Netflix And Virtue Signalling

[Lady Scylla]

If they could do that without telling me where I should stick it, then no. Otherwise, yes. I'm a spiteful person, irritating me is never a good idea.

I honestly don't quite understand how you could get irritated if lots of people spend lots of their fees on a show. Unless it was a show that you really didn't like.

I'm sure pacifists would get irritated if lots of taxpayers spent a lot of taxes on national defense/offense.

Problem is you're taking your initial premise and trying to relate it to something that can't be equated, and is entirely stupid in its attempt to do so. I like shows that have low ratings, I hate shows that have high ratings -- and vice versa. The only time I've worried about ratings is when it was dealing with a particular product that I would need to use day-to-day. Netflix doesn't fill such a role, as it's there only for entertainment. So the premise that what other people must like is clearly what I might like is just pretentious. And I revile that.

Not to mention, you can spend all the money you like on Netflix -- it won't get shows to stay. Netflix has pointed this out before that they'd love to offer a wide range of content for everyone, but contracts have limits of say 6 months, a year, etc; some of these contracts are not negotiable and cannot be renewed. The show stays for 6 months to gain an interest, and then they pull it so you have to go pay their subscriptions (HBO) or purchase it via DVD. In other cases, a contract dispute has occurred between Netflix and an owner of a show, and this results in the show getting pulled until either the deal is renegotiated, or terminated entirely. Sure, they'd love to have your money, but Netflix isn't the main avenue for their income and so the likelihood of a company giving a damn about your pockets and how you decide to empty them on Netflix is null.

The only company that cares about your money entirely is Netflix, especially things with original series, which Netflix is turning to in order to compete with other companies such as CBS. But, this issue runs into the same as I stated earlier. I don't give a damn if Fred and his family like show X -- trying to tell me otherwise is going to make me act out of spite to merely illustrate a point. I pay for Netflix as a whole for its access -- I don't pay for individual shows, and therefore the rating system means nothing but to act as a catalyst for 'ermagerd I upvoted it look at me' pompous fluff. And even if I did pay for individual shows, I'm not about to give a rat's ass about the rating system still. Because, yet again, I've liked things unpopular before. All this premise is trying to introduce is a 'filter bubble' and that's just stupid.

[Xerographica]

I honestly don't quite understand how you could get irritated if lots of people spend lots of their fees on a show. Unless it was a show that you really didn't like.

I'm sure pacifists would get irritated if lots of taxpayers spent a lot of taxes on national defense/offense.

Problem is you're taking your initial premise and trying to relate it to something that can't be equated, and is entirely stupid in its attempt to do so. I like shows that have low ratings, I hate shows that have high ratings -- and vice versa. The only time I've worried about ratings is when it was dealing with a particular product that I would need to use day-to-day. Netflix doesn't fill such a role, as it's there only for entertainment. So the premise that what other people must like is clearly what I might like is just pretentious. And I revile that.

Except, how do you think that your grocery store works? Shoppers individually spend their money on the specific products that they value most, and the grocery store uses this information to supply the most valuable products.

I'm sure that you want Netflix to supply the most valuable content. But this really isn't possible if subscribers aren't able to use their fees to signal the value of specific content.

[Lady Scylla]

Problem is you're taking your initial premise and trying to relate it to something that can't be equated, and is entirely stupid in its attempt to do so. I like shows that have low ratings, I hate shows that have high ratings -- and vice versa. The only time I've worried about ratings is when it was dealing with a particular product that I would need to use day-to-day. Netflix doesn't fill such a role, as it's there only for entertainment. So the premise that what other people must like is clearly what I might like is just pretentious. And I revile that.

Except, how do you think that your grocery store works? Shoppers individually spend their money on the specific products that they value most, and the grocery store uses this information to supply the most valuable products.

I'm sure that you want Netflix to supply the most valuable content. But this really isn't possible if subscribers aren't able to use their fees to signal the value of specific content.

This is not how Netflix works, and I'm thankful for that.

[Galloism]

Except, how do you think that your grocery store works? Shoppers individually spend their money on the specific products that they value most, and the grocery store uses this information to supply the most valuable products.

