11 ms·

I can't help but feel like everyone commenting here read the headline, brushed straight past the lengthy explanation and went directly to outrage in the comment

I can't help but feel like everyone commenting here read the headline, brushed straight past the lengthy explanation and went directly to outrage in the comment box. This is a streaming service set up to elevate content by black creators, to make up for the fact that the mainstream media under-represents those people. I'm struggling to see the outrage on a cultural level and on a startup level I can absolutely imagine there is a market for this. I'm going to guess that "Netflix for black people" is not going to be the tagline the business will advertise itself on, it was chosen by an early-stage startup to catch your eye and make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people.

zwieback 5y ago
100% agree. How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project. We already have BET so this is just a similar offering in a different format. "Netflix for black people" might not be a good choice as a tagline, though.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project I've seen people suggest that censorship is only censorship if the government does it, but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first.
  - zwieback 5y ago
    You might want to parse out my sentence again. There's tons of racism perpetuated by businesses but I don't think this is one of them
  - snakeboy 5y ago
    > but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first. I think you've misunderstood this post. This is less like a "white's only" restaurant, and more like an Italian food restaurant. It's supporting a cultural niche, not excluding another.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      Now I’m European, so maybe I’m not in the right cultural mindset for this, but your comparison really highlights what is problematic for me: based on someone’s skin colour you are determining their culture/heritage. What does a Nigerian have in common with a Jamaican, apart from the melatonin in their skin? Why would they have similar tastes in media?
      - snakeboy 5y ago
        If they're a few generations removed from their Nigerian or Jamaican ancestors, they probably don't have strong ties to their home countries' cultures. This seems true of most Americans whose families emigrated 3+ generations ago. "The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s, which is still in living memory, so I don't think it's that surprising that there would still be measurable differences in culture and media interests. Think about how much your parents' lives and the stories they told you are reflected in your present-day values and interests.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        > "The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s I see it regularly today, as African-Americans and many other people commonly say. We can recall that overt racism is practiced in certain political groups which have expanded in popularity. Research shows that racist attacks have greatly increased over the last few years. Regarding the law, many of the laws that existed before the Voting Rights Act have been recently reinstated since the Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the Act and banned federal courts from addressing many state voting issues. It's also not rare anymore in my personal experience, as it was before 2016. In the last month a white person told me that people with black skin were 'biologically different', which accounted for economic inequality. Over the weekend another told me, highly ironically, that 'minorities' were more prone to disinformation than white people, and that was the cause of problem of disinformation on the Internet. (For the record, I disagreed with both as effectively as I could - you can't tacitly approve.) A significant cause of discrimination is that its impact and presence is overlooked by people who aren't affected by it. Racism doesn't affect me (directly), so it's not hard to say it's minimal.
- tomp 5y ago
  Actually the courts think that a similar business, "cakes for straight people", is in fact discriminatory and also illegal.
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    LMAO, you're really reaching for those grapes. The courts ruled that "cakes for straight people" meant cannot be sold to non-straight people, which is in fact discriminatory and also illegal. I don't think BlackOakTV is requiring photo identification as proof of Blackness to sign-up. Stop it. Edit: For clarity, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the homophobic cake shop in Colorado strictly on freedom of religion grounds, however religion is clearly not the factor here. And for your argument to be effective, you'd have to agree that a homophobic cake shop can't get away with discrimination simpliciter.
    - runbathtime 5y ago
