Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing

from the live-long-enough-to-become-the-villain dept

Maybe it’s a weird personal flaw or something, but one of the most fascinating things in business to me is watching one-time pesky disruptors inevitably pivot into powerful turf protectors. As well as all the executive finger-pointing, shenanigans, and denialism that process usually entails.

Take, for example, Netflix. After being disruptive and shaking up streaming for years, the company has been losing subscribers as it faces greater competition from the likes of Amazon, HBO, Hulu, Disney, and dozens of other newer streaming ventures. Its recent earnings report indicate Netflix lost 200,000 subscribers last quarter, its first subscriber loss in a decade.

There’s many reasons for this, including competition, a hugely unpopular price hike, and a Netflix catalog that increasingly includes some fairly banal reality TV shlock that’s cheaper to produce. But in a letter to shareholders, Netflix executives also continue to blame a bogeyman they’ve been increasingly complaining about over the last year: the dire menace that is password sharing.

Initially, Netflix executives loved password sharing because they (correctly) saw it as advertising for its services. Now that it’s harder to reach quarter over quarter growth, Netflix feels the need to weirdly blame it for its problems as they look to boost subscriber tallies by any means necessary to please Wall Street.

But Netflix executives blame it in a way that’s kind of weird and disingenuous; namely by pretending the problem with the way they’re doing things now (the popular way) is that it creates “consumer confusion”:

sharing likely helped fuel our growth by getting more people using and enjoying Netflix. And we’ve always tried to make sharing within a member’s household easy, with features like profiles and multiple streams. While these have been very popular, they’ve created confusion about when and how Netflix can be shared with other households

There’s nothing actually confusing about any of this. This is just flimsy logic to justify making the consumer experience worse, to feed the insatiable investor desire for improved quarterly returns.

This is what’s entertaining to me about this point in a company like Netflix’s life cycle. Public companies can’t just consistently deliver a quality, well-loved product. They’re obligated to shareholders to boost quarterly returns at any cost. That creates a dynamic where a popular company will often effectively resort to self-cannibalizing–or make its product shitter–in order to “succeed.”

It’s a growth for growth’s sake mindset that often functions in stiff opposition to the principles adopted when a company was sleeker and more innovative. One of the first casualties of this kind of mindset is both consumer-facing prices, and “peripheral” stuff like customer support (see: telecom). In Netflix’s case, it also looks like it’s going to include adding some advertising.

There have been other examples of Netflix shifting from innovator to turf protector; such as when the company effectively stopped caring about net neutrality once it was large enough to pay off any large telecom players like Comcast or AT&T that might be bullying it financially.

Previously, streaming executives were quick to point out that password sharing had no material impact on revenues. In part because there’s no guarantee those users will pay for an account once they can no longer share their friends’ or parents’ account. Also because most streaming services already limit the number of simultaneously streams per account.

But then cable companies like Charter Communications began crying that password sharing was a form of piracy (it’s not). As Netflix grew, its executives began to adopt this adversarial mindset as well. Now, the company is experimenting not with innovative new ideas to provide more value to customers, but with technologies that determine whose sharing outside of their own home, allowing Netflix to nag and raise the prices on those subscribers.

Netflix has launched these new nagging price hikes in Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru, and it won’t be long before they come to the rest of its territories. Right on the back of a significant price hike last year that had already annoyed customers and was the likely culprit of a sizeable chunk of the company’s lost growth.

Once a company executive enters this cycle (again, see telecom and cable) you’ll routinely start distorting logic to justify any decision that erodes the quality your product was once known for. That opens the door for disruptive competitors who do still want to compete on quality to erode your subscriber base further, and the big dumb loop just accelerates.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: netflix

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Netflix Pivots From Innovator To Turf Protector As Executives Whine About Password Sharing”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
114 Comments
nerdrage says:

Re: Netflix can't improve its product

Netflix is caught in a bind here. They don’t have big IP to throw around so when Disney+ releases Moon Knight or Obi-Wan, or HBO Max has a Game of Thrones spinoff, or Amazon has a new Lord of the Rings show, what does Netflix have? Crickets.

Plus Apple is in the mix, with all the money in the world, taking risks that nobody else can on stuff like Foundation. And its paying off with winners like CODA and Severance. Netflix can’t afford to take all those creative risks either.

I think Netflix is pretty well stuck and it’s downhill from here for them.

