4 ms·

You need to justify how "for <group>" is exclusionary, as opposed to it's normal meaning of "focusing on <group>".

• kadabra9 5y ago
  Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups. Again, realistically, how many white people would pay for a platform like this? If you think the number is substantial you are delusional. For starters, its being marketed "for black people", its all black content, and other platforms e.g Netflix already have content from black creators (albeit not as focused) Having said that, they do not need white people to sub to build a viable business. I think it could work - the real secret sauce will be in securing great content naturally. But positioning your business as "$X for black people" does pigeon hole their potential market quite a bit.
  • zentiggr 5y ago
    > Saying it is For <group> implies it is not for other groups. Umm, no? Like I tried to convey in my original comment, "for <group>" means a focus on that group, as opposed to just general content. Nothing I've ever come across that was marketed as "for <>" has ever been intended to exclude me as a non-member, nor have I ever interpreted it that way. I suspect you have a bias to hear it as exclusionary more than is typical. Anecdotally, I watch BET fairly regularly, if not often. I'm aware that it's business model is generally content by black creators, for black consumers, but again, I don't remember any hints anywhere of implications of "if you're not black, you can go". If anything, wider viewing would be more informative and promote sharing across groups.
    • kadabra9 5y ago
      Ah yes, the classic tripe "You disagree with me, so therefore you must be biased".
  • tptacek 5y ago
    No, it doesn't. It just needs to for this thread to have any oxygen, and so it will here until this tiny micro-current of the discourse dies out.