      You can only discriminate against white people. You can't discriminate against all of the political elite's pets. Pets include blacks, browns, gays, trans, and all the victim groups. Also businesses usually can't discriminate either. I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay.
      - imbnwa 5y ago
        > You can only discriminate against white people. You can't discriminate against all of the political elite's pets. Pets include blacks, browns, gays, trans, and all the victim groups. Wow. Pets, okay. > I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay. Lemme ask you a question: are the American arms of Univision/Telemundo/Korean Broadcasting System also discriminatory since they also will likely not put up content by ethnicities other than their own, which would also be "against whites"? Cause they actually have FCC approval.
- runbathtime 5y ago
  It is a double standard, not only would the mods not allow a post of a company that says its mission is to create the Netflix for white ppl, but YC would never dream of funding it. I am all for discrimination, but you have to let everyone discriminate and currently whites can't.
dhosek 5y ago
My favorite part of it is that insofar as the objectors identify themselves, they're (of course) white. From the OPs description, although they don't say so explicitly, it's clear that they're Black. Long history¹ in this country of white folks telling Black folks what's appropriate for Black folks to say or do. 1. And let's not fool ourselves thinking that because I've used the word "history" that it's not still very much the case.
- kbenson 5y ago
  I'm not sure you can get much more "middlebrow dismissive" than assuming that people objecting are white and the people they are objecting to are black and therefore it must be for similar reasons to why white people objected to black people in the past for bad reasons, so you can just ignore them. Importantly, even if you're right in a lot of the instances, it doesn't actually move the discussion forward in a useful way because it paints with too broad a brush and encourages others to do the same.
whalesalad 5y ago
> I can't help but feel like everyone commenting here read the headline, brushed straight past the lengthy explanation and went directly to outrage in the comment box. This is most comments on HN.
gdulli 5y ago
Some people look for any excuse to be outraged. But I think people are more curious than outraged. I don't have any opinion about the existence this company but it did make me think. For example: > When I grew up in the 90s, it seemed like black people had a relatively high number of TV shows to choose from like "Martin", "Living Single," and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". It felt good. I felt represented. Unfortunately, it turns out the 90s were an aberration I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all. Something I've already wondered is, what if that aspect of the 90s wasn't an aberration, but a feature from a time when there were fewer channels and diversity was concentrated in the fewer places everyone watched, due to how content was structured? And is it unfortunate that relegating "black" content to its own service gives it a "niche" status that it doesn't deserve? Am I missing out on good content because signing up for any new streaming service is a high bar and something I don't do? Will the bigger streaming services drop the content offered by this one, so that the largest audiences lose the opportunity to see this content? Was having fewer channels actually in a way anti-monoculture?
- gunshai 5y ago
  >I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all. What was weird for me was as I got older, all of these shows became just samey Horsein Around type crap on top of that I do remember at a certain point noticing a stark difference between shows that were on UPN, WB, BET ect and ones that were on say like FX, Fox, ABC NBC I'd say starting around the early 00s. This difference became so stark, but when I was younger there seemed to be far less of a difference. Almost like we started off with the here are ethnic families, they are similar to you but slightly different. Then ended up with, here is this completely different culture that you don't understand so it no longer is going to appeal to you. You being me and me being clearly at the end not the target demographic. In retrospect maybe the beginning was a fantasy that was never really true. My point is overall, I think I'm pretty burnt out on content that is meant to be hyper focused on identity. I hope more people get burnt out on it and realize that centering your life around aspects that you have no agency over is a waste of time.
ggggtez 5y ago
If you go to an Italian restaurant where the waiter tells you about the fine wine of his home country for five minutes, and then offers you a free sample and you find out it's a grape juice box... Then you would rightly feel outraged. The problem isn't the idea, is being sold and marketed as something it's not. This isn't like BET. This is... I don't know what it is. But it's not a Netflix competitor with classic black talent sitcoms.
