netflix content has a broader ideological range [than equivalent TV networks and content providers]". By picking those two shows, I was identifying that Netflix does not exclude people who were previously satisfied with that narrower range of content.
  - JackCh 8y ago
    Netflix is no longer competing with traditional television, they're competing with a user-driver modern web. Youtube doesn't allow all kinds of content but even so it has orders of magnitude more coverage than netflix. And for the content you won't find on youtube, it's usually pretty easy to find it on other sites. I think this is a problem for Netflix that is only going to get worse as the older generations that were primed by traditional television become less economically relevant and new generations of "internet natives" come in. Personally if I'm going to sit down and passively consume media, I usually like it to be about people making things, ideally with constrained resources. Preferably nonfiction. At any point in time Netflix may have a handful of documentaries that fit the bill, but compared to a platform like youtube it's basically nothing.

rtpg 8y ago

But given they have normal TV shows _and_ their own content, they are covering more ground than anyone The real complaint being dog whistled is that there is _any_ content not matching GP's worldview.

tvh 8y ago

That may very well be true, but this point becomes moot IMO if you compare Netflix's range to typical studios' range. We can complain about the fact that it's not diverse and broad enough for all, but surely it's broader than superheroes and chick flicks all in English language, isn't it?