Netflix And Virtue Signalling

[Xerographica]

You're sending me really mixed messages. First you said that my thread is nonsense but now you're saying that you positively value it. Most people don't positively value nonsense.

Those two statements don't conflict.

I'm starting to think that your biggest problem is a general lack of reading comprehension.

If you positively value this thread, but you don't spend any money on it, doesn't that make you a free-rider?

[Camicon]

Those two statements don't conflict.

I'm starting to think that your biggest problem is a general lack of reading comprehension.

If you positively value this thread, but you don't spend any money on it, doesn't that make you a free-rider?

A free-rider is someone that benefits from something without contributing to it. I post here, thus contributing to the thread. So, no, I am not a free-rider in the context of this thread.

[Xerographica]

If you positively value this thread, but you don't spend any money on it, doesn't that make you a free-rider?

A free-rider is someone that benefits from something without contributing to it. I post here, thus contributing to the thread. So, no, I am not a free-rider in the context of this thread.

You're volunteering your time? Except, you think that pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. So perhaps your contribution to this thread would be the equivalent of an animal rights activist volunteering for the NRA?

[Camicon]

A free-rider is someone that benefits from something without contributing to it. I post here, thus contributing to the thread. So, no, I am not a free-rider in the context of this thread.

You're volunteering your time? Except, you think that pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. So perhaps your contribution to this thread would be the equivalent of an animal rights activist volunteering for the NRA?

I'm volunteering my time because your ineffective and woefully ignorant flailing amuses me. No, that's not like an animal rights activist helping the NRA. It's like sitting in the peanut gallery and heckling someone with a comically incorrect understanding of the material they are presenting to the audience.

[Galloism]

You're volunteering your time? Except, you think that pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. So perhaps your contribution to this thread would be the equivalent of an animal rights activist volunteering for the NRA?

I'm volunteering my time because your ineffective and woefully ignorant flailing amuses me. No, that's not like an animal rights activist helping the NRA. It's like sitting in the peanut gallery and heckling someone with a comically incorrect understanding of the material they are presenting to the audience.

Remember when he defined demand as "the amount people are willing to pay", right after lecturing me on not knowing enough about economics?

Good times, good times.

[Camicon]

I'm volunteering my time because your ineffective and woefully ignorant flailing amuses me. No, that's not like an animal rights activist helping the NRA. It's like sitting in the peanut gallery and heckling someone with a comically incorrect understanding of the material they are presenting to the audience.

Remember when he defined demand as "the amount people are willing to pay", right after lecturing me on not knowing enough about economics?

Good times, good times.

I remember that.

I remember because I peed myself a little while laughing, and had to change my pajama pants.

Yes, very good times.

[Xerographica]

You're volunteering your time? Except, you think that pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. So perhaps your contribution to this thread would be the equivalent of an animal rights activist volunteering for the NRA?

I'm volunteering my time because your ineffective and woefully ignorant flailing amuses me. No, that's not like an animal rights activist helping the NRA. It's like sitting in the peanut gallery and heckling someone with a comically incorrect understanding of the material they are presenting to the audience.

Let's translate this to Netflix. Let's say that I was a show on Netflix. You spend a lot of time watching/heckling me. Therefore, you want Netflix to give me a lot of your fees?

If I spent a lot of time watching/heckling Michael Moore on Netflix, then I really wouldn't want Netflix to give him any of my fees.

[Salandriagado]

Time spent watching something says far more than anything you've suggested.

A couple days ago I retweeted this link... Report points to crowdfunding future for councils. Today I was notified that the publisher started to follow me.

So I decided to share the best idea in the world with her. My e-mail was pretty long but perhaps this is the best part...

If crowdfunding is truly the future of councils, then hopefully you'll seriously consider using your website to test the idea of crowdfunding ideas. Ideally, the participants would spend their money to bring the very best ideas to the attention of the UK's government. But since your website is public... all the governments and other organizations in the world would have quick and easy access to the very best ideas. This would greatly increase the chances that at least some organizations would implement the very best ideas. As a result, organizations would significantly improve at an incredibly faster rate.

Imagine that this forum had a page for the best threads/ideas. The ideas on this page would be ordered by crowdfunding and every organization in the world would regularly look at this page.