Sabroni says:

Re: That is capitalism

It’s one form of it. If consumers were a bit more tactical with their spending though it could be very different.
A 1% drop in sales would make Amazon start treating it’s warehouse workers properly. All it takes is a little co-ordinated action.
This idea that capitalism can only work one way is nonsense. Greed works this way, capitalism is just a system of tokenising work so a carpenter doesn’t have to pay in wood work when they’re down the shops.
It’s the way the plebs spend that enables the bourgeoisie.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

A 1% drop in sales would make Amazon start treating it’s warehouse workers properly.

That’s cute, that you believe that. I wish I had your naïve optimism.

This idea that capitalism can only work one way is nonsense.

In this day and age, capitalism can only work one way until that system is crushed under the weight of its own bullshit. Shareholders require and megacorps seek perpetual growth and ever-increasing profits⁠—and nobody gets profits by paying people more money to do the hard work that keeps companies afloat.

Capitalism can only work one way until it stops working that way. It won’t stop working that way for a long time⁠—probably not even in our lifetimes.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Misunderstanding the market

Any executive who thought the momentum from COVID was going to continue, as their growth projections suggested, should be ousted by the board immediately.

The CEO claimed that ads were working well for hulu. He ignores that ad-supported hulu costs $3/month for multiple simultaneous streams ($6 if you want to discount ESPN+) when combined with Disney+, the streaming juggernaut that is the 800 lb gorrilla right now. I doubt a struggling Netflix can deliver improved returns if they meet that price point.

That said, a $3/month price point for multiple streams could excuse a lot of ads. It certainly did when hulu offered me a year for 1.99/month prior to the disney+ launch.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Netflix has to please The Line by achieving net growth every quarter, every year, every decade. But as this site has pointed out numerous times, perpetual growth is impossible. The Line will always plateau at some point. And when that happens, desperation kicks in. That desperation has led Netflix to where it is now: losing customers due to price hikes, substandard content, etc., and doing everything to apparently piss off remaining customers for the sake of pleasing The Line.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

That said, a $3/month price point for multiple streams could excuse a lot of ads.

A smart CEO would’ve announced that 3 weeks ago, on April 1st, then declared it a joke if the reaction were negative enough.

The problem with ad-supported and ad-free options is that the ad-supported option could make Netflix look bad, if not handled well. E.g., if I don’t know about this and I watch something with ads at a friend’s house, and see the Netflix logo, that could dissuade me from ever subscribing. And if existing subscribers see ads by surprise, they’re likely to be upset; many will have lost their tolerance for ads over the years.

Personally, I don’t think a discount is enough. Ad-supported services should be free. This is one of the big problems with magazines and newspapers for me (that, and the rampant mistreatment of subscribers: misuse of personal information, making it difficult to unsubscribe, raising prices after an “introductory” period, …).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Hide us from Koby's Natzi comment about Netflix's stock value!

Phew! I’m glad Koby’s abusive/trolling/spam was hidden, just in case a delicate Techdirter may encounter a differing opinion!

I mean, in this case it was literally a sentence about Netflix’ stock price, with no value judgments or political comments.

But still … better to silence Koby than take the chance of encountering information counter to the Establishment narrative.

We’re safe, guys. Censorship heroes to the rescue!

(PS – Masnick says Techdirters support free speech and aren’t corporate grovelers, so it must be true. Just trusssst him, dude!)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Heartwarming

For someone who’s favored sexual act is a genetic dead end, it’s weird hearing you say ‘son’.

Until Big Parma’s mad scientists figure out a way for buggery to result in procreation, you will never know what it’s like to be a parent.

That non-heterosexuals are given to nihilism and despair is understandable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 From NewHumanist.org.uk: You're harming LBTQ w that talk

“…heterosexuals are more than capable of inflicting anti-gay damage in word or deed without it stemming from any secret desires…”

“Stop Calling Every Homophobe a Closet Case, You’re Not Helping”

Sources (both pro-gay):

http://www.newnownext.com/not-everyone-antigay-is-secretly-gay/08/2019/

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5082/the-dangerous-stereotype-of-the-self-hating-homophobe

Ooops! You guys can’t help but stumblebum all over the place and make mistakes. Tighten up your tactics.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

We’re safe, guys. Censorship heroes to the rescue!
(PS – Masnick says Techdirters support free speech and aren’t corporate grovelers, so it must be true. Just trusssst him, dude!)

  1. The comment is still here, you halfwit. No censorship to be seen.
  2. You’re commenting that Techdirt are corporate grovelers, on an article where they’re literally critizising corporate stupidity. Are you sure you’re old enough to be on the internet?
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Hide us from Koby's crap

“…. just in case a delicate Techdirter may encounter a differing opinion!”