I'm sure that you want Netflix to supply the most valuable content. But this really isn't possible if subscribers aren't able to use their fees to signal the value of specific content.

This is not how Netflix works, and I'm thankful for that.

No shit. My local grocery store is nearly bereft of foreign food because people around here don't know how to cook with it.

They finally started stocking a good curry because I bothered them, you know, using words, every time I shopped until they'd buy anything to make me shut up. Of course, I'm probably about one of five people who buy it, but at least I can make a good Indian dish now.

EDIT: Well now I want Indian food. I wonder if I've got any curry left.

[Xerographica]

Except, how do you think that your grocery store works? Shoppers individually spend their money on the specific products that they value most, and the grocery store uses this information to supply the most valuable products.

I'm sure that you want Netflix to supply the most valuable content. But this really isn't possible if subscribers aren't able to use their fees to signal the value of specific content.

This is not how Netflix works, and I'm thankful for that.

A. You don't believe it's necessary for Netflix to know the value of its specific content.

Or

B. You believe it's necessary for Netflix to know the value of its specific content, but the value can be determined by ratings and viewings.

Is it A or B?

[The Two Jerseys]

Problem is you're taking your initial premise and trying to relate it to something that can't be equated, and is entirely stupid in its attempt to do so. I like shows that have low ratings, I hate shows that have high ratings -- and vice versa. The only time I've worried about ratings is when it was dealing with a particular product that I would need to use day-to-day. Netflix doesn't fill such a role, as it's there only for entertainment. So the premise that what other people must like is clearly what I might like is just pretentious. And I revile that.

Except, how do you think that your grocery store works? Shoppers individually spend their money on the specific products that they value most, and the grocery store uses this information to supply the most valuable products.

I'm sure that you want Netflix to supply the most valuable content. But this really isn't possible if subscribers aren't able to use their fees to signal the value of specific content.

You seem to have missed the part where, unlike Netflix, your local grocery store isn't forced to sign a contract with Kraft and ConAgra that says that if they want to sell X, Y, and Z, they have to buy A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z from Kraft and ConAgra.

[Herskerstad]

This happened right after Amy Schumer's complete 1 star disaster did it not? The one where she blamed the down-votes on alt right trolls, which is funny, since she still had just like 1.5 stars in Canada which is apparently an alt-right breeding ground.

Eh, hopefully there will be a bar like youtube has.

[Katganistan]

Virtue signalling is not a problem, mainly because it's nothing more than a faux-intellectual buzzword devised by ignoramuses.

Besides, I can watch something stupid multiple times because I like it, while recognizing it is stupid. That doesn't mean rating something that I watched once and thought was amazing is virtue signaling. I watched "The Remains of the Day" and "Pan's Labyrinth" only once because they were emotionally draining, but incredibly well-done films. That I see them as superior to Fresh Prince of Bel Air (which I watch more often) doesn't mean I don't consider them higher quality.

[Katganistan]

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.

Why would ANYONE want a system that restricts what you can watch (by making you spend tokens) -- in other words, providing less content and less value for more money?

The idea is ridiculously stupid.

[Xerographica]

Virtue signalling is not a problem, mainly because it's nothing more than a faux-intellectual buzzword devised by ignoramuses.

Besides, I can watch something stupid multiple times because I like it, while recognizing it is stupid. That doesn't mean rating something that I watched once and thought was amazing is virtue signaling. I watched "The Remains of the Day" and "Pan's Labyrinth" only once because they were emotionally draining, but incredibly well-done films. That I see them as superior to Fresh Prince of Bel Air (which I watch more often) doesn't mean I don't consider them higher quality.

From my perspective, if you highly value "The Remains of the Day" and "Pan's Labyrinth"... I would take it mean that you wish that there were a lot more similar quality movies. In other words, you perceive that there's a shortage/scarcity of similar movies.

And if you lowly value the Fresh Prince of Bel Air... it means that you perceive that there's more than enough of similar quality shows.

Does this make sense? Do you agree?

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in sports shows. I perceive that there's more than enough of them. Therefore, I lowly value them.

