Netflix And Virtue Signalling

[Ethel mermania]

netflix does have that information, would it be a privacy violation to share it?

Probably should be, yeah, other than in aggregate across all users.

That's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, though.

true, but it is more the question that interests me,

the stuff in the thread has been going on since the dawn of time. people lying in the Nielson ratings books, saying they watched PBS when they were really watching dialing for dollars. self reporting is never accurate.

[The Two Jerseys]

I do not understand the premise of this thread.

It's a Xero thread, it all comes down to "we should use money to express our opinions".

[Galloism]

Probably should be, yeah, other than in aggregate across all users.

That's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, though.

true, but it is more the question that interests me,

the stuff in the thread has been going on since the dawn of time. people lying in the Nielson ratings books, saying they watched PBS when they were really watching dialing for dollars. self reporting is never accurate.

That is true - what people say they watch or do does not always line up with what they actually do. Also, what they spend their money on isn't necessarily always what they really want or value.

If you really want to know a person, you need to know what they do in secret.

[Galloism]

I do not understand the premise of this thread.

It's a Xero thread, it all comes down to "we should use money to express our opinions".

Never mind that's a terrible way of expressing actual opinions or need, particularly with public goods.

[Salandriagado]

I do not understand the premise of this thread.

Read the OP's name, and copy/paste the premise of every other one of his threads.

[Ethel mermania]

true, but it is more the question that interests me,

the stuff in the thread has been going on since the dawn of time. people lying in the Nielson ratings books, saying they watched PBS when they were really watching dialing for dollars. self reporting is never accurate.

That is true - what people say they watch or do does not always line up with what they actually do. Also, what they spend their money on isn't necessarily always what they really want or value.

If you really want to know a person, you need to know what they do in secret.

it is what i think about relationships. they are impossible for an outsider to judge because no one else knows what goes behind closed doors.

as to purchases, i think there is a secondary value to it for example if i buy jewelry for mrs mermania i have no value for it. i hate jewelry, but if it makes the mrs happy there is the value of that

[Nimzonia]

Not sure I entirely agree with Netflix on this one. Of course people are going to mostly watch crap movies and give them low scores, because 90% of movies are crap. If I watch a ton of crap movies and give them 1 star, then I watch a few David Attenborough documentaries and give them 5 stars, it's because I wanted to watch a movie but didn't know which movies were crap until after I watched them, and Attenborough never disappoints but there's only so much Attenborough on Netflix. The rating is for how good I thought something was, not how likely I was to watch it.

Also, some people apparently just aren't savvy enough to tell a movie is going to be crap because it has Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell in it.

[Galloism]

That is true - what people say they watch or do does not always line up with what they actually do. Also, what they spend their money on isn't necessarily always what they really want or value.

If you really want to know a person, you need to know what they do in secret.

it is what i think about relationships. they are impossible for an outsider to judge because no one else knows what goes behind closed doors.

They're also impossible for insiders to judge, because they're too close to be objective.

as to purchases, i think there is a secondary value to it for example if i buy jewelry for mrs mermania i have no value for it. i hate jewelry, but if it makes the mrs happy there is the value of that

Indeed. And some things are valued highly but not paid for at all. Also, some things are valued relatively lowly but we buy them because we have to, regardless of the price.

Life is complicated.

[Arcturus Novus]

I do not understand the premise of this thread.

It's a Xero thread, it all comes down to "we should use money to express our opinions".

Oh, that's dumb. A good number of us are broke teenagers and twenty-somethings, why would we want to pay for content that's been free for nearly a decade?

[Galloism]

It's a Xero thread, it all comes down to "we should use money to express our opinions".

Oh, that's dumb. A good number of us are broke teenagers and twenty-somethings, why would we want to pay for content that's been free for nearly a decade?

Because, you want to signal to producers to produce more of something produced so abundantly it's available in nearly infinite quantities for free. But you want to influence them to produce MORE.

