4 ms·

I used NBC as my example instead of PBS to illustrate my point regarding the dissonance between "Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing busines

I used NBC as my example instead of PBS to illustrate my point regarding the dissonance between "Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people [because of societal backlash]" and "Your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people", actually, because they need to run ads. It goes like this: NBC runs a guy hurling racial slurs in their primetime slot. Society is outraged, stops tuning into Seinfeld: 2023, and generally the brand is tarnished. The party which pays NBC, their advertisers, stop wanting to pay for a brand that is associated with a guy hurling racial slurs. NBC now has to voluntarily choose between advertiser revenue being correctly allocated away from them as a racial slur broadcaster towards their competitors on the principle of "we are not going to be pressured to stop doing business with racial slur guy", or to make more money. As a shareholder of NBC, I'd think it as very silly to choose option 1, and the invisible hand would have guided NBC to voluntarily drop this person simply because "your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people". Does this make the dissonance between these two concepts that we're all talking about seem a bit clearer?

sickofparadox 3y ago
I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy.
- DetroitThrow 3y ago
  > I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy. So to be clear, you think other people will (or perhaps should) interpret NBC broadcasting a random guy who throws racial slurs on their primetime slots as "someone else's media", and think it's silly to be mad at them for broadcasting random racist guy on their primetime slots. I'm going to the bar later and will pose the same hypothetical to some regulars and randoms in my relatively purple city and state. I will bring up the same hypothetical, and argue your point, and will return their reactions about what if anything should happen about racist guy on NBC. If I'm not beaten up, I'll let you know what their reactions are! My personal prediction: They will find the take that "individuals in society should both think and act different, but the rules of society ought not force a change in behavior" as ideas that are counter to each other, and the whole argument as similar to the bleating of George Costanza.
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    I actually misread your hypothetical - I thought you were talking about running an ad during primetime on NBC, (quite a screw-up, I know!) my apologies. I would agree in your scenario it'd be fine to be upset with NBC, but its not analogous with the Kiwifarms scenario, as NBC is directly funding and creating the content - whereas KF is simply a forum powered by users. It'd be fine to be mad at twitter for changing the notification sound to a custom slur dependent on the race of the user, even if they contracted out the creation of that function to an independent dev. They proposed the change, scoped the change, and paid for it; it is in effect their change, even if it was done through a third party - similarly to how shows on TV are made.
- Volundr 3y ago
  I can be mad at both. NBC has plenty of options for it's programming. If it chooses something objectionable I'm well within my rights to judge them for it.

sickofparadox 3y ago

I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy.

DetroitThrow 3y ago
> I think it would be silly to be mad at NBC for the content of someone else's media, even if it is on their platform. Be mad at the racist guy. So to be clear, you think other people will (or perhaps should) interpret NBC broadcasting a random guy who throws racial slurs on their primetime slots as "someone else's media", and think it's silly to be mad at them for broadcasting random racist guy on their primetime slots. I'm going to the bar later and will pose the same hypothetical to some regulars and randoms in my relatively purple city and state. I will bring up the same hypothetical, and argue your point, and will return their reactions about what if anything should happen about racist guy on NBC. If I'm not beaten up, I'll let you know what their reactions are! My personal prediction: They will find the take that "individuals in society should both think and act different, but the rules of society ought not force a change in behavior" as ideas that are counter to each other, and the whole argument as similar to the bleating of George Costanza.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I actually misread your hypothetical - I thought you were talking about running an ad during primetime on NBC, (quite a screw-up, I know!) my apologies. I would agree in your scenario it'd be fine to be upset with NBC, but its not analogous with the Kiwifarms scenario, as NBC is directly funding and creating the content - whereas KF is simply a forum powered by users. It'd be fine to be mad at twitter for changing the notification sound to a custom slur dependent on the race of the user, even if they contracted out the creation of that function to an independent dev. They proposed the change, scoped the change, and paid for it; it is in effect their change, even if it was done through a third party - similarly to how shows on TV are made.
Volundr 3y ago
I can be mad at both. NBC has plenty of options for it's programming. If it chooses something objectionable I'm well within my rights to judge them for it.