Netflix Resumes Advertising on X After Elon Musk Controversy::Netflix has resumed advertising on X following a suspension by the streamer and other brands after Elon Musk promoted an antisemitic post.
deleted by creator
I mean, who didnt expect it to happen?
Its literally what they did the last time there was a major controversy with twitter.
They pull advertising because they dont want to be caught in the splash damage, not because they are actually offended at the behavior.
As soon as the outrage dies down, the advertising resumes.
They were always going to. As long as Xitter has a user base with money to spend, the large corporations do not care. Anything they do like withdrawing advertising is all for show.
And after all, are you going to cancel your Netflix subscription over this? I actually probably would personally but my partner uses it quite a lot, so we’re sticking around. Some people will cancel no doubt but nowhere near a critical mass that will affect their bottom line and they know it.
You would cancel your Netflix subscription because they advertise on X?
deleted by creator
No, they wouldn’t. They are all talk, just like Netflix. If they cared that much, they wouldn’t have ANYTHING corporate.
You’re wrong in this specific case, but you’re actually not too far off in your overall assessment. Your scepticism is warranted. My true reason for canceling would be that I’m not satisfied with the service. Their corporate behavior would merely be a motivating factor to log into the website and click cancel when I would otherwise not think much about letting it autorenew each month.
But yeah, do I purchase goods and services from bad companies? Of course I do. You try successfully avoiding all Nestle products. It’s damn near impossible. Can’t switch away from Comcast because there are no available competitors. I don’t think twice about buying food from Chick-fil-A. OK, maybe I think twice, but I can’t say that second thought has ever truly impacted my decision. The list goes on.
The only company I’ve taken a very firm stance against is Meta/Facebook. It’s easy to live without participating in Facebook’s services. They may collect data about me against my will, but I no longer voluntarily give them anything.
deleted by creator
Realistically? No. Or at least not JUST because they advertise on Xitter. It would be one of those final straw things. I’m not entirely satisfied with the service to begin with, so that would be the motivation I need to finally say “yeah, I don’t need to be paying this company any more”. So if it weren’t for my partner, yes I would be canceling when I otherwise might have let the subscription sit for longer.
But if there were shows or movies that I personally enjoyed watching, (which is the case fire my partner) their choice to advertise on Xitter doesn’t impact our decision one bit and they know it. Which is exactly why they went right back to advertising there.
They wouldn’t have called it a “pause” otherwise.
Probably coming back for a discount
deleted by creator
You make it sound like they were losing because they pulled advertising from Twitter instead of… practically every other decision they make.
You people are absolutely delusional.
Business does go down when a company stops advertising. My guess is that Netflix didn’t give a shit about the moral panic, not that there was ever an indication that they cared in the first place.
Lol. Sure sure.
Time to find Netflix ads next to neo Nazi posts…sure glad I got rid of Netflix.
That was like what, a whole month or less? Whew, that must’ve been tough on them!
There probably were a lot of discussions and negotiations, but a lot of the public only sees Netflix going back to Twitter. I’m sure Elmo fans will promote this as Netflix having to bow down
This is what happens every time youtube has an apocalypse. They stay away long enough to feel like they’ve made their point and then they resume advertising like nothing happened. Maybe it’s not advertisers who hold the power and everyone should stop being so scared of them.
Dammit, Netflix. I can’t cancel my subscription twice.
Pussies.
“Ahh, it’s been a week, no one remembers that ol Elon Musk agreeing with Nazi rhetoric thingy. Let’s spool those ads up again. We’re definitely seeing a return on our marketing budget by advertising on the platform known for being mostly bots!”
If there is a large following of Trump who is regurgitating Nazi rhetoric… it unfortunately makes sense to keep marketing at least here.
So Netflix is already shit, guess the shit companies can be shitty together.
Maybe I know nothing about business but why would Netflix even need to advertise there? I’m not even sure they have to advertise at all anymore.
They’re advertising specific shows.
Nazi Boot Camp season 2 premiere, catch it on Netflix!
I think if I hadn’t dropped Netflix when they did a 180 on their stance on password sharing, I would drop them now.
