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.

  • assembly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    245
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      170
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • assembly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Andy@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if we transition away from capitalism non-magically?

          • assembly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • colforge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

            • Andy@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, let’s not. Or at least let’s change it to something better this time, not worse.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes, capitalist free-market countries almost exclusively. That’s the thing I’d rather not have others break.

                • prole@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        (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.

        • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

            • Fal@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes that is an ethical challenge. But it’s not business. The challenge is how business interacts with that challenge

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Fal@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Just because you don’t understand the difference doesn’t mean it isn’t there

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        150
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Conservatives: “If you don’t like a business vote with your wallet, we don’t need regulations.”

        People: boycotts business

        Conservatives: “No, not like that.”

        • იႦაႵმყიიႶ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Prrreeettty sure that was the left when people from all sides boycott BL because of Dylan and Targets shenanigans. So here is this version

          Left: “If you don’t like a business vote with your wallet, we don’t need regulations.”

          People of all sorts, mostly right: boycotts business

          Left: “No, not like that.”

        • Vanon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I cancelled (again) because… let me think. Apparently they nuke your account if you don’t use it for, say, 6-9 months (nice). All ratings, history, watchlist, etc: Fuck you, gone. Could not disable ads, AKA autoplay previews. Quality of content massively decreasing. Cost increasing (and never any deals). Mediocrity hit them hard years ago.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            TbF, If that nuke is true, I wish more subscription services did that as it’s better than me realizing 18 months later that I’m not using it anymore but have still been autopaying the bill. Presuming of course there is an email or phone call warning in case you want to keep it active.

            • Vanon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They nuke if you cancel for a few months. There are so many services, I only want maybe 1-2 at a time, and honestly need zero, could just use Plex. (If you forget you’re sub’d, they will never nuke or let you know.)

        • random65837@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          1 year ago

          And there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s not cancel culture, that’s not giving a scumbag company money, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, people should instead be shooting their Netflix subscription with AR-15s (it’s symbolic, ok?) and posting it on YouTube.

            Everyone knows that’s how you really show your disapproval for a company.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is cancelling subscriptions part of cancel culture now?

        I mean…I guess…technically…

        Edit: wow I interpreted that comment very wrong.

        • random65837@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          No shortage of people cancel services because of a single thing one person or says, or because they place an ad on a platform that’s popular to bash because of a political view with no direct reason otherwise, so yes, it’s pretty common.

          • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s almost like people in the United States have the freedom to express their opinions on a matter. Imagine that!

      • puppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        What camp where you on when Bud Light changed their brand colors this year? I am asking this as a serious question.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everybody lives their lives based on political cancel culture.

        Just the people who tried to cancel Rock and Roll, Heavy Metal, D&D, The Dixie Chicks, teaching black history, books, trans people, gay people, abortions…

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        True enough that not everybody does (also it’s “consequence culture”, but I digress), but the energy of your post is COMPLETELY this…

        “OH YEAH? Well we don’t ALL wipe ourselves after were shit okay?? It’s natural and it’s a choice… get over it, bro!!!”

  • Muyal_Hix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now watch as all the corporations that paused their advertising slowly return to the platform.

    • JonEFive@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fuck yes. They might as well advertise on Stormfront or Nambla or any other conservative site.

          Fuck them. By spending money on a fascist platform, they are materially supporting fascism.

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, they wouldn’t. They are all talk, just like Netflix. If they cared that much, they wouldn’t have ANYTHING corporate.

          • JonEFive@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Once they raised prices I created a media server with jellyfin (+Sonarr, Radarr, QBittorrent) and never looked back.

      Automatically downloads new episodes of my favorite shows

      Got my own personal netflix accesible anywhere with infinite users. No one can cancel an episode of my fav show and erase it from existence.

      • ExLisper@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have jellyfin but Netflix is more reliable and convenient. It’s just that recently it’s really hard to find anything interesting on Netflix anyway so this Twitter BS is just like the last drop…

        • 4lan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          IDK man, I am able to continue shows where I left off and do anything Netflix can do You can see all the actors in a movie, and then see all the shows and movies I have that the actor is in. I think it’s more featured than Netflix

          I followed this guide to set it up so shows automatically download, and I can add movies to be monitored. I don’t do anything unless I want to add a new show for monitoring.

          I have every movie I’ve ever liked, and don’t have to switch platforms when my show gets removed from Netflix.