- Uzo0312 5y ago
  How are we selling and marketing ourselves as something we're not? No, we're not Netflix today--I think that's somewhat inherent in the fact that we're a startup here on HN. But we say that we're working with indie filmmakers and content, not high-budget Hollywood productions, so I think we admit where we're at.
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    Hi, Black SWE here. Grandparent isn't making a sensible argument by any means and is largely grasping for straws to code their outrage ("fine wine... but grape juice box" is particularly telling). Wish you all the best.
    - ggggtez 5y ago
      That's great and all but are you telling me you consider the programming on this website to be on par with the best sitcoms of the 80s and 90s? If you read the OP, it's a blatant bait and switch.
zozbot234 5y ago
The headline does not say "black creators", though. Which is regrettable in a way; it's throwing away the biggest and most interesting differentiator about what they're actually trying to do, and replacing it with a source of gratuitous controversy. "Black creators don't get a fair chance for success in media and entertainment, and we can help address this" is a great insight, the stuff a YC launch can be made of; "Black people should consume different content that's only marketed to them", not so much and will obviously create controversy.
- Uzo0312 5y ago
  I get your point. We're here for black creators too, but our customers are black viewers, so we'll always put them first. But of course, there is no demand without supply, and black creators are at the heart of what we do, too. Fortunately, we can serve both entities!
  - ptr2voidStar 5y ago
    I think you need to "soften" your messaging - in order to calm all the "pearl clutchers" out there. Remember the first law of the 48 laws of power - you are still a minnow playing in the huge pool, and you have to appeal to ALL (if not MOST) of the current gatekeepers - who would not be as passionate about this as you are. If you have any "fangs", this is not the time to "bare" them. My advice is to be less explicit in the beginning, and use careful "dog whistles" in your messaging to target your audience - have you not learnt anything from history? What's good for the goose, is surely good for the gander too. BTW, I support what you're doing, and wish you all the success, you've just got to be more subtle with your messaging - as all the bleating in here suggests.
bishoprook2 5y ago
>This is a streaming service set up to elevate content by black creators, to make up for the fact that the mainstream media under-represents those people. I'm struggling to see the outrage on a cultural level and on a startup level I can absolutely imagine there is a market for this. If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it. There's a reason for MotorTrend to shift into cable and on-demand, Disney, etc. The market can get slice 'n diced in a million ways from the Left Handed Channel to TrannyTV (for transmission specialists naturally). >make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people. Heck, it (Netflix) doesn't serve me, and I ain't black. It's a pity that they can't run out and buy rights to a jillion older movies, but I guess everyone is still loathe to license them (or too expensive).
- acituan 5y ago
  > If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity? Just because it is branded “black” doesn’t mean it won’t perpetuate harmful racial stereotypes, such as “being black is the most important thing about you as a person”. In fact, it would have every reason to amplify that message to keep and grow their “segment”, regardless of its psycho-social consequences.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
    I feel it's necessary to identify myself as black to provide some context... The objectification already exists. This won't change that. It will, however, hopefully result in more content existing for a market that's hungry for it. OP also identifies as black, so I trust that they understand that branding their product as "for blacks only" will only hurt them, even within their market segment.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bishoprook2 5y ago
    >Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity? Not to be rude, but what do you think a 'market segment' is? What is there besides market segments? For that matter, what is there besides money? at least in terms of the entertainment biz.
rapind 5y ago
> ... and make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people. Or also just get you to talk about it, because controversial.
samstave 5y ago
As long as they aren't as douchey as /r/BlackPeopleTwitter (which is a racist subreddit that BANS anyone who is not black -- then more power to them. If they are promoting Black Content Creators and stories and shows, great! if they are looking to EXCLUDE non-black people from accessing their service/content, then fuck 'em. /r/BlackPeopleTwitter mods are douchebags.

