3 ms·

"Hey, offending people sells and we're in it for the money...". If this bothers you, chant "we're in it for the money" until it doesn't. If it still bothers y

"Hey, offending people sells and we're in it for the money...". If this bothers you, chant "we're in it for the money" until it doesn't. If it still bothers you, get outta here.

SheinhardtWigCo 4y ago
Well, yes, this is a much needed clarification for the people working there who think edgy comedy is despicable. Now they know they have the option not to work at an edgy comedy factory, instead of posting about it on Twitter and taking a day off to protest on Twitter.
qgin 4y ago
I think what they’re saying is that the caution needed to avoid offending anyone would be too much of a handicap in the goal of making content that people like. I know there are specific examples where a person could say “so THIS couldn’t have been avoided?” But as a general policy, they’re saying that they’re going draw their line for what’s acceptable at a place that isn’t intentionally trying to offend, but is sometimes going to end up letting something through that does.
- 0des 4y ago
  Why are they surprised when the org begins to resemble the content? When Netflix sells outrage, why are they shocked when they cultivate internal outrage?
  - qgin 4y ago
    99.9% of Netflix content isn’t outrageous in any way. There’s a lot of attention for letting famous comedians do their usual routines in a recorded special, but we’re talking about less than 10 hours of television in a library of like 20,000 hours of Netflix originals.
    - celdon25 4y ago
      > 99.9% of Netflix content isn’t outrageous in any way. You could say that's only because it has become the new norm. The Simpsons was considered to be controversial at first.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        And then came Family Guy, making the Simpsons seem like pretty mellow family fare in comparison.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        'Was', heh. Bart makes delinquency look cool and in the 90s I personally saw a fair few young boys my own age emulating Bart and getting into trouble for it. I think the Simpsons is appropriate for teenagers, but not much younger.
        0des 4y ago
        southpark
        robonerd 4y ago
        Certainly. Southpark made a name for itself by being a show kids really wanted to watch although/because their parents really didn't want them to watch it. It's been controversial since it first aired.
carlivar 4y ago
So basically the newspaper industry for the past century or so, too?
dahart 4y ago
Disney offends some people (seriously, as an ex-employee, I was astounded the degree to which some supposedly adult people insisted on being offended by cartoons made for children.) Facebook actually has a business model based on encouraging people to offend each other and make money off everyone standing around to watch, where Netflix does nothing even remotely close. Fox News literally manufactures offenses on a daily basis and encourages people to be offended. Netflix is so completely bland and generally inoffensive compared to so many other things out there, it seems funny to me to call it out and point fingers at Netflix as some kind of example.
ALittleLight 4y ago
I find the idea that you shouldn't offend people odd and pretty recent. For example, when I was growing up, my mother would say "We have a G rated household." Meaning: in our household we could not watch any movies or TV shows that would not be rated G. As you might imagine, Netflix hosts lots of content that my parents would find offensive. Likewise, religious people might find pro-atheist content on Netflix offensive, anti-porn people offended by Netflix's borderline softcore pornography, political groups might be offended by various documentaries, and so on. You really cannot hold a diverse selection of content and avoid offending people. Why is avoiding offending people now supposed to be important for Netflix?
- mbostleman 4y ago
  I don't think that offending people is truly the first principle. If that were the case there would be zero content. The attempt is to not be offensive to the specific sensitivities a specific group that is vocal in popular culture and that supposedly has the power to take down your brand. It would be interesting to see if that group really has power if all companies would stand up against them instead of folding.
- johntb86 4y ago
  We used to have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority and relatively universal radio/tv enforcement of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words, so there was a time (the 30s-60s) when the impulse was to censor everything to the lowest common denominator. It's not that recent a phenomenon.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    It's worth noticing that the FCC regulations were aimed at broadcasts when children were up (6am-10pm), in an effort to protect kids, not adults. Also, those regulations existed on the limited resource of public airwaves. There is no reason you couldn't start the Hardcore Porn Cable Network other than it would flop. There is no reason to use time-based filtering anymore, so making non-G rated content available 24/7 is no longer an issue.