For some reason.

[Allanea]

Virtue signalling is one of the ost overused words on the Internet. Every time some alt-righter loses an argument they start accusing people of 'virtue signalling'. It's like the equivalent of 'mansplaining' on the left where people use 'mansplaining' whenever a man disagrees with them.

In this case it's also dumb.

Who are you 'signalling' here? It's an *anonymous* rating system.

Also people can probably rate movies they had watched elsewhere ant not necessarily on Netflix.

[Arcturus Novus]

Oh, that's dumb. A good number of us are broke teenagers and twenty-somethings, why would we want to pay for content that's been free for nearly a decade?

Because, you want to signal to producers to produce more of something produced so abundantly it's available in nearly infinite quantities for free. But you want to influence them to produce MORE.

For some reason.

Gallo, I respect and admire you, but that made no fucking sense.

[Galloism]

Because, you want to signal to producers to produce more of something produced so abundantly it's available in nearly infinite quantities for free. But you want to influence them to produce MORE.

For some reason.

Gallo, I respect and admire you, but that made no fucking sense.

....

I know. That's the point.

[Great Nilfgaard]

Amy Schumer probably got them to change it. Her publicist is best friends with Kelly Bennett, the Netflix CMO.

This is because of the one star ratings on her special.

[Liriena]

Amy Schumer probably got them to change it. Her publicist is best friends with Kelly Bennett, the Netflix CMO.

This is because of the one star ratings on her special.

I see you've been reading Milo Yiannopoulos' Facebook posts. ;3

[Pope Joan]

The Martindale Hubbell lLaw Directory has done this for decades.

You get a score of A, B, C or none for your expertise. This is based in confidential surveys of your peers and the local judiciary. Usually only the top senior partners get an A, so a B or C is fine.

And then there is the V or No-V rating. This is supposedly about ethics. It is really a clue about whether this person is scum.
V means Very Ethical, and, not surprisingly, it covers 90 % of the bar.

The others? Censured, suspended, sued for malpractice, etc. Stay away!

Interesting, V could stand for Virtue

[Galloism]

The Martindale Hubbell lLaw Directory has done this for decades.

You get a score of A, B, C or none for your expertise. This is based in confidential surveys of your peers and the local judiciary. Usually only the top senior partners get an A, so a B or C is fine.

And then there is the V or No-V rating. This is supposedly about ethics. It is really a clue about whether this person is scum.
V means Very Ethical, and, not surprisingly, it covers 90 % of the bar.

The others? Censured, suspended, sued for malpractice, etc. Stay away!

Interesting, V could stand for Virtue

Also, for Vendetta.

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valourous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.

Sorry, a movie I liked. Anyway, that seems like a good virtue signal, mostly.

[Liriena]

The Martindale Hubbell lLaw Directory has done this for decades.

You get a score of A, B, C or none for your expertise. This is based in confidential surveys of your peers and the local judiciary. Usually only the top senior partners get an A, so a B or C is fine.

And then there is the V or No-V rating. This is supposedly about ethics. It is really a clue about whether this person is scum.
V means Very Ethical, and, not surprisingly, it covers 90 % of the bar.

The others? Censured, suspended, sued for malpractice, etc. Stay away!

Interesting, V could stand for Virtue

Also, for Vendetta.

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valourous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.

Sorry, a movie I liked. Anyway, that seems like a good virtue signal, mostly.

No apology is required. Movie is good.

[Xerographica]

It's a Xero thread, it all comes down to "we should use money to express our opinions".

Oh, that's dumb. A good number of us are broke teenagers and twenty-somethings, why would we want to pay for content that's been free for nearly a decade?

Well, in this case subscribers are already paying Netflix money. My argument is that subscribers should have the option to use their fees to signal the value of specific content. Then Netflix would know the actual value of its content. It could use this knowledge to more easily provide more valuable content. Once it did so, then its revenue would increase and it could compete more talent away from other organizations. It would be a virtuous cycle.