zwieback 5y ago

100% agree. How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project. We already have BET so this is just a similar offering in a different format. "Netflix for black people" might not be a good choice as a tagline, though.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project I've seen people suggest that censorship is only censorship if the government does it, but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first.
- zwieback 5y ago
  You might want to parse out my sentence again. There's tons of racism perpetuated by businesses but I don't think this is one of them
- snakeboy 5y ago
  > but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first. I think you've misunderstood this post. This is less like a "white's only" restaurant, and more like an Italian food restaurant. It's supporting a cultural niche, not excluding another.
  - namdnay 5y ago
    Now I’m European, so maybe I’m not in the right cultural mindset for this, but your comparison really highlights what is problematic for me: based on someone’s skin colour you are determining their culture/heritage. What does a Nigerian have in common with a Jamaican, apart from the melatonin in their skin? Why would they have similar tastes in media?
    - snakeboy 5y ago
      If they're a few generations removed from their Nigerian or Jamaican ancestors, they probably don't have strong ties to their home countries' cultures. This seems true of most Americans whose families emigrated 3+ generations ago. "The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s, which is still in living memory, so I don't think it's that surprising that there would still be measurable differences in culture and media interests. Think about how much your parents' lives and the stories they told you are reflected in your present-day values and interests.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > "The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s I see it regularly today, as African-Americans and many other people commonly say. We can recall that overt racism is practiced in certain political groups which have expanded in popularity. Research shows that racist attacks have greatly increased over the last few years. Regarding the law, many of the laws that existed before the Voting Rights Act have been recently reinstated since the Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the Act and banned federal courts from addressing many state voting issues. It's also not rare anymore in my personal experience, as it was before 2016. In the last month a white person told me that people with black skin were 'biologically different', which accounted for economic inequality. Over the weekend another told me, highly ironically, that 'minorities' were more prone to disinformation than white people, and that was the cause of problem of disinformation on the Internet. (For the record, I disagreed with both as effectively as I could - you can't tacitly approve.) A significant cause of discrimination is that its impact and presence is overlooked by people who aren't affected by it. Racism doesn't affect me (directly), so it's not hard to say it's minimal.
tomp 5y ago
Actually the courts think that a similar business, "cakes for straight people", is in fact discriminatory and also illegal.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  LMAO, you're really reaching for those grapes. The courts ruled that "cakes for straight people" meant cannot be sold to non-straight people, which is in fact discriminatory and also illegal. I don't think BlackOakTV is requiring photo identification as proof of Blackness to sign-up. Stop it. Edit: For clarity, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the homophobic cake shop in Colorado strictly on freedom of religion grounds, however religion is clearly not the factor here. And for your argument to be effective, you'd have to agree that a homophobic cake shop can't get away with discrimination simpliciter.
  - runbathtime 5y ago
    You can only discriminate against white people. You can't discriminate against all of the political elite's pets. Pets include blacks, browns, gays, trans, and all the victim groups. Also businesses usually can't discriminate either. I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay.
    - imbnwa 5y ago
      > You can only discriminate against white people. You can't discriminate against all of the political elite's pets. Pets include blacks, browns, gays, trans, and all the victim groups. Wow. Pets, okay. > I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay. Lemme ask you a question: are the American arms of Univision/Telemundo/Korean Broadcasting System also discriminatory since they also will likely not put up content by ethnicities other than their own, which would also be "against whites"? Cause they actually have FCC approval.
runbathtime 5y ago
It is a double standard, not only would the mods not allow a post of a company that says its mission is to create the Netflix for white ppl, but YC would never dream of funding it. I am all for discrimination, but you have to let everyone discriminate and currently whites can't.

dhosek 5y ago

My favorite part of it is that insofar as the objectors identify themselves, they're (of course) white. From the OPs description, although they don't say so explicitly, it's clear that they're Black. Long history¹ in this country of white folks telling Black folks what's appropriate for Black folks to say or do. 1. And let's not fool ourselves thinking that because I've used the word "history" that it's not still very much the case.

kbenson 5y ago
I'm not sure you can get much more "middlebrow dismissive" than assuming that people objecting are white and the people they are objecting to are black and therefore it must be for similar reasons to why white people objected to black people in the past for bad reasons, so you can just ignore them. Importantly, even if you're right in a lot of the instances, it doesn't actually move the discussion forward in a useful way because it paints with too broad a brush and encourages others to do the same.

whalesalad 5y ago

> I can't help but feel like everyone commenting here read the headline, brushed straight past the lengthy explanation and went directly to outrage in the comment box. This is most comments on HN.

gdulli 5y ago

Some people look for any excuse to be outraged. But I think people are more curious than outraged. I don't have any opinion about the existence this company but it did make me think. For example: > When I grew up in the 90s, it seemed like black people had a relatively high number of TV shows to choose from like "Martin", "Living Single," and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". It felt good. I felt represented. Unfortunately, it turns out the 90s were an aberration I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all. Something I've already wondered is, what if that aspect of the 90s wasn't an aberration, but a feature from a time when there were fewer channels and diversity was concentrated in the fewer places everyone watched, due to how content was structured? And is it unfortunate that relegating "black" content to its own service gives it a "niche" status that it doesn't deserve? Am I missing out on good content because signing up for any new streaming service is a high bar and something I don't do? Will the bigger streaming services drop the content offered by this one, so that the largest audiences lose the opportunity to see this content? Was having fewer channels actually in a way anti-monoculture?

gunshai 5y ago
>I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all. What was weird for me was as I got older, all of these shows became just samey Horsein Around type crap on top of that I do remember at a certain point noticing a stark difference between shows that were on UPN, WB, BET ect and ones that were on say like FX, Fox, ABC NBC I'd say starting around the early 00s. This difference became so stark, but when I was younger there seemed to be far less of a difference. Almost like we started off with the here are ethnic families, they are similar to you but slightly different. Then ended up with, here is this completely different culture that you don't understand so it no longer is going to appeal to you. You being me and me being clearly at the end not the target demographic. In retrospect maybe the beginning was a fantasy that was never really true. My point is overall, I think I'm pretty burnt out on content that is meant to be hyper focused on identity. I hope more people get burnt out on it and realize that centering your life around aspects that you have no agency over is a waste of time.

ggggtez 5y ago

If you go to an Italian restaurant where the waiter tells you about the fine wine of his home country for five minutes, and then offers you a free sample and you find out it's a grape juice box... Then you would rightly feel outraged. The problem isn't the idea, is being sold and marketed as something it's not. This isn't like BET. This is... I don't know what it is. But it's not a Netflix competitor with classic black talent sitcoms.