Koby gets auto-banned not because of his different “opinions”, but because he refuses to see/visualize/understand/comprehend that he’s wrong on so many factual fronts. My point being, when challenged to provide factual proof to back up his assertions, he disappears. But the real problem is not that he’s consistently wrong on several fronts, it’s that he is intelligent and articulate when speaking on other topics, so we know he can be mindful of facts when he wants to be.

But not often enough, sorry to have to say. That’s why he’s on “auto-ban”.

Which brings us to you. I very nearly put you on the same list for your musings in this one thread, but at the last moment I decided that shit-posting over the course of one thread is not really convincing evidence that you’re worthy of such placement. I’ll give you a few days and see how you perform in other threads on other topics before I make up my mind.

You have an opportunity, I suggest that you consider your desires and priorities carefully before proceeding.

One more thing…. in the beginning, it used to be that I’d ban someone, and their posts would stay up. Now, I’m often not quick enough to see their crap unbanned, the community has beat me to it. Thank about that for several moments…..

MightyMetricBatman says:

The announcement also came with the statement the reduction in revenue means we also need to stop investing in our own productions.

Because cutting costs and decreasing service has always been the answer to lower profits. /s

That Netflix is now repeating that bit of traditional MBA stupidity means the era as Netflix as innovator is currently over unless corporate reforms itself.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Netflix’s foray into original content has been kind of a flop.

By and large, this is mostly on Netflix for either producing sleazy reality TV or cancelling a lot of popular/well-reviewed shows after a season or two. Probably doesn’t help that Netflix keeps batch-releasing shows rather than airing new episodes weekly; the latter kind of scheduling has done wonders for Disney’s D+ originals in terms of keeping those shows in the public conversation for more than a day or two.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Bravely bold Sir koby
Rode forth from the internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir koby.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir koby.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis
“That’s, that’s enough music for now lads, there’s dirty work afoot.”
Brave Sir koby ran away.
(“No!”)
Bravely ran away away.
(“I didn’t!”)
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
(“I never!”)
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Relying on...

One of S.T. Stone’s favorite phrases: ‘For every accusation, a confession’, we can see that:

“…. it creates “consumer confusion”

can be translated to “We’re confused. It looks to us like no matter what we do, nor which was we go, Wall Street will somehow find a way to punish us. And that’s a bad thing.”

As I personally see it, Netflix has executed the Peter Principle precisely on schedule. When a company or corporation grows beyond it’s ability to keep growing, it has two choices – stand pat and be happy with their position, or go apeshit and implode, flaming out spectacularly if possible. Microsoft, in the early 80’s told investors that continual growth forever was not going to happen, so get used to it. Lo and behold, they were right, it just took some time to reach that plateau.

My personal favorite company is one that’s been “staid” in its market position, yet it’s been going strong not for years, not for decades, but for centuries – King Arthur makes flower and other ingredients for baking, as well as accessories for that activity. How long you ask: try 232 years. That’s longer than the stock market has existed, and only a step behind the age of this country. Hell, that’s even longer than I’ve been around! 😉

Point being, there are other flour producers out there, but you don’t hear King Arthur frothing at the mouth about “consumer confusion”, yet they’re doing just fine, TYVM. I can think of some corporations in this day and age that could take a lesson from K.A.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hey Techdirt… what happened to “bUt It’s a pRiVaTe cOmpaNy!”?

Techdirt wants corporations to police our thoughts, but dislikes when businesses lament things cutting into their bottom line.

Seems like misplaced priorities.

Don’t you think the sensible position is that businesses should solely concentrate on business, and not social engineering? Why does Techdirt advocate the exact opposite ?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

Hey Techdirt… what happened to “bUt It’s a pRiVaTe cOmpaNy!”?

Hey troll… what happened to your reading comprehension?

The “private company” point only applies to attempts to use the law to force a company to do something. Everyone is free to disagree with and criticize a company’s choices. We have always done so and anyone with a reading comprehension level of a 3rd grader would understand that.

I mean, unless you’re just trying to troll.

Techdirt wants corporations to police our thoughts, but dislikes when businesses lament things cutting into their bottom line.

Techdirt wants no such thing. Indeed, we’ve written extensively criticizing companies and pushing for more competition. I mean, you do realize most people can actually read?

Don’t you think the sensible position is that businesses should solely concentrate on business, and not social engineering? Why does Techdirt advocate the exact opposite ?

Wut?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

‘Wut?’

What’re you confused about now ?

I say companies should do, y’know, business. They shouldn’t be Thought Police.

You say companies should be Thought Police, not businesses.