On the other hand, I have lots of interest in economics shows. I perceive that there's not nearly enough of them. Therefore, I highly value them.

[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.


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

Why would ANYONE want a system that restricts what you can watch (by making you spend tokens) -- in other words, providing less content and less value for more money?

The idea is ridiculously stupid.

This system wouldn't at all restrict what you can watch. You'd simply use your "tokens" to communicate which types of shows/movies that you want more of.

[Galloism]

Xero, given you've now given up on answering it, are you backing off the assertion that allocations must involve sacrifice to be meaningful?

[Xerographica]

Xero, given you've now given up on answering it, are you backing off the assertion that allocations must involve sacrifice to be meaningful?

If I give $10 dollars to Netflix, and Netflix keeps $1 dollar and gives the rest to the creators of my favorite content... it's still a sacrifice. I'm still spending money on my favorite content (and the facilitators) rather than spending it on food, clothes or other things that I also value.

[Katganistan]

Besides, I can watch something stupid multiple times because I like it, while recognizing it is stupid. That doesn't mean rating something that I watched once and thought was amazing is virtue signaling. I watched "The Remains of the Day" and "Pan's Labyrinth" only once because they were emotionally draining, but incredibly well-done films. That I see them as superior to Fresh Prince of Bel Air (which I watch more often) doesn't mean I don't consider them higher quality.

From my perspective, if you highly value "The Remains of the Day" and "Pan's Labyrinth"... I would take it mean that you wish that there were a lot more similar quality movies. In other words, you perceive that there's a shortage/scarcity of similar movies.

And if you lowly value the Fresh Prince of Bel Air... it means that you perceive that there's more than enough of similar quality shows.

Does this make sense? Do you agree?

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in sports shows. I perceive that there's more than enough of them. Therefore, I lowly value them.

On the other hand, I have lots of interest in economics shows. I perceive that there's not nearly enough of them. Therefore, I highly value them.

It does NOT make sense and I do NOT agree.

People can like different things for different reasons. Maybe they are in the mood for dumb fun one day, and serious and thought provoking the next. Telling them that for their fee they can use x amount on a type and sacrifice their ability to watch something else that has always been available to them before is stupid.

[Xerographica]

From my perspective, if you highly value "The Remains of the Day" and "Pan's Labyrinth"... I would take it mean that you wish that there were a lot more similar quality movies. In other words, you perceive that there's a shortage/scarcity of similar movies.

And if you lowly value the Fresh Prince of Bel Air... it means that you perceive that there's more than enough of similar quality shows.

Does this make sense? Do you agree?

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in sports shows. I perceive that there's more than enough of them. Therefore, I lowly value them.

On the other hand, I have lots of interest in economics shows. I perceive that there's not nearly enough of them. Therefore, I highly value them.

It does NOT make sense and I do NOT agree.

People can like different things for different reasons. Maybe they are in the mood for dumb fun one day, and serious and thought provoking the next. Telling them that for their fee they can use x amount on a type and sacrifice their ability to watch something else that has always been available to them before is stupid.

Again, subscribers would still be able to watch all the content. I'm just arguing that they should have the option to spend their fees on their favorite content.

The point of giving subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content is for them to use their money to communicate how they want the supply to be improved.

There's always room for improvement. Like I said, I perceive that the supply would be improved if there were more shows about economics. So I'd be inclined to spend more of my fees on shows about economics. The more people who did so, the more economic shows that would be supplied.

[Hydesland]

I feel like most people voted in the poll without reading or caring about the OP, because they just hate the buzzword. But in this case it's a legitimate problem, and Netflix are correct to switch to thumbs up/down.

edit: nevermind I read the poll wrong

[Internationalist Bastard]

Doesn't matter, I've most watched the Sharknado Saga, you're getting my crap either way

[The Two Jerseys]

It does NOT make sense and I do NOT agree.

People can like different things for different reasons. Maybe they are in the mood for dumb fun one day, and serious and thought provoking the next. Telling them that for their fee they can use x amount on a type and sacrifice their ability to watch something else that has always been available to them before is stupid.