Consider this example from Deirdre McCloskey’s book “The Applied Theory Of Price”…

Geoffrey Hellman wrote for the New Yorker magazine for a long time and had incessant quarrels with its editor, Harold Ross, about how little Ross paid a man of Hellman’s seniority. Ross insisted that he paid what each piece of writing was worth:

“You say that you have been here eighteen years and are not treated better than a good writer a couple of years out of college would be, so far as pay for individual articles is concerned… My firm viewpoint is that we ought to pay what a piece is worth, regardless of age, race, color, creed, financial status or any other consideration. I don’t know how, in an enterprise of this sort, one in my position can take into consideration anything beyond the actual value of the things.”

If the New Yorker (NY) allowed subscribers to use their fees to signal the value of specific articles… then the NY would know the actual value of its articles. With this knowledge it could do a far better job of supplying more valuable articles. Once the NY successfully supplied more valuable articles then it would earn more money and compete more talented writers away from other organizations. It would be a virtuous cycle.

It feels really ridiculous explaining this because this is pretty much how your grocery store works. Your grocery store is a market. Shoppers use their money to signal the value of specific products. As a result, the store knows the value of its products. It uses this knowledge to replace less valuable products with more valuable products. Of course all the other grocery stores do the same thing. Whichever grocery store does the best job of it will earn more money and compete more talent away from the other stores.

The idea that an organization is going to efficiently increase the value of its products without actually knowing the value of its products... is beyond absurd. Yet, this is exactly the idea that Netflix and the NY is based on. It's also exactly the idea that the Cato Institute and Adam Smith Institute are based on.

Therefore, it seems reasonable, albeit admittedly absurd, to conclude that nobody truly understands what markets are good for. This rule has one or two exceptions.

This is the point in history where we have markets but nobody truly understands what they are good for. Hopefully sooner rather than later we'll reach the point in history where everybody truly understands what markets are good for. The value of each and every product will be known and less valuable products will quickly be replaced with more valuable products.

[Xerographica]

If I'm starving then, as far as food is concerned, beggars can't be choosers. I'll eat some grubs to stay alive. But if I'm going to spend my money on food, then obviously I'm going to want to spend my money on some food that closely matches my preferences (ie fish tacos).

grubs < fish tacos

Everybody wants to be as happy as a kid in a candy store. This is true whether we're talking about NationStates or Netflix. But in order for there to be a wide variety of things that closely match our preferences, we gotta use our money to communicate what our specific preferences are.

If I was starving then maybe I might be willing to eat candy corn. But even if I wasn't starving I'd be happy to spend my money on sesame seed candy. My willingness to pay for sesame seed candy informs producers that it closely matches my preferences.

If we think something is good, and we want more of it, then we gotta spend our money on it. This is just as true for forum threads and Netflix shows as it is for food. Because producers really aren't mind-readers. They can't "divine" how much we love something. They can only know what's in our hearts when we inform them by our willingness to pay.

You're not answering the question Xero. You're just pontificating the same stupid bullshit over and over again.

If you USE the roads repeatedly, frequently, for 14 hours a day, but refuse to allocate dollars to the roads, should we trust your "dollar votes", which are no better than words given you can't spend them on anything for yourself, or your ACTIONS?

If you use roads, but are unwilling to allocate your taxes to roads (given the opportunity to do so), then obviously there are other public goods that are more important to you.

If you watch chick flicks on Netflix, but spend all your fees on science shows (given the opportunity to do so), then obviously science shows are more important to you than chick flicks. You'd be using your fees to tell Netflix... "Hey guys, obviously I don't mind watching chick flicks but please supply more science shows! I want more science shows!! I need more science shows!!!"

The more fees that subscribers allocated to science shows, the greater the incentive for Netflix to supply more science shows. And if Netflix ended up supplying too many science shows? Then people would spend less fees on science shows and more fees on other shows.