There was a time when being a liberal didn’t mean blindly obeying corporate and federal authorities, crushing dissenting voices, and suppressing the speech of those with whom they disagree politically.

I wish I believed in an afterlife. The idea of a true liberal, say a Bertrand Russell, looking down from heaven at what passes for a ‘liberal’ nowadays. (Especially with the weird recent decision for the Left to firmly and vocally side with pedophiles and against parents. Now that’s one Rubicon we didn’t think you’d cross. We’re surely glad you have, though!)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Yeah, I have to reach allll the way back into the mists of time (yesterday) to find an article you penned decrying elected officials who’re preventing Big Tech from just doing whatever the hell they want.

I’ve read Techdirt for years. What you say you say is different than what you actually say. (The gulf between the two is becoming increasingly wide, and I wonder how much longer you can keep it up. I don’t think your current rate of lying and obtuseness is sustainable.)

Every time the voters try to put corporations in check, you rush to defend the corporations and call the voters bigots and n*zis.

It’s clear your usual commentariat and sockpuppets blindly believe your disingenuousness, but I bet there are a lot more people like me than you realize who just see that you’re a liar.

Have the courage of your convictions, Masnick. You’re a corporate bootlicker.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Yeah, I have to reach allll the way back into the mists of time (yesterday) to find an article you penned decrying elected officials who’re preventing Big Tech from just doing whatever the hell they want.

Um. You are truly dense.

We decry government officials interfering in the rights of anyone — both people and companies. We decry companies acting badly (all the time, more than we talk about the gov’t).

That does not mean that we think businesses should be thought police. Indeed, we focus on ways to increase competition so that businesses have less control over our lives.

That you think that companies are thought police unless the government steps in is a you issue.

That you can’t comprehend basic thoughts is, again, a you problem.

How long has it been since you last crawled out of your hole and put on one of these new personas? At some point, don’t you think you should grow out of it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

How long has it been since you last crawled out of your hole and put on one of these new personas?

You have to hand it to John Smith/MyNameHere/The Anti-Mike/Weird Harold/Whatever/horse with no name, hereally knows how to pick a consistent losing strategy. Between the defense of stellar copyright heroes like Paul Hansmeier and Colette Pelissier, to praying that Shiva Ayyadurai and Donald Trump would destroy Section 230, he really has nothing more than his imaginary press release of him masturbating to a public audience onto his mailing list.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Hey, John Smith. I thought you were working on a lawsuit and book deal and press release to out Masnick for the financial fraud you claimed he was? Or out his cabal of lawyers? It’s almost as though the entire claim was built on a foundation of grade-A solid bullshit, who would’ve fucking thought.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You say companies should be Thought Police, not businesses.

You misunderstand a lot of things.

A service like Twitter has the right to decide what speech it will or will not host. If people don’t like what speech Twitter disallows on its service, they can find a competing service that allows the speech they want to see and use that service instead.

A company like Netflix has the right to decide what content it will or will not produce and promote. If customers don’t like the content Twitter decides to produce and promote, they can find a competing service that offers content they want to see and use that service instead.

In both cases, neither company is playing “thought police” by way of moderation or editorial discretion. They’re chasing the most amount of users/customers by offering as broad an amount of speech as they’re comfortable with offering.

And everyone who both is and isn’t a customer/user of those services can criticize the decisions of those services⁠—including what speech they choose to disfavor.

There was a time when being a liberal didn’t mean blindly obeying corporate and federal authorities, crushing dissenting voices, and suppressing the speech of those with whom they disagree politically.

There was a time when being a conservative didn’t mean blindly obeying a celebrity game show host calling for a rigged election and an insurrection, crushing dissenting voices by outlawing “undesirable” speech, and referring to certain classes of people as pedophiles and sex offenders only because those people exist.

To wit:

the weird recent decision for the Left to firmly and vocally side with pedophiles and against parents

Yeah, you’re gonna have to explain this one, because from where I sit, what passes for the polifical left in this country is only throwing the absolute barest minimum of support behind queer people in general as conservative lawmakers attack them with that reheated “recruiting” (or “grooming”, as you might put it these days) canard that has never been proven to be a widespread phenomenon in any capacity.

Out of curiosity, do you know how all the investigations into the Satanic Panic went? Because I can all but guarantee that similar investigations into queer people (and their non-queer allies) over accusations of “grooming” will end much the same way: innocent people being railroaded into jail (or their graves) because conservatives who are uncomfortable with significant social upheaval need a target to “take out” in the middle of their culture “war”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Terrible analogy for several reasons.

