4 ms·

"black market" of people sharing things amongst themselves in pure selflessness. I'd bet total hours watched is waaay down, for eking out an additional 1% or s

"black market" of people sharing things amongst themselves in pure selflessness. I'd bet total hours watched is waaay down, for eking out an additional 1% or so. Good job guys, you decreased total utility to the world for a few extra cents.

mr_mitm 3y ago
It appears to be an actual black market: > The crackdown also correlates with a marked decline in black market sales of Netflix accounts, which either belong to the seller or are created using stolen credit cards.
hcks 3y ago
The purpose of a corporation is not “world utility optimisation” and decreasing the number of Netflix hours watched is good, actually.
- tarboreus 3y ago
  That kind of is the purpose of corporations. They're given special fictional person status because they're thought to be a net benefit for society. If they weren't, it wouldn't make sense to give them these privileges. The duty to maximize profit thing was made up in the '80s and is mostly not true except in cases of fraud or gross negligence. Agree about watching less Netflix, though.
  - voisin 3y ago
    > They're given special fictional person status because they're thought to be a net benefit for society. Where did you possibly get this theory from? They were given personhood as a way of eliminating risk to shareholders so the cost of capital would come down and encourage business formation and capital efficiency. And the justification was “if they aren’t separate people with liability limited to share capital investment then mere investors not connected to the operations could be found liable to an unlimited extent, which is totally unjust”
    - galdosdi 3y ago
      The guy you replied to is literally just reciting the actual historical circumstances that lewd to governments permitting arbitrary corporations, a relatively recent development in the west over the last 400 years. Read up some history. Originally only the government could form a corporation by a special act of the king or later parliament or congress, as it was seen as such a powerful and special thing that couldn't just be handed out willy nilly. What you are reciting is merely modern ideology that supports the status quo. Forcing investors to take on liability is neither just not unjust, merely different ways of running societies, equally valid depending on your goals. After all nobody makes you invest, and in a society where you might be liable for your investment's actions you would be much more scrutinizing about your management's character before agreeing to involve yourself. Ventures would tend to be more personal and require more trust. That's the world we used to live in and that was just as valid and just. Read history.
      - voisin 3y ago
        As a trained (but not practicing) lawyer who focused my education on corporate and tax law, I have read history from the source either directly or indirectly in nearly every course I took. I have not, in any of my education, come across the notion that (as OP was responding to) corporations were allowed due to a belief they would increase the net utility of society (or specifically in this case, that decreased Netflix hours watched would be a net utility objective that would’ve been in the realm of things a corporation was initially intended to be formed for). The reasons for corporations to spread beyond royal charter to arbitrary creation by the general public had to do with lawsuit administration and limiting liability. Prior to corporations, partnerships were the primary form of organizing and when they were sued each partner had to be included separately which was cumbersome and many partners had nothing to do with the operations or activities that gave rise to the liability. The legislation which codified the above is credited with a massive increase in company formation and capital allocation in the 1800s. The presumption being that things that were once deemed too risky when there was unlimited liability were no longer as risky. None of what I’ve written here is “modern ideology” unless by modern you refer to the 1800s.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    What we've been missing is the political will to revoke that status for companies who neglect their obligation to society. Today even those who are a net drain get a pass so long as a very small number of people are making money. Let's see the corporate death penalty get more use and people will start to remember that corporate personhood is a privilege, not a right.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago
  You have accepted hook line & sinker the Chicago school's redefinition of the purpose of the corporation whole, as if it is the only truth. Before 47 years ago - before this marketing reinvention was introduced & subsequently took over - there was a more pro-social belief in what the corporate body was for. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-s...
altacc 3y ago
The article doesn't mention hours watched but does mention subscribers, which is the income metric the market is most interested in: "Netflix reported 1.2 million additional subscriptions in Latin America during the second quarter of this year, reversing the loss in the previous quarter and marking its best second quarter in the region since 2020." So appears that people rage quitting were outnumbered by those who got their own legitimate accounts.
- thejazzman 3y ago
  You have to also consider that they may have gone from a higher rate plan to two cheaper plans One of the reasons I upgraded back in the day was for more streams so I could share it with my sister. Now she has her own account instead.
g232089 3y ago
It's people reselling their accounts, there's no "selflessness" involved the way you see it.
Yeul 3y ago
I can understand Netflix. If you want regional pricing this is what it takes. I don't care either way I'm living in one of the richest countries in the world but consumers in Argentina or Bolivia can't pay €15 per month.