Uzo0312 5y ago
How are we selling and marketing ourselves as something we're not? No, we're not Netflix today--I think that's somewhat inherent in the fact that we're a startup here on HN. But we say that we're working with indie filmmakers and content, not high-budget Hollywood productions, so I think we admit where we're at.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  Hi, Black SWE here. Grandparent isn't making a sensible argument by any means and is largely grasping for straws to code their outrage ("fine wine... but grape juice box" is particularly telling). Wish you all the best.
  - ggggtez 5y ago
    That's great and all but are you telling me you consider the programming on this website to be on par with the best sitcoms of the 80s and 90s? If you read the OP, it's a blatant bait and switch.

zozbot234 5y ago

The headline does not say "black creators", though. Which is regrettable in a way; it's throwing away the biggest and most interesting differentiator about what they're actually trying to do, and replacing it with a source of gratuitous controversy. "Black creators don't get a fair chance for success in media and entertainment, and we can help address this" is a great insight, the stuff a YC launch can be made of; "Black people should consume different content that's only marketed to them", not so much and will obviously create controversy.

Uzo0312 5y ago
I get your point. We're here for black creators too, but our customers are black viewers, so we'll always put them first. But of course, there is no demand without supply, and black creators are at the heart of what we do, too. Fortunately, we can serve both entities!
- ptr2voidStar 5y ago
  I think you need to "soften" your messaging - in order to calm all the "pearl clutchers" out there. Remember the first law of the 48 laws of power - you are still a minnow playing in the huge pool, and you have to appeal to ALL (if not MOST) of the current gatekeepers - who would not be as passionate about this as you are. If you have any "fangs", this is not the time to "bare" them. My advice is to be less explicit in the beginning, and use careful "dog whistles" in your messaging to target your audience - have you not learnt anything from history? What's good for the goose, is surely good for the gander too. BTW, I support what you're doing, and wish you all the success, you've just got to be more subtle with your messaging - as all the bleating in here suggests.

bishoprook2 5y ago

>This is a streaming service set up to elevate content by black creators, to make up for the fact that the mainstream media under-represents those people. I'm struggling to see the outrage on a cultural level and on a startup level I can absolutely imagine there is a market for this. If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it. There's a reason for MotorTrend to shift into cable and on-demand, Disney, etc. The market can get slice 'n diced in a million ways from the Left Handed Channel to TrannyTV (for transmission specialists naturally). >make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people. Heck, it (Netflix) doesn't serve me, and I ain't black. It's a pity that they can't run out and buy rights to a jillion older movies, but I guess everyone is still loathe to license them (or too expensive).

acituan 5y ago
> If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity? Just because it is branded “black” doesn’t mean it won’t perpetuate harmful racial stereotypes, such as “being black is the most important thing about you as a person”. In fact, it would have every reason to amplify that message to keep and grow their “segment”, regardless of its psycho-social consequences.
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
  I feel it's necessary to identify myself as black to provide some context... The objectification already exists. This won't change that. It will, however, hopefully result in more content existing for a market that's hungry for it. OP also identifies as black, so I trust that they understand that branding their product as "for blacks only" will only hurt them, even within their market segment.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bishoprook2 5y ago
  >Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity? Not to be rude, but what do you think a 'market segment' is? What is there besides market segments? For that matter, what is there besides money? at least in terms of the entertainment biz.

rapind 5y ago

> ... and make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people. Or also just get you to talk about it, because controversial.

samstave 5y ago

As long as they aren't as douchey as /r/BlackPeopleTwitter (which is a racist subreddit that BANS anyone who is not black -- then more power to them. If they are promoting Black Content Creators and stories and shows, great! if they are looking to EXCLUDE non-black people from accessing their service/content, then fuck 'em. /r/BlackPeopleTwitter mods are douchebags.