3 ms·

Regardless of the content of the movie, what's the deal with linking to a Hulu page which offers little more than a player for this 2 hour and 24 minute movie?

• chasingsparks 16y ago
  The movie is very popular in some circles, enough so that I can understand why the OP did not add more of a description. (I assume he wanted to just tell people that it now exists for viewing on hulu.) The movie is an indictment of the corporation as a "legal person." In my opinion, it conflated a lot of general adverse phenomenon associated with collective action and the consequences of corporate personhood.
  • dsspence 16y ago
    Yes, I didn't want to editorialize and I've never seen this available online before. Everyone is free to think what they want. The privatization of the Bolivian water supply was the most poignant moment for me.
    • kiba 16y ago
      The Killing Buddhas[1] rule has lead me to dig up information. Initial investigation: Bolivia seem to be a country that got into a lot of debt. Following the advice of the World Banks, they privatized everything in rapid order. Wikipedia article on the privatization of Bolvia states that the public utility is having water shortage, high tariff, accounting errors, and such. The citation was from a Spanish source, but the link was expired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization_in_Bolivia#cite_note-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization_in_Bolivia#... I have to say that the Water War is a lot more complicated than it look. First, there is the issue of privatization and how it is conducted. Second, we need to know the economic consequences of privatization. The possible bias of the World Banks that argued for privatization of water will have to be investigated, and so on. Note this is only a cursory look into the issue of water privatization. It is also unlikely that I will go much into the issue as water use is not that interesting to me. ---- 1. Killing Buddhas is taken from the Zen maxim If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. ESR generalize it as a rationalist maxim that said that our strongest belief should not be immune to and should be subjected to attempted refutation. This help avoided fixed beliefs that are totally wrong and help make sure that we do not mistake beliefs for reality.
      • kiba 16y ago
        Any reason why this post was downvoted?
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• iuguy 16y ago
  Having seen the film and read the book I can say it's definitely worth a watch. It's a documentary that asks, "If a corporation were a person, what type of person would it be?" It then follows through on the history of corporate personhood, has interviews with capitalists and anticapitalists and concludes that if a corporation were a person it would be a psychopath, concerned only with the acquisition of power and money. It's a good film, it's worth a watch especially if you're not familiar with the concepts of corporate personhood.