I know that you're willing to spend a lot of your limited time on this thread. Does this necessarily mean that you'd also be willing to spend a lot of your limited money on this thread? Are you willing to spend your money to try and bring this thread to the attention of every organization in the world? Are you willing to spend money to bring any idea to the attention of every organization in the world?

What you are talking about here is an ad feed. It will end up exactly as shit as this, and zero people will pay any attention to it.

[Galloism]

A couple days ago I retweeted this link... Report points to crowdfunding future for councils. Today I was notified that the publisher started to follow me.

So I decided to share the best idea in the world with her. My e-mail was pretty long but perhaps this is the best part...


Imagine that this forum had a page for the best threads/ideas. The ideas on this page would be ordered by crowdfunding and every organization in the world would regularly look at this page.

I know that you're willing to spend a lot of your limited time on this thread. Does this necessarily mean that you'd also be willing to spend a lot of your limited money on this thread? Are you willing to spend your money to try and bring this thread to the attention of every organization in the world? Are you willing to spend money to bring any idea to the attention of every organization in the world?

What you are talking about here is an ad feed. It will end up exactly as shit as this, and zero people will pay any attention to it.

OMG I remember that.

I never clicked on a single link, but I remember it.

[Salandriagado]

A free-rider is someone that benefits from something without contributing to it. I post here, thus contributing to the thread. So, no, I am not a free-rider in the context of this thread.

You're volunteering your time? Except, you think that pragmatarianism is a stupid idea. So perhaps your contribution to this thread would be the equivalent of an animal rights activist volunteering for the NRA?

No. More like said person spending their time taking the piss out of the NRA.

[Camicon]

I'm volunteering my time because your ineffective and woefully ignorant flailing amuses me. No, that's not like an animal rights activist helping the NRA. It's like sitting in the peanut gallery and heckling someone with a comically incorrect understanding of the material they are presenting to the audience.

Let's translate this to Netflix. Let's say that I was a show on Netflix. You spend a lot of time watching/heckling me. Therefore, you want Netflix to give me a lot of your fees?

If I spent a lot of time watching/heckling Michael Moore on Netflix, then I really wouldn't want Netflix to give him any of my fees.

That's not how Netflix runs their business.

Look, you don't seem to understand that people can express their love of something without giving it money, so let me try and help you understand with an example of my own.

---

I own six pets: three dogs, and three cats. All of them are rescues, so the adoption fee I paid for them covers the cost of neutering and spaying them, and lets the shelter recoup costs on those procedures. I house them, feed them, give them comfortable places to sleep, and interesting things to play with. I walk them, I play with them, give them cuddles and scritches behind their ears, and other things that make them happy.

At no point have I ever given any of my pets hard currency, to express how much I value them.

Given this information, do you understand that people are capable of expressing how much they value something without throwing money at it?

Life is not a strip club, Xero.

[Galloism]

Life is not a strip club, Xero.

[Camicon]

Life is not a strip club, Xero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35AQK014tI

[Xerographica]

Life is not a strip club, Xero.

A. I observe how much of your time you spend on your dogs
B. I use this information to decide how much of your money is spent on your dogs

Does this sound like a good plan?

A. Netflix observes how much of your time you spend watching chick flicks
B. Netflix uses this information to decide how much of your money is spent on chick flicks

Does this sound like a good plan?

Here's a comment that I left on this article...Finding Liberty Between Vulnerability and Coercion... by Adam Gurri.

******************************

The products at the grocery store aren’t equally relevant to my reality. Fortunately, I get to pick and choose which products I spend my money on. I have the chance to use my money to let the store know which products are the most important to me. The store offers me, and everyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. In other words, the store is a market.

The products (shows/movies) on Netflix aren’t equally relevant to my reality. Unfortunately, I don’t get to pick and choose which products I spend my fees on. I don’t have the chance to use my money to let Netflix know which products are the most important to me. Netflix does not offer me, or anyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. Netflix is not a market.

Coercion can be defined as preventing people from substantially participating in the prioritization process. With this definition, the government really does not have a monopoly on coercion. Netflix also engages in coercion.

However, the fact of the matter is that hardly anybody wants Netflix to be a market. So the real issue isn’t “delicately balancing” anything. The real issue is figuring out the rules of coercion. When is it beneficial to disregard how relevant things are to people’s reality? When is it beneficial to prevent people from substantially participating in the prioritization process? When does coercion truly make the world a better place for everyone?