Again, subscribers would still be able to watch all the content. I'm just arguing that they should have the option to spend their fees on their favorite content.

The point of giving subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content is for them to use their money to communicate how they want the supply to be improved.

There's always room for improvement. Like I said, I perceive that the supply would be improved if there were more shows about economics. So I'd be inclined to spend more of my fees on shows about economics. The more people who did so, the more economic shows that would be supplied.

Except if your system works as you intend, there won't be any other content to watch, because Netflix will have no incentive to offer anything that doesn't bring in revenue.

[Galloism]

Xero, given you've now given up on answering it, are you backing off the assertion that allocations must involve sacrifice to be meaningful?

If I give $10 dollars to Netflix, and Netflix keeps $1 dollar and gives the rest to the creators of my favorite content... it's still a sacrifice. I'm still spending money on my favorite content (and the facilitators) rather than spending it on food, clothes or other things that I also value.

Thought experiment time.

Bob and Tom are twin brothers. Bob and Tom both like Netflix. Bob and Tom work in the same office, and make identical salaries. Bob and Tom married identical twin sisters. They have identical children through fluke of DNA matching.

Tom is the idiot twin. He's the Danny Devito of twins. He loves your new system and embraces it and allocates the $9 of the $10 he pays netflix across thousands of titles.

Bob has better shit to do. He ignores the prompt to allocate.

How much more did Tom sacrifice than Bob? How many fewer articles of clothing can he buy? How much less food can he buy? How many other things can Tom not buy because he did this allocation, in comparison to Bob?

In addition, what extra items did Tom get for allocating compared with Bob? What extra access to shows does he have? What extra content does he get compared with Bob? What did he personally gain, over Bob, for making this allocation?

[A Humanist Prognostication]

Again, subscribers would still be able to watch all the content. I'm just arguing that they should have the option to spend their fees on their favorite content.

How does Netflix continue paying licensing fees to media producers on "all the content" if users are able to restrict the spending of fees to particular subsets of that content? Doesn't this imply that at least some content has to be acquired by Netflix for free?

[A Humanist Prognostication]

Except if your system works as you intend, there won't be any other content to watch, because Netflix will have no incentive to offer anything that doesn't bring in revenue.

Indeed, Netflix' business model is to extract continuous rental access to media via a digital distribution system. To maximize revenue, Netflix must license as much media as possible, over as wide a range of genres as possible, in order to capture as many perpetual rent-paying suckerscustomers like me as possible. Allowing users to restrict usage of fees will force Netflix to stop offering as wide a selection as possible, as probably huge swaths of their current selection will cease receiving fee support. Thus, once Netflix is forced to severely reduce the media available through its service, they will see current and potentially new customers piss off else where.

At any rate, in what universe would a "choose where your fees go" scheme results in less anime and more economics docs?

[Ardrentt]

Again, subscribers would still be able to watch all the content. I'm just arguing that they should have the option to spend their fees on their favorite content.

The point of giving subscribers the option to spend their fees on their favorite content is for them to use their money to communicate how they want the supply to be improved.

There's always room for improvement. Like I said, I perceive that the supply would be improved if there were more shows about economics. So I'd be inclined to spend more of my fees on shows about economics. The more people who did so, the more economic shows that would be supplied.

Except if your system works as you intend, there won't be any other content to watch, because Netflix will have no incentive to offer anything that doesn't bring in revenue.

But clearly, having the mon- I mean, wanting to give the money that you have to something to watch it means that you believe it's far more valuable because access sure as shit is infinite.

I would only potentially accept this system if everyone were given the same amount of "chips" and the number were just vast for the month (Maybe enough for every hour of the month, give or take, who knows?) and that everytime someone dedicates two hours to a documentary, it gets those two chips (Or four or whatever number), and then someone who watches an Adam Sandler film also gives it two chips.

It still has its problems, but now you're tethering more on the point of what the Netflix people seem to want to do, which is to eliminate the potential for virtue signalling, except that, of course, you can end up watching something and really hate it, only ever watching it because you've got nothing to do and just think "Yeah okay whatever let's watch it."