Good thing my torrent site of choice doesn’t advertise on Xtwitter.
Yup. Upgraded my Plex drives, 15tb of music and movies.
Those are rookie numbers :)
Congrats on the upgrade. I upgraded from 6x3T to 6x6T a couple years ago. Wish I had waited a little longer but feared drives going bad.
What about redundancy?
I have all my drives in a ZFS array. Should allow failure of a couple before I lose anything.
What’s the point? If a drive starts failing just redownload it again. I really don’t see the point on keeping everything constantly off-line when I can just torrent them again.
Sometimes you’re the only seeder for some torrents.
Much less of a problem with newsgroups.
That’s fine. I’m likely not going to watch it again. If I really care, I’ll either rent it from the library or post a request on a torrent site.
With moisture in the air and the gentle sea breeze upon our faces; life is good.
another reason never to return to Netflix
removed by mod
what the fuck does this even mean?
Means neige is fantasizing about Elon at daytime. He is asking if the other commentator is doing the same. 🤭
removed by mod
Then why are you posting and replying, liar?
removed by mod
I am so tired of being so disappointed in companies. Was there ever a time when they weren’t just completely soulless? Is there truly no bottom to their ethics?
Capitalism by its nature will carry out unethical behavior if it means profit. So no, business was always soulless. That’s why regulation needs to exist, so the penalty for unethical behavior will negate the profit they could make from it.
In school I had to take Business Ethics. The processor officially renamed the course to Ethical Issues in Business, because, as he explained it in class, business has no ethics, but ethical issues arise all the time. I took it to mean that capitalism destroyed humanity, and those of us that are still left humane must deal with ethical issues in a business (ethicless) setting.
I did not take business classes so limited background but if we assume that the US isn’t going to magically transition away from capitalism, we instead have to find a way to legislate a transition to a more ethical capitalism. That phrase seems to be an oxymoron but for things to not keep getting progressively worse I’m thinking we as a society need to figure out a way to make it happen. Any ideas? You seem to have at least taken a course in the matter.
What if we transition away from capitalism non-magically?
I mean that’s probably the preferred path but I can’t see how that realistically happens. There are too many individuals globally with too much to lose that will think their loss of capital is worth bringing down the whole human race. I’m sure they would rather see the world in ashes rather than succeed under an alternate system where they may not be on top.
It’s not even about being on top or being worried about losing status - I’d be fine with giving up what little I have to see a better world. The problem is that a pivot away from capitalism isn’t going to happen without violent revolution, because it would absolutely be met with violent resistance.
I wouldn’t support something that would be guaranteed to thrust my children and grandchildren into a world of chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that would unavoidably arise during and potentially after a revolution of that scale. And someone has to be holding the levers of power in the end, and how do we guarantee that we don’t just end up shuffling the deck around but playing the exact same game?
It’s easy to be idealistic and say “this isn’t working” but it’s a whole lot harder to convince enough people to dismantle it and deal with the consequences rather than attempt to effect incremental change over a long term.
I think there’s a credible case to be made that moving toward socialism has benefits even for the wealthy, and that the change doesn’t have to be presented as the end of capitalism.
No, let’s not. Or at least let’s change it to something better this time, not worse.
Why don’t you take a list of countries by quality of life from some point in the past decade or two, and see which nations seem to always top it.
Spoiler: they’re the ones with hybrid economies and highly regulated markets.
Yes, capitalist free-market countries almost exclusively. That’s the thing I’d rather not have others break.
Do you not know what a “mixed economy” is? Did you even look at a list? Denmark, Norway, Sweden… You think these are "capitalist free-market countries"and that’s why they top the list?
The reason those countries are at the top of the list for quality of life is because they have regulations on their markets, and robust social safety nets.
Maybe actually do a few minutes of honest, open minded research about quality of life.
Business really has no ethics, and it needs no ethics: its main and only goal is to make money. Government’s job is to define the ethics, and create and enforce a framework in which businesses may operate.
The reason why businesses shouldn’t be responsible for acting ethically is that being unethical gives you an edge against your competition. So if we let companies have the main responsibility of how to behave, nice companies are penalized.