[Camicon]

Life is not a strip club, Xero.

A. I observe how much of your time you spend on your dogs
B. I use this information to decide how much of your money is spent on your dogs

Does this sound like a good plan?

Way to miss the point.

I spend as little on my pets as I can without compromising their health or happiness. I would pay more if I had to.

So, let me rephrase the point I demonstrated above: the amount of money I spend on my animals is not indicative of how much I value them. And if I'm not an idiot, or a billionaire, that will never be the case.

A. Netflix observes how much of your time you spend watching chick flicks
B. Netflix uses this information to decide how much of your money is spent on chick flicks

Does this sound like a good plan?

Sounds like a solid business strategy. Provided that use that information to keep me as a subscriber and attract new customers.

Here's a comment that I left on this article...Finding Liberty Between Vulnerability and Coercion... by Adam Gurri.

Why do you keep spewing random nonsense at people?

The products at the grocery store aren’t equally relevant to my reality. Fortunately, I get to pick and choose which products I spend my money on. I have the chance to use my money to let the store know which products are the most important to me. The store offers me, and everyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. In other words, the store is a market.

Yeah. Some grocery stores are even called "grocery markets". In other news, the sky is blue.

The products (shows/movies) on Netflix aren’t equally relevant to my reality. Unfortunately, I don’t get to pick and choose which products I spend my fees on.

You don't have "fees", you have one single subscription fee.

I don’t have the chance to use my money to let Netflix know which products are the most important to me.

Netflix doesn't care. They have other, better ways of determining that.

Netflix does not offer me, or anyone else, the opportunity to substantially participate in the prioritization process. Netflix is not a market.

No shit.

Coercion can be defined as preventing people from substantially participating in the prioritization process.

It can be defined that way. "Market" can also be defined as "a story about an immortal, time travelling samurai, locked in an endless battle against pure evil and darkness".

But that would be equally stupid (though decidedly more awesome).

With this definition, the government really does not have a monopoly on coercion.

The government doesn't have a monopoly on coercion even if you don't use a stupid definition.

Netflix also engages in coercion.

No, they don't.

However, the fact of the matter is that hardly anybody wants Netflix to be a market.

Because that would be stupid. Netflix sells access to products that have already been created in a market. There is no reason for Netflix to also be a market.

So the real issue isn’t “delicately balancing” anything. The real issue is figuring out the rules of coercion.

At this point, seems like you're just using Calvinball rules.

When is it beneficial to disregard how relevant things are to people’s reality? When is it beneficial to prevent people from substantially participating in the prioritization process? When does coercion truly make the world a better place for everyone?

Those aren't terrible questions. Good job.

[Xerographica]

A. Netflix observes how much of your time you spend watching chick flicks
B. Netflix uses this information to decide how much of your money is spent on chick flicks

Does this sound like a good plan?

Sounds like a solid business strategy. Provided that use that information to keep me as a subscriber and attract new customers.

When it comes to how much of your money is spent on pets... for sure you worry about too much or too little of your money being spent on pets. This implies that you perceive that there is some optimal amount of your money that should be spent on pets.

Logically you also perceive that there is some optimal amount of your money that should be spent on shows about pets.

X = optimal amount of your money that should be spent on pets
Y = optimal amount of your money that should be spent on shows about pets

The endlessly fascinating and frustrating thing is that you perceive that nobody can know better than you what X is.... but you also perceive that Netflix can know better than you what Y is!!! This dichotomy is the biggest intellectual itch that I seriously struggle to scratch.

Here's a comment that I left on this article...Finding Liberty Between Vulnerability and Coercion... by Adam Gurri.

Why do you keep spewing random nonsense at people?

I like to compare different people's responses to the same exact thing. Whose response do you prefer... his or yours?

[Camicon]

Sounds like a solid business strategy. Provided that use that information to keep me as a subscriber and attract new customers.

When it comes to how much of your money is spent on pets... for sure you worry about too much or too little of your money being spent on pets. This implies that you perceive that there is some optimal amount of your money that should be spent on pets.

Logically you also perceive that there is some optimal amount of your money that should be spent on shows about pets.

X = optimal amount of your money that should be spent on pets
Y = optimal amount of your money that should be spent on shows about pets

The endlessly fascinating and frustrating thing is that you perceive that nobody can know better than you what X is.... but you also perceive that Netflix can know better than you what Y is!!! This dichotomy is the biggest intellectual itch that I seriously struggle to scratch.