It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society. — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Getting the balance right depends entirely on knowing the value of things.

[Galloism]

You're not answering the question Xero. You're just pontificating the same stupid bullshit over and over again.

If you USE the roads repeatedly, frequently, for 14 hours a day, but refuse to allocate dollars to the roads, should we trust your "dollar votes", which are no better than words given you can't spend them on anything for yourself, or your ACTIONS?

If you use roads, but are unwilling to allocate your taxes to roads (given the opportunity to do so), then obviously there are other public goods that are more important to you.

If you watch chick flicks on Netflix, but spend all your fees on science shows (given the opportunity to do so), then obviously science shows are more important to you than chick flicks. You'd be using your fees to tell Netflix... "Hey guys, obviously I don't mind watching chick flicks but please supply more science shows! I want more science shows!! I need more science shows!!!"

The more fees that subscribers allocated to science shows, the greater the incentive for Netflix to supply more science shows. And if Netflix ended up supplying too many science shows? Then people would spend less fees on science shows and more fees on other shows.

So now you're saying your words (since that's all "dollar votes" really are in this context) are more probative than your actions.

I wish you could keep your story straight. Obviously Netflix has made an error if your words are more important and probative than your actions, yet you praise them.

[Ethel mermania]

Oh, that's dumb. A good number of us are broke teenagers and twenty-somethings, why would we want to pay for content that's been free for nearly a decade?

Well, in this case subscribers are already paying Netflix money. My argument is that subscribers should have the option to use their fees to signal the value of specific content. Then Netflix would know the actual value of its content. It could use this knowledge to more easily provide more valuable content. Once it did so, then its revenue would increase and it could compete more talent away from other organizations. It would be a virtuous cycle.

Consider this example from Deirdre McCloskey’s book “The Applied Theory Of Price”…

Geoffrey Hellman wrote for the New Yorker magazine for a long time and had incessant quarrels with its editor, Harold Ross, about how little Ross paid a man of Hellman’s seniority. Ross insisted that he paid what each piece of writing was worth:

“You say that you have been here eighteen years and are not treated better than a good writer a couple of years out of college would be, so far as pay for individual articles is concerned… My firm viewpoint is that we ought to pay what a piece is worth, regardless of age, race, color, creed, financial status or any other consideration. I don’t know how, in an enterprise of this sort, one in my position can take into consideration anything beyond the actual value of the things.”

If the New Yorker (NY) allowed subscribers to use their fees to signal the value of specific articles… then the NY would know the actual value of its articles. With this knowledge it could do a far better job of supplying more valuable articles. Once the NY successfully supplied more valuable articles then it would earn more money and compete more talented writers away from other organizations. It would be a virtuous cycle.

It feels really ridiculous explaining this because this is pretty much how your grocery store works. Your grocery store is a market. Shoppers use their money to signal the value of specific products. As a result, the store knows the value of its products. It uses this knowledge to replace less valuable products with more valuable products. Of course all the other grocery stores do the same thing. Whichever grocery store does the best job of it will earn more money and compete more talent away from the other stores.

The idea that an organization is going to efficiently increase the value of its products without actually knowing the value of its products... is beyond absurd. Yet, this is exactly the idea that Netflix and the NY is based on. It's also exactly the idea that the Cato Institute and Adam Smith Institute are based on.

Therefore, it seems reasonable, albeit admittedly absurd, to conclude that nobody truly understands what markets are good for. This rule has one or two exceptions.