The Satanic Panic was, like the Salem witch trials, a real phenomenon about a nonexistent bogeyman. There was no there there. No tunnels under McMartin Preschool, no ‘breeders’ pumping out tots to sacrifice ala “Michelle Remembers”. But the current situation is very real: people with odd sexual proclivities, anti-White bigots, and other degenerates do want to groom/recruit children, and get mad when parents and elected officials say “no, leave the kids alone, perverts.”

The most important reason your analogy is inapt: there was nobody saying during the Satanic Panic ‘Satanic child rape is great! Kids being tortured and animals being sacrificed is cool!’

Contrast to 2022, when almost every powerful institution in the West is fully behind disempowering parents, endangering children, and letting anti-White pro-pedo true believers unfettered access to childrens’ minds and bodies. Vocally so (which is what will be their ultimate undoing.)

What are you complaining about? Your side has been winning for 100 years. Are you perhaps concerned that this time, with their putting children in the crosshairs, your side has gone too far? Are you starting to feel that, thanks to the people on your side who just have to keep pushing and pushing and pushing, there’s a storm on the horizon that will eventually cauterize the wound and then inoculate against such evil ever becoming a threat again?

I would be too. And I hope you guys keep pushing. Go faster, go further. PLEASE.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Exactly what we’re hoping… that you’ll keep believing the resistance to you pedos is from a bunch of unbalanced and bored soccer moms calling themselves Qanon.

Qanon, if such a thing exists beyond the sexual fever dreams of Leftists (see also ‘Russian disinformation’ and ‘The Insurrection ™’), are schizophrenic and ineffectual. They’re like the befuddled and mostly harmless religious waiting for their deity to return and deliver them up to heaven.

Whatever RWNJs in RWDSquads who will be feeding the chippers with child molesters and their supporters (go find a mirror), it will not be some drooling Qimbecile who believes Trump is gonna come back and save us all.

Once again, a Techdirt commenter fails to grasp what’s happening. It’s odd that Techdirters, who are a pretty intelligent lot (Toom, your retard mascot, a glaring exception) seem to fundamentally not understand the real world.

If you hear nothing else I’ve said, understand this: Trump was a PUSSY. Desantis is a milquetoast. Hawley and Cotton and MTG are mild. The men who will replace them – and they will be replaced, because you Leftists just can’t resist pushing – well, let’s just say you’ll very badly wish a candyass like Trump was back in power.

That’s the part that blows my mind. Dummies, listen: the smart move for you is to keep these ineffectual moderates in place. They’re a buffer that are the only thing keeping more extreme members of the right out of the bully pulpit.

You can’t help yourselves, I understand. So keep going! Please, keep pushing. I mean this sincerely. More!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Exactly what we’re hoping… that you’ll keep believing the resistance to you pedos is from a bunch of unbalanced and bored soccer moms calling themselves Qanon.

I see you’ve moved on to the “there are dozens of us!” portion of your mental breakdown.

a Techdirt commenter fails to grasp what’s happening

No, I finally understand exactly what’s happening.

You’re a right-wing troll from some shitpit like Truth Social who keeps escalating your talk of “handling” pedophiles (read: queer people) to the point where you’re actively advocating for a state-sponsored genocide of queer people in the hopes that you’ll get someone like me to similarly advocate for that level of violence against people I believe are my “enemies” so you can go back to your right-wing echo chamber and laugh at how you got some dumb f⸺t riled up about death squads before you pop open PornHub to crank your yank while you watch whatever transgender porn actress gets you off the most.

Your “me and my death squad are gonna kill all you gay freaks” bullshit isn’t even close to being original, son. Go get some new material. I suggest hitting up 4chan’s /pol/…if you don’t already go there.

🥱

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“…people with odd sexual proclivities […] do want to groom/recruit children…”

They always have. Just search ‘Ian Brady’ and/or ‘Myra Hindley’ if you don’t believe me. Just because we’re only now hearing about the likes of Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, et al. doesn’t mean that child-targeting perverts haven’t always been around.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Well, the Moors Murderers didn’t have the full force of Big Business and the federal government behind them, unlike the current pro-pedophile enablers.

The Glitter and Saville and Townsend and Michael Jackson types are getting closer to the phenomenon, since many of them have been endorsed by governments in the form of awards/medals/knighthoods, etc.

Still not quite the same though. They were clearly vile sex offenders, sure… but they weren’t educating our kids for eight hours a day.