I don't worry about spending too much or too little. I worry about getting them quality products at the best price possible. Sometimes this means buying a brand of food that is slightly more expensive so that they don't get indigestion. Sometimes this means buying a more durable toy so that they can't tear it apart and it bits of it. I don't weigh things the way you suggest, I do what everyone else does in a free market: decide what I want, and then attempt to buy it for as little as possible.

And, again, with a handful of exceptions Netflix does not produce content. They sell access. Netflix does not need to make their service a marketplace because the content they sell access to was created and existed in a marketplace already.

All of which misses my original point. I love my pets immeasurably, which is reflected in ways beyond the amount of money I give to or spend on them. Money is a horrible indicator to determine how much I love my pets.

Why do you keep spewing random nonsense at people?

I like to compare different people's responses to the same exact thing. Whose response do you prefer... his or yours?

Irrelevant. Stop dodging.

[Xerographica]

Earlier in the thread I shared this...

The fundamental technical problem in the book [Capital In The Twenty-First Century], however, as I have hinted, is that Piketty the economist does not understand supply responses. Because he doesn’t understand supply responses he thinks that any tightness in supply is permanent, which is how he gets his Ricardian Apocalypse and all our woe. In keeping with his position as a man of the left, he has a vague and confused idea about how markets work, and especially about how supply responds to higher prices. If he wants to offer pessimistic conclusions concerning “a market economy based on private property, if left to itself” (p. 571), he had better know what elementary economics, agreed to by all who have studied it enough to understand what it is saying, does in fact say about how a market economy based on private property behaves when left to itself. - Deirdre McCloskey, Measured, unmeasured, mismeasured,and unjustified pessimism: a review essay of Thomas Piketty’s Capital In The Twenty-First Century

Maybe somebody should share this cute cat video with Piketty.

I also believe they have some of the highest-quality user-generated content on the internet, and a real chance at being one of the few places that contain all human knowledge. - Sam Altman, Quora valued around $1.8 billion after latest funding round

Would the quality of the answers increase if consumers spent their money on the highest quality answers?

Regarding the exclusiveness of substantially participating in the prioritization process...

“There were certainly lots of folks at Google that while we were doing Google Book Search were like, Why are we spending all this money on this project?,” Clancy said to me. “Once Google started being a little more conscious about how it was spending money, it was like, wait, you have $40 million a year, $50 million a year on the cost of scanning? It’s gonna cost us $300 to $400 million before we’re done? What are you thinking? But Larry and Sergey were big supporters.” - James Somers, Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria

[Galloism]

Would the quality of the answers increase if consumers spent their money on the highest quality answers?

Again, no. Only idiots would spend money they don't have to, so you'd be controlling for what idiots want.

[Kvatchdom]

oh no, netflix aired a movie i dont like. instead of not watching it im going to protest like some autistic child

[Xerographica]

Would the quality of the answers increase if consumers spent their money on the highest quality answers?

Again, no. Only idiots would spend money they don't have to, so you'd be controlling for what idiots want.

Which is more idiotic... askers spending their money on the best answers... or answerers spending their time supplying answers?

[Galloism]

Again, no. Only idiots would spend money they don't have to, so you'd be controlling for what idiots want.

Which is more idiotic... askers spending their money on the best answers... or answerers spending their time supplying answers?

Askers spending money on the best answers when they can get them for free.

[Xerographica]

oh no, netflix aired a movie i dont like. instead of not watching it im going to protest like some autistic child

Please remind me to quote you whenever somebody doesn't like one of my threads.

[Xerographica]

Which is more idiotic... askers spending their money on the best answers... or answerers spending their time supplying answers?

Askers spending money on the best answers when they can get them for free.

So I'm more idiotic than you if I spend a penny on an answer that took you 12 hours to produce?

[Galloism]

Askers spending money on the best answers when they can get them for free.

So I'm more idiotic than you if I spend a penny on an answer that took you 12 hours to produce?

I would never presume to state how idiotic you are or are not in comparison to me, at least not on nationstates.

Flaming is prohibited.

However, spending money on my answer that you don't have to is idiotic unless you think I'm a charity case or something and therefore it gives you some kind of "good feelz" boost like giving to... say Goodwill.