"Hey, offending people sells and we're in it for the money...". If this bothers you, chant "we're in it for the money" until it doesn't. If it still bothers you, get outta here.

SheinhardtWigCo 4y ago

Well, yes, this is a much needed clarification for the people working there who think edgy comedy is despicable. Now they know they have the option not to work at an edgy comedy factory, instead of posting about it on Twitter and taking a day off to protest on Twitter.

qgin 4y ago

I think what they’re saying is that the caution needed to avoid offending anyone would be too much of a handicap in the goal of making content that people like. I know there are specific examples where a person could say “so THIS couldn’t have been avoided?” But as a general policy, they’re saying that they’re going draw their line for what’s acceptable at a place that isn’t intentionally trying to offend, but is sometimes going to end up letting something through that does.

0des 4y ago
Why are they surprised when the org begins to resemble the content? When Netflix sells outrage, why are they shocked when they cultivate internal outrage?
- qgin 4y ago
  99.9% of Netflix content isn’t outrageous in any way. There’s a lot of attention for letting famous comedians do their usual routines in a recorded special, but we’re talking about less than 10 hours of television in a library of like 20,000 hours of Netflix originals.
  - celdon25 4y ago
    > 99.9% of Netflix content isn’t outrageous in any way. You could say that's only because it has become the new norm. The Simpsons was considered to be controversial at first.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      And then came Family Guy, making the Simpsons seem like pretty mellow family fare in comparison.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      'Was', heh. Bart makes delinquency look cool and in the 90s I personally saw a fair few young boys my own age emulating Bart and getting into trouble for it. I think the Simpsons is appropriate for teenagers, but not much younger.
      - 0des 4y ago
        southpark
        robonerd 4y ago
        Certainly. Southpark made a name for itself by being a show kids really wanted to watch although/because their parents really didn't want them to watch it. It's been controversial since it first aired.

carlivar 4y ago

So basically the newspaper industry for the past century or so, too?

dahart 4y ago

Disney offends some people (seriously, as an ex-employee, I was astounded the degree to which some supposedly adult people insisted on being offended by cartoons made for children.) Facebook actually has a business model based on encouraging people to offend each other and make money off everyone standing around to watch, where Netflix does nothing even remotely close. Fox News literally manufactures offenses on a daily basis and encourages people to be offended. Netflix is so completely bland and generally inoffensive compared to so many other things out there, it seems funny to me to call it out and point fingers at Netflix as some kind of example.

ALittleLight 4y ago

I find the idea that you shouldn't offend people odd and pretty recent. For example, when I was growing up, my mother would say "We have a G rated household." Meaning: in our household we could not watch any movies or TV shows that would not be rated G. As you might imagine, Netflix hosts lots of content that my parents would find offensive. Likewise, religious people might find pro-atheist content on Netflix offensive, anti-porn people offended by Netflix's borderline softcore pornography, political groups might be offended by various documentaries, and so on. You really cannot hold a diverse selection of content and avoid offending people. Why is avoiding offending people now supposed to be important for Netflix?

mbostleman 4y ago
I don't think that offending people is truly the first principle. If that were the case there would be zero content. The attempt is to not be offensive to the specific sensitivities a specific group that is vocal in popular culture and that supposedly has the power to take down your brand. It would be interesting to see if that group really has power if all companies would stand up against them instead of folding.
johntb86 4y ago
We used to have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority and relatively universal radio/tv enforcement of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words, so there was a time (the 30s-60s) when the impulse was to censor everything to the lowest common denominator. It's not that recent a phenomenon.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  It's worth noticing that the FCC regulations were aimed at broadcasts when children were up (6am-10pm), in an effort to protect kids, not adults. Also, those regulations existed on the limited resource of public airwaves. There is no reason you couldn't start the Hardcore Porn Cable Network other than it would flop. There is no reason to use time-based filtering anymore, so making non-G rated content available 24/7 is no longer an issue.