No, a better – indeed perfect – analogy for what’s happening now are things the Left did in Germany in the 1960s. The Kuntler Project purposefully gave prepubescent boys to homosexual pedophiles and urged the men to bugger the boys. The Communist ‘Rote Freiheit’ commune schools encouraged and filmed young children, including toddlers, to have sex with each other and with adults.

If the reader has dared to read this far instead of just flagging my comment, I suspect the Techdirt commentariat to doubt what I say, or assume I’m exaggerating, or think my sources are “RWNJ white supremacizer nazi” sources…

Ladies and gentlemen, read Der Spiegel and the New Yorker, and weep.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german-experiment-that-placed-foster-children-with-pedophiles

Say… you know those books those evil ol’ German kids were burning in the 1930s? You know, the ones from the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. What do you suppose was in those books to make Germans so mad?

I wonder.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The Satanic Panic was, like the Salem witch trials, a real phenomenon about a nonexistent bogeyman.

Exactly my point. No one can point to an actual example of any teacher, queer or not, teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. No one can point to an actual example of any teacher, queer or not, trying to “recruit” kids into being trans (or gay, or whatever you want trot out next). If anyone could, they would’ve done so by now.

Do I deny that queer people can be child molesters? No. Do I deny that queer people have molested children before? No. But queer people are not child molesters by virtue of being queer. Therein lies your problem: You’re either implying or outright saying that queer people are “groomers” only for being queer when you know that’s bullshit. And how do I know you know it’s bullshit? Simple:

people with odd sexual proclivities, anti-White bigots, and other degenerates do want to groom/recruit children

You’ve offered no evidence of any sort to back up a claim like that one.

there was nobody saying during the Satanic Panic ‘Satanic child rape is great! Kids being tortured and animals being sacrificed is cool!’

There is nobody right now saying “child rape is great” besides actual child molesters. (And they’re not exactly gonna be open about that position in public.) Even the politicians offering weaksauce support for trans people right now aren’t saying that shit; you can’t prove otherwise, and you and I both know you can’t prove otherwise.

almost every powerful institution in the West is fully behind disempowering parents, endangering children, and letting anti-White pro-pedo true believers unfettered access to childrens’ minds and bodies

what in Dante’s first through fourth Hells are you talking about

Your side has been winning for 100 years.

again, what the fuck are you talking about

there’s a storm on the horizon that will eventually cauterize the wound and then inoculate against such evil ever becoming a threat again

Ah, there it is: the desire to inflict a genocide upon queer people (including me) over made-up bullshit. I was wondering when you’d finally get around to showing your true colors.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Also:

“recruiting” (or “grooming”, as you might put it these days) canard that has never been proven to be a widespread phenomenon in any capacity.

I know you’d prefer not to call it grooming/recruiting. You probably call it ‘unlearning cisgender heteronormativety’ or something, but you’re lying when you say “never been proven…in any capacity”. You know that’s a lie.

Drag Queen Story Hour. Teachers telling kids “you can talk to me about sexuality, but shhhh, don’t tell your parents”. Normalizing deviant behavior. All part of teaching children learned helplessness.

We certainly disagree what the end goal of this grooming/recruiting/whatever word you use might be, but you can’t deny it’s happening.

Do you deny that teachers and other authorities over children are talking to them now in 2022 about sexual topics that would have gotten them fired in 2002, arrested in 1982, and hanged in 1882?

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I know you’d prefer not to call it grooming/recruiting. You probably call it ‘unlearning cisgender heteronormativety’ or something, but you’re lying when you say “never been proven…in any capacity”. You know that’s a lie.

Oh, if you know it’s a lie it should be easy do disprove his statement…

Do you deny that teachers and other authorities over children are talking to them now in 2022 about sexual topics that would have gotten them fired in 2002, arrested in 1982, and hanged in 1882?

It’s called progress, but if you wish to live like it’s 1882 – go ahead.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Contradictory Logorrhea from The Rock

Ha ha, I’m used to Techdirters embarrassingly contradicting themselves… but in the same comment?

‘Rocky’… the first part of your comment you said grooming/recruiting/whatever you call it isn’t happening.

In the second part, you said it is happening and it’s good (“It’s called progress”)

If you’re going to stumble all over yourself and blather self-contradictory nonsense, at least have the decency to do it like a street lunatic and make it interesting for the listener. Or go to your local strychnine-drinking Pentacostal church to practice your glossolalia.

Oof. Feel a little awkward now, buddy?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Oof. Feel a little awkward now, to watch you roll up with your racists clownshow

“If you’re going to stumble all over yourself and blather self-contradictory nonsense, at least have the decency to do it like a street lunatic and make it interesting for the listener.’