          $0 a month…

          • ExLisper@linux.community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I had issues with some shows not playing because of some encoding issues that I wasn’t able to resolve. Sometimes have couple of audio tracks and some subtitles but usually there’s just one language and that’s it. Maybe you can get it with additional setup but Netflix just works with all the features I’m interested in. Still, Jellyfin is good enough and content on Netflix is weak lately.

            • 4lan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You can set your download options in Sonarr and Radarr so that you only get certain filetypes and certain bitrates. This can keep you from filling your drive with 10GB+ 4k movies if you don’t need that quality too

              I highly suggest revisiting, using that guide I linked.
              I gave up on my media server many times due to complexity and issues, once I set this up I can’t go back.

          • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Avid jellyfin user here:

            Subtitles on jellyfin suck. Like really suck. Unless they are burned in with the media (maybe not the right term, but when they are shipped with the media as a track which some private trackers require) , they progressively get more and more out of sync to a plateau and get messed up with tracking. Almost every release this year has a “fix” for. Multiple clients with the same behavior. Not to mention getting hardware accelerated transcoding working on an ARC GPU 😅

            But overall Jellyfin is damn great. It just is not quite to the refinement of Netflix, which is fine! It isn’t commercially backed luckily, so it won’t go to shit for money like Netflix did either.

            • 4lan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thats a fair point, i only notice it when trying to watch Korean movie. Thats not often for me, but i could see it being an issue if you use them often

        • puppy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          They banned password sharing (family account) if everyone doesn’t live in the same location sometime ago.

          • ExLisper@linux.community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see this as a dick move. The rules were clear from the start, they just started enforcing theme. It’s not a bait and switch or something.

              • ExLisper@linux.community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you subscribed to Netflix because you planned on sharing password and you think it’s not worth the full price then the moment you can’t share your password anymore and you cancel it. No money lost, you used it for some time and now you don’t use it. What’s the problem? Did you get addicted to it? It’s not cigarettes. Seriously, it’s entertainment and people talk about it like its insulin.

                I wasn’t sharing my password with anyone so I didn’t care about the policy change.

            • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ssh we’re mad at netflix, you’re not supposed to be defending them…

              Shm yeah netflix may be scum, but enforcing password sharing policies, which had been part of the EULA from day 1, isn’t scummy.

              • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They marketed 4 streams. Not 4 seats. [And only getting 1 seat 4 times, which is fucking pointless.] That’s a whole different meaning. No one reads the EULA so it doesn’t fucking matter what horse shit Naziflix puts in the fine print.

          • ExLisper@linux.community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but just a reason to re-evaluate if the content they have is worth the money. It’s not like they have some moral obligation to keep the prices low. I don’t see it as a dick move. I don’t have any other video streaming subscriptions so it wasn’t a big difference for me.

      • ExLisper@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because they we’re really doing anything bad until now. Raising prices is not a dick move. It’s a private company offering entertainment. They can milk it however they want and I can cancel it when I decide it’s not worth it.

        • stebo02@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’d argue it’s not been worth it for a long time. Also raising prices may not be that bad but limiting your access to only one IP adress preventing password sharing definitely is a dick move.

          • ExLisper@linux.community
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, that’ really depends if you like their content or not, right?

            Also, they don’t limit your access to one IP. You can download things on your tablet to watch later and you can stream from different locations when you travel. They really only complain if you stream from two completely different geographical locations at the same time.

            • stebo02@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Define “different geographical equations”. Can you still share it with a friend? I thought they prevented that.

              • ExLisper@linux.community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, you define “limiting access to one IP”. Because they don’t do that. It’s not the same as preventing password sharing. They can prevent sharing password without limiting IP addresses.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “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!”

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there is a large following of Trump who is regurgitating Nazi rhetoric… it unfortunately makes sense to keep marketing at least here.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    That was like what, a whole month or less? Whew, that must’ve been tough on them!

    • random65837@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      77
      ·
      1 year ago

      More like realizing how much they were losing, on top of how bad their numbers have been for years…

      • Lianodel@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        You make it sound like they were losing because they pulled advertising from Twitter instead of… practically every other decision they make.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • JoMiran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they just want to throw money away on ineffective advertising, they can just send it to me. I have a few ideas that are far more effective than Twat.

    • paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Netflix spent about $1.5 billion on advertising in 2022. They could just randomly give a million people +$1000 and probably get better word-of-mouth advertising that way.