mr_mitm 3y ago

It appears to be an actual black market: > The crackdown also correlates with a marked decline in black market sales of Netflix accounts, which either belong to the seller or are created using stolen credit cards.

hcks 3y ago

The purpose of a corporation is not “world utility optimisation” and decreasing the number of Netflix hours watched is good, actually.

tarboreus 3y ago
That kind of is the purpose of corporations. They're given special fictional person status because they're thought to be a net benefit for society. If they weren't, it wouldn't make sense to give them these privileges. The duty to maximize profit thing was made up in the '80s and is mostly not true except in cases of fraud or gross negligence. Agree about watching less Netflix, though.
- voisin 3y ago
  > They're given special fictional person status because they're thought to be a net benefit for society. Where did you possibly get this theory from? They were given personhood as a way of eliminating risk to shareholders so the cost of capital would come down and encourage business formation and capital efficiency. And the justification was “if they aren’t separate people with liability limited to share capital investment then mere investors not connected to the operations could be found liable to an unlimited extent, which is totally unjust”
  - galdosdi 3y ago
    The guy you replied to is literally just reciting the actual historical circumstances that lewd to governments permitting arbitrary corporations, a relatively recent development in the west over the last 400 years. Read up some history. Originally only the government could form a corporation by a special act of the king or later parliament or congress, as it was seen as such a powerful and special thing that couldn't just be handed out willy nilly. What you are reciting is merely modern ideology that supports the status quo. Forcing investors to take on liability is neither just not unjust, merely different ways of running societies, equally valid depending on your goals. After all nobody makes you invest, and in a society where you might be liable for your investment's actions you would be much more scrutinizing about your management's character before agreeing to involve yourself. Ventures would tend to be more personal and require more trust. That's the world we used to live in and that was just as valid and just. Read history.
    - voisin 3y ago
      As a trained (but not practicing) lawyer who focused my education on corporate and tax law, I have read history from the source either directly or indirectly in nearly every course I took. I have not, in any of my education, come across the notion that (as OP was responding to) corporations were allowed due to a belief they would increase the net utility of society (or specifically in this case, that decreased Netflix hours watched would be a net utility objective that would’ve been in the realm of things a corporation was initially intended to be formed for). The reasons for corporations to spread beyond royal charter to arbitrary creation by the general public had to do with lawsuit administration and limiting liability. Prior to corporations, partnerships were the primary form of organizing and when they were sued each partner had to be included separately which was cumbersome and many partners had nothing to do with the operations or activities that gave rise to the liability. The legislation which codified the above is credited with a massive increase in company formation and capital allocation in the 1800s. The presumption being that things that were once deemed too risky when there was unlimited liability were no longer as risky. None of what I’ve written here is “modern ideology” unless by modern you refer to the 1800s.
- autoexec 3y ago
  What we've been missing is the political will to revoke that status for companies who neglect their obligation to society. Today even those who are a net drain get a pass so long as a very small number of people are making money. Let's see the corporate death penalty get more use and people will start to remember that corporate personhood is a privilege, not a right.
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
You have accepted hook line & sinker the Chicago school's redefinition of the purpose of the corporation whole, as if it is the only truth. Before 47 years ago - before this marketing reinvention was introduced & subsequently took over - there was a more pro-social belief in what the corporate body was for. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-s...

altacc 3y ago

The article doesn't mention hours watched but does mention subscribers, which is the income metric the market is most interested in: "Netflix reported 1.2 million additional subscriptions in Latin America during the second quarter of this year, reversing the loss in the previous quarter and marking its best second quarter in the region since 2020." So appears that people rage quitting were outnumbered by those who got their own legitimate accounts.

thejazzman 3y ago
You have to also consider that they may have gone from a higher rate plan to two cheaper plans One of the reasons I upgraded back in the day was for more streams so I could share it with my sister. Now she has her own account instead.

g232089 3y ago

It's people reselling their accounts, there's no "selflessness" involved the way you see it.

Yeul 3y ago

I can understand Netflix. If you want regional pricing this is what it takes. I don't care either way I'm living in one of the richest countries in the world but consumers in Argentina or Bolivia can't pay €15 per month.