Sorry you already got the one good corner and we don’t want to fight you for it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

It’s embarrassing that you can’t even tell people apart, are you that stupid?

And it is progress when you can talk about topics without being hanged for it – or do you really that isn’t progress?

Aw, heck – who am I kidding, you just want to see the world burn because you probably felt up a woman without consent and had your paws all over her schlong.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Nah says:

Re: Re: Re:4 From the Far Right source "The Advocate"

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2022/3/30/disney-execs-promote-not-so-secret-gay-agenda-leaked-internal-vid

I can provide more links – all coming from sources on your side – but I won’t, because you a) won’t read them and b) you’re lying when you say educators aren’t talking to kids about sex in ways that would’ve gotten them arrested a few decades ago.

I just gave you this freebie since it’s from a) your side and is b) undeniable, and I want to see you try to claim the Advocate article doesn’t say what it says. (Or if you want to channel your inner Toom and get really moronic, you can try to claim the Advocate is right wing.)

The best part about Florida’s anti-grooming law is it puts you pro-pedo Leftists in a very unstable and uncomfortable position: you have to say “NO, kids aren’t being groomed in schools! …. but we’re gonna fight tooth and nail when the state government tells us we can’t if we want to! But kids aren’t being groomed in schools, but laws preventing grooming are evil. But…” etc.

It’s hilarious, and is the same reason ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ is hilarious: you can’t say what you really think too vocally, lest someone handle you like the existential threat to the West you are.

You wish you could say what you really feel: “It’s not okay to be White, it’s shameful. White children should be made to feel guilty from the earliest possible age.”

I’ve answered all your questions, now here’s one for you: If kids aren’t being groomed, then why do laws preventing grooming concern you so deeply? Isn’t it like a law banning purple unicorns from airplanes? If unicorns don’t exist, why tear your hair out if someone wants to ban them?

Only two possible answers: either a) you’re stupid and probably haven’t read the law (“Well, nobody’s groomin’ no one, and this bans people from saying the word ‘gay'”) or; b) you’re lying, because you just want to diddle kids. (It’s not rocket science.)

Either way, being so pro-molester and anti-child is going to come back to haunt the Left. If you guys are smart, you’ll put yourselves back in the pedo closet, like you were pre-internet with our NAMBLA newsletters.

But you’re not, and you won’t, and I’m happy you’ve chosen that path. (smiley face)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

If kids aren’t being groomed, then why do laws preventing grooming concern you so deeply?

Because those laws aren’t about “groomers”.

They’re about banning any talk of gender identities and sexual orientations that aren’t cisgender and heterosexual for the sake of “protecting children”…including queer children, who might not feel safe coming out to their parents but now can’t come out to their teachers because doing so could get that teacher sued (or worse).

They’re about banning even the slightest bit of even age-appropriate sex education at all levels of schooling…which could very well include education about “bad touching” that little kids could use if one of their relatives tries to do that shit.

They’re about banning any books that might feature sex in any capacity…but especially books by and about queer people (and people of color), which can often offer new perspectives to people who aren’t regularly exposed to them, which in turn can make people more tolerant of others who aren’t like them/don’t share their life experiences.

These laws aren’t about “groomers”. They’re about “protecting” children from learning that queer people exist. They’re about separating young queer people from queer elders at a time when those young people could use a sympathetic ear. They’re about making sure queer people remain an Acceptable Target™ to conservatives and their bigoted ilk⁠—first by attacking trans people, then by attacking all queer people in general using reheated homophobia that went sour soon after Ellen DeGeneres said “I’m gay” on national television.

These laws are about people like you trying to keep queer people from realizing that being queer doesn’t make them any less human. That’s a future you’re afraid of. That’s a future you’ll do anything to stop.

After all, you’ve already been heavily implying that queer people should be systematically executed by the state for daring to exist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Heh. It’s not just me.

The whole right-wing pedophile/groomer thing is mostly just crazy talk, though. Woke gender ideologues don’t want to have sex with children. They just want to impose their false woke ideology everywhere they are in power, and schools are a place where they can do that for now. They’re not evil, just stupid. They really think they’re helping delusional or confused children by telling them they can be a sex different than that of their bodies, plus there’s nothing wrong per se with teaching children to be tolerant of people who are different.

Now that the dirty laundry of woke gender ideology in schools is being aired in public, things will shake themselves out, and the woke ideologues will have to find other places to push their nonsense. School sex-ed will be able to go back to talking about “a boy’s penis” instead of just “a penis” (that’s NY’s insane rule, in case you think I’m making that up).

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The whole right-wing pedophile/groomer thing is mostly just crazy talk, though.