The framework needs to be as simple and unambiguous as possible, because the more complex it is, the more it penalizes small and starting companies.
The people’s job is to define ethics. The government’s job is to uphold that definition. Governments can’t be expected to define ethics on their own.
This is so fucking immoral it’s enraging. As if people aren’t involved with business and business doesn’t affect people. This psychotic bullshit is how companies end up murdering people and getting away with it. A blatant excuse for people to do whatever their greed compels them to, as if making money suddenly absolves them of any kind of responsibility to their community.
murdering people
I believe murdering people is illegal, sir.
And that’s why capitalism is inherently unethical and immoral.
Amoral, more like.
I know what I said…
deleted by creator
(Assuming you aren’t misremembering): That honestly sounds like a really shitty professor.
Ethics are 100% a thing and more people need to improve their intelligence in that regard. What you CAN argue is that morality has no place in business (or engineering (or whatever)). But ethics are not morality or the law.
At this point, I think everyone and their mother is aware of the concept of The Trolley Problem. And… that is pertinent for a reason. Are you going to send the metaphorical train careening into marginalized groups, your workers, your board, or even your family? Or, the inverse of that: Are you going to do something that means you can buy your kids really awesome xmas presents, your board new cars, your workers the nice ramen, or even a moment of lessened horror for trans forlk?
And that ignores the various types of ethics. Even under utilitarianism, there are arguments that you are making a better net good for your board… if only because said marginalized groups suffer so much they will barely notice any relenting.
Improved understanding of what ethics actually are helps to understand WHY good (or more likely) bad things are happening. And it helps those who are in a position to make those decisions to make an intelligent and rational, if not necessarily good, decision.
Back in uni, all the engineering majors were required to take Ethics in Engineering. And it was very obvious who were the libertarian tech bros of the future during that course. But it also, honestly, is the most important course I took in undergrad and the one that has the most use.
And, as a result, when I do recruiting trips/lectures, I tend to cover that topic. I have a nice slide deck of some of the latest horrifying late stage capitalism shit to come out of tech companies as well as whistle blowing stories and I go through it with the students to try to make them think about why they are learning while also finding the people who would be fun to work with or mentor more directly.
I didn’t say ethics had no place in business, nor that ethics wasn’t a thing. I said he renamed it, because business has no ethics. This is the same thing you were saying, but in a lot less words.
I realize words are scary, but maybe read them when you are going to reply to someone? Rather than just assume they must agree with you.
Again, business has ethics. Balancing your fiduciary responsibilities with personal gain (and, in rare instances, societal benefit) is an ethical challenge. Do you choose to strictly follow your contractual/legal responsibilities or do you try to find a way to circumvent that for good or for ill?
Yet again: Ethics are not morality
Lol. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the couch, didn’t they?
What you describe isn’t business ethics, it’s an ethical issues in a business setting. Look, mate. I don’t really care that you may disagree or whether you have or don’t have good reading comprehension. But leave the reddit anger on reddit. Lemmy is for discourse, not for senseless arguments.
Yes. Embracing ignorance and buzz words rather than understanding how the world actually works and what levers and knobs there are and aren’t to work with. THAT is the enlightened standpoint.
Yes that is an ethical challenge. But it’s not business. The challenge is how business interacts with that challenge
And that is a distinction without difference
Which… I continue to say that said professor is bad at their jobs. And people who think that matters are the result of that mindset.
Just because you don’t understand the difference doesn’t mean it isn’t there
Ethics never enter the equation. The highest priority in business is capital, and any company at the level of Netflix follows that maxim religiously. They may be seen following progressive trends, but any good they end up doing only stems from it being profitable to do so.
In other words - no, companies have never not been soulless, and it serves us well to always remember that.
Would Elon be willing to pay high profile companies to advertise on Xitter to entice others back? Of just give them advertising for free? Or… Resume running ads from customers who cancelled just to change public perception?
I’m not saying Netflix isn’t a big enough bag of dicks to start advertising with them again, just contemplating
This might answer some of your questions: https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Ethics are a luxury that can be sold like any other, but when times get hard and cuts must be made, ethical companies get devoured by those that are not.
