4 ms·
There is clearly a church-and-state issue with tech platforms owning studios. On the other hand, they have the cash. Not sure how we solve this without directly
by JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
There is clearly a church-and-state issue with tech platforms owning studios. On the other hand, they have the cash. Not sure how we solve this without directly plumbing the cash to independent studios through a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios.
- humodz 5mo agoIn the 1940s it was common for studios to own movie theaters, but the Supreme Court ruled that this violated antitrust laws and forced them to sell off their theaters. To me it's the same situation again, but now the theaters (streaming platforms) owning the studios. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
- reactordev 5mo agoAnd a federal government openly encouraging it
- runevault 5mo agoSadly the era of government that split up studios and theaters is long gone. Hollywood is built on a different time between things like this and its flavor of unions that cover the biggest players in the industry. Closest thing we have to a Hollywood today is games, but game makers can also make consoles and industry wide unions would never happen. Is there some unionization in games? Yeah, but I haven't heard of any single one that cover a significant number of different studios
- lotsofpulp 5mo agoThere is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it. It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media.
- bluefirebrand 5mo ago> It’s trivial to make and distribute a video It's trivial to shout into the void It's nontrivial to get heard Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices
- cassonmars 5mo agoThis feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). Why do you feel differently?
- gAI 5mo agoAt least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died.
- bluefirebrand 5mo ago> Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). I don't disagree I just don't think it has moved the needle that much. Powerful publishers still direct an enormous amount of the content available online And there are fewer of them, because they have been consolidating for decades now Edit: I think that a lot of people overestimate how much online publishing is independent. A vast majority of it is still backed/funded/owned by legacy media and publishers. I see this all the time with video games. People will say "look at how popular "New Release" is! Indie games are so successful nowadays!" But it turns out that the game they're talking about is backed by a huge publisher
- lotsofpulp 5mo agoThere are 8 billion people in the world, and only 24 hours in a day. There is no reason to expect anyone to hear or see what you are saying, it’s logistically impossible. Even for professionals, hollywood, big news channels, all are becoming less and less relevant.
- vovavili 5mo ago>a tax on tech funding a subsidy on independent studios Forcing consumers to subsidize an expensive taste sounds like a peculiar idea.
- ok_dad 5mo agoMore like ensuring culture and art isn’t captured by the big conglomerate.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- nonethewiser 5mo agoHow is it different than media companies owning studios? Or simply studios existing? Studios publish viewpoints. What you’re saying seems to completely ignore the first amendment.
- ok_dad 5mo agoThe first amendment is for humans fuck the corps
- nonethewiser 5mo agoBut in practice no, the government cannot compel speech like this due to the first amendment
- boca_honey 5mo ago[flagged]
- vkou 5mo agoIt's also the reason a lot of crap has flourished, too. I'll take a bit less tech progress if it meant less of it.
- zeroonetwothree 5mo agoPersons, not humans.
- ok_dad 5mo ago[flagged]
- ok_dad 5mo agoSure but I’m not saying it’s not legal right now, I’m saying fuck the corps, free speech is for humans. Fuck the Supreme Court of a ~decade ago, too, for fucking this up.
- fred_is_fred 5mo agoThis is the same studio that did the Melania movie.