This is the point in history where we have markets but nobody truly understands what they are good for. Hopefully sooner rather than later we'll reach the point in history where everybody truly understands what markets are good for. The value of each and every product will be known and less valuable products will quickly be replaced with more valuable products.

netflix knows the value of its content by how many times a video is downloaded, then they use that information to decide what they should do, for example the sucess of things like Orange is the new black, and the continuation of arrested developement taught them that people will download original content, and have spent their investment dollars in that direction, and as their subscription rates are going up, producing more in profits it proves them right. they dont need to charge extra or make the customer do more. a smart business like netflix makes it as easy as possible to send them money and procure the product they want from netflix. they are not going to make it more complicated than necessary to get customers to give them money.

thanks to the metadata netflix knows exactly what to deliver to maximize their profits

[Jastorf]

Virtue signaling is not a problem, and in this context it is little more than a far right thought-terminating cliché that's entirely irrelevant to the changes applied by Netflix.

Netflix in my country already used the thumbs system over a year ago. The OP is peddling conspiracy theories.

Nice thought-terminating cliché.

[Xerographica]

If you use roads, but are unwilling to allocate your taxes to roads (given the opportunity to do so), then obviously there are other public goods that are more important to you.

If you watch chick flicks on Netflix, but spend all your fees on science shows (given the opportunity to do so), then obviously science shows are more important to you than chick flicks. You'd be using your fees to tell Netflix... "Hey guys, obviously I don't mind watching chick flicks but please supply more science shows! I want more science shows!! I need more science shows!!!"

The more fees that subscribers allocated to science shows, the greater the incentive for Netflix to supply more science shows. And if Netflix ended up supplying too many science shows? Then people would spend less fees on science shows and more fees on other shows.

So now you're saying your words (since that's all "dollar votes" really are in this context) are more probative than your actions.

I wish you could keep your story straight. Obviously Netflix has made an error if your words are more important and probative than your actions, yet you praise them.

If Netflix gave subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content... why would you consider their "dollar votes" to be mere words?

Say your monthly fee is $10 dollars. If Netflix gave you the option to spend this $10 dollars on your favorite content... then it would be the same thing as Netflix giving you 10 tokens to spend on your favorite content. You gave Netflix $10 dollars and Netflix gave you 10 tokens. Spending 1 token would be exactly the same thing as spending $1 dollar.

If you spent 1 token on a chick flick, then you'd have one less token to spend on a science show. As a result you'd have to decide whether you want Netflix to have more chick flicks or science shows.

But with thumbs up... you can give both the chick flick and the science show a thumbs up. Netflix would have no idea which you want more... chick flicks or science shows.

You don't spend a thumbs up. But you would spend your token. This is why "dollar voting" really wouldn't be mere words.

[Galloism]

So now you're saying your words (since that's all "dollar votes" really are in this context) are more probative than your actions.

I wish you could keep your story straight. Obviously Netflix has made an error if your words are more important and probative than your actions, yet you praise them.

If Netflix gave subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content... why would you consider their "dollar votes" to be mere words?

Because it requires no sacrifice. You pay them anyway, so how they're allocated has no impact on you.

Say your monthly fee is $10 dollars. If Netflix gave you the option to spend this $10 dollars on your favorite content... then it would be the same thing as Netflix giving you 10 tokens to spend on your favorite content. You gave Netflix $10 dollars and Netflix gave you 10 tokens. Spending 1 token would be exactly the same thing as spending $1 dollar.

If you spent 1 token on a chick flick, then you'd have one less token to spend on a science show. As a result you'd have to decide whether you want Netflix to have more chick flicks or science shows.

But with thumbs up... you can give both the chick flick and the science show a thumbs up. Netflix would have no idea which you want more... chick flicks or science shows.

You don't spend a thumbs up. But you would spend your token. This is why "dollar voting" really wouldn't be mere words.

They would know better by how you spend your time, which is far more valuable than "tokens" or "dollar votes" which requires no sacrifice. It doesn't impact your personal cash flow at all. It's no different than words.

Time on the other hand is sacrifice. If a person spends 2 hours watching a movie, and they make 7.25/hr, they will have sacrificed 14.50 of personal time, an actual sacrifice mind you, more than your entire month's allocation for which you sacrifice $0.