[Galloism]

Except if your system works as you intend, there won't be any other content to watch, because Netflix will have no incentive to offer anything that doesn't bring in revenue.

Indeed, Netflix' business model is to extract continuous rental access to media via a digital distribution system. To maximize revenue, Netflix must license as much media as possible, over as wide a range of genres as possible, in order to capture as many perpetual rent-paying suckerscustomers like me as possible. Allowing users to restrict usage of fees will force Netflix to stop offering as wide a selection as possible, as probably huge swaths of their current selection will cease receiving fee support. Thus, once Netflix is forced to severely reduce the media available through its service, they will see current and potentially new customers piss off else where.

At any rate, in what universe would a "choose where your fees go" scheme results in less anime and more economics docs?

This is seriously your best argument against Netflix users allocating their fees?

I am seriously pointing out the makers of these films will not give them away for free and hope for donations.

Ergo, if Netflix adopts your model, they will have less content. If they have less content, their service becomes less valuable. Since its less valuable, fewer people will buy it. Since fewer people will buy it, Netflix will have less position to bargain for content and will therefore have less content. If they have less content, their service becomes less valuable. Since its less valuable, fewer people will buy it. Since fewer people will buy it, Netflix will have less position to bargain for content. If they have less content, their service becomes less valuable. Since its less valuable, fewer people will buy it. Since fewer people will buy it, Netflix will have less position to bargain for content. If they have less content, their service becomes less valuable. Since its less valuable, fewer people will buy it. Since fewer people will buy it, Netflix will have less position to bargain for content. Eventually, bankruptcy and the emergence of Hulu+ as a monopoly is the only logical result.

There are ample reasons a persons preferences and allocations may not line up, ranging from external gains to laziness and forgetfulness.

Your plan will kill Netflix dead. Full stop.

[Xerographica]

Again, subscribers would still be able to watch all the content. I'm just arguing that they should have the option to spend their fees on their favorite content.

How does Netflix continue paying licensing fees to media producers on "all the content" if users are able to restrict the spending of fees to particular subsets of that content? Doesn't this imply that at least some content has to be acquired by Netflix for free?

The size of the pie stays exactly the same size. So if some content receives a smaller slice, it's only because other content is receiving a large slice. This means that Netflix had been paying too much money for less valuable content and not enough money for more valuable content.

Once the funding shifts then the supply will adjust accordingly. Less valuable content will be replaced with more valuable content. The pie will grow larger... and more and more media producers will be interested in trying to get the largest possible slice of it.

Right now Netflix probably allocates quite a few resources (= spends lots of money) haggling with media producers over licensing fees. All these resources would be freed up if subscribers could choose where their fees go. If media producers aren't happy with their slice of the pie... then they really can't blame Netflix. But at least the media producers will know exactly what type of content has the biggest demand.

Of course as the saying goes, there's riches in niches. The pie will be so large that even a tiny slice of it will still be a substantial amount of money. So the quality and variety of the content will both skyrocket.

Netflix would become a market and in case you missed it, some people complain about stores having too many options to choose from (see Paradox of Choice).

[A Humanist Prognostication]

The size of the pie stays exactly the same size. So if some content receives a smaller slice, it's only because other content is receiving a large slice. This means that Netflix had been paying too much money for less valuable content and not enough money for more valuable content.

Well, no. What it really means is that once enough people are allocating their fees to anime reality TV cooking shows, and the fees being allocated to many other genres fall below the cost of their associated licensing, said other genres will simply be removed entirely from the offering. The pie is immediately shrinking, and will continue to shrink once all of those customers cancel their subscriptions and Netflix' income drops even more.

Rinse and repeat until until enough people have pissed off that Netflix' ability to continuing paying licenses on anime reality TV cooking shows begins to fall into question as well.

Let's not pretend that Netflix is a brick-and-mortar DVD shop. It's business model is not based on its ability to secure a one-time DVD sale. That is not, and never has been, their business model. If Netflix is somehow doing it wrong, then they're making a shitload of money hand over fist doing it. Probably don't need to fix it.