Tell that to the politicians who peddle it and the dipshits who believe it, then, asshole.

They just want to impose their false woke ideology everywhere they are in power, and schools are a place where they can do that for now.

You can’t prove that whatever you mean by “woke ideology” is being taught in schools in any meaningful way, just like you and your fellow transphobes can prove teachers are trying to trans children’s genders.

Some teachers do try to, y’know, show support for queer people. But I fail to see how recognizing the humanity of queer people is “woke” unless you think queer people are subhuman garbage who shouldn’t ever be acknowledged in public in any way. (And that tracks for you, given your commenting history.)

They really think they’re helping delusional or confused children by telling them they can be a sex different than that of their bodies

Can you actually provide any evidence⁠—any citation of fact at all⁠—that this is happening in any fashion anywhere in the United States?

there’s nothing wrong per se with teaching children to be tolerant of people who are different

Unless those people happen to be queer, in which case you and your right-wing brethren will go on the warpath to metaphorically (for now…) stomp out the “groomers” and “woke gender ideologues” who are, at best, teaching children that queer people are actual people deserving of love instead of the subhuman garbage you and your right-wing brethren want so desperately to believe they are so you can justify taking away civil rights like their right to free expression.

School sex-ed will be able to go back to talking about “a boy’s penis” instead of just “a penis” (that’s NY’s insane rule, in case you think I’m making that up).

I fail to see how that rule is “insane”, but then again, I accept that trans people are people and some trans girls/women happen to have dicks as a matter of fact. You’re the one who’s obsessed with the genitals of trans people to the point where you’re continually ranting about human penises on a tech blog.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Only boys have penises, so teaching children that girls can also have penises is a lie. We should not be teaching lies in school, whether they are the lies of creationism, woke gender ideology, or critical race theory.

The “don’t say boy’s penis” thing comes straight (heh) out of New York’s educational guidelines, and is pretty remarkable given how woke gender ideologues characterize laws requiring correct and appropriate sex education as “don’t say gay”. Woke gender ideologues are hell-bent on teaching lies and silencing truth. They will not be allowed to do that.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

We should not be teaching lies in school

The Constitution initially considered enslaved Black people to be three-fifths of a person in one context and property in every other. Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson raped one of his female slaves repeatedly and forced her to bear several of his children.

Would it be lying if conservative legislatures and school boards worked in tandem to prevent the teaching of these facts about the Founding Fathers⁠—facts that anyone can confirm with a bare minimum of research? After all, a lie of omission is still a lie.

The “don’t say boy’s penis” thing comes straight (heh) out of New York’s educational guidelines

I still don’t see what the problem is with that change. What’s so wrong with just saying “penis” instead of “boy’s penis”? You’re doing an awful lot of obsessing over children and penises, fam. Ain’t a good look for you. 👀

woke gender ideologues characterize laws requiring correct and appropriate sex education as “don’t say gay”

What would you consider “correct and appropriate sex education” for queer kids? Is it “fuck off and die”?

The whole reason the law is called a “don’t say gay” law is because it’s part of a broad swath of attempts by conservatives to erase queer identities⁠—and the people behind them. The people behind the law have all but said that teaching children about gay, bi, and trans folks at any point in grade school education is “age inappropriate”. That’s why that vague language exists in the law once fourth-graders can be taught some form of sex education: The state can determine that teaching kids at any grade level that being queer doesn’t make a person any less of a person is “age inappropriate” and prevent teachers from even so much as implying that idea, even outside of proper sex education. The whole point of the law is to create a chilling effect around so much as acknowledging the existence of queer people, lest school employees face a lawsuit (or worse) as a result.

The end result will be more intolerance of queer people, queer kids from queerphobic families being prevented from talking to adults who could offer a sympathetic ear, and greater numbers of suicides from queer people (children and adults alike) who only want to live in a world that accepts their existence as a matter of fact. Not that you seem to care if queer people kill themselves⁠—I mean, you probably think of it as a good thing since it would be, to you, one less “groomer” to worry about.

Woke gender ideologues are hell-bent on teaching lies and silencing truth.

Every accusation, a confession.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Did you think that was a 'gotcha' question?

‘Do [minorities] get treated differently for some reason?’

Uh, yes.

Are you asking this in earnest? I don’t mind if you’re arguing in bad faith, or are just stupid, but yeah.

I always answer you Techdirters’ questions and I never lie.

It’s got to be frustrating, the vast gulf between what you fantasized would happen and what ends up happening. Is this a phenomenon you experienced at a young age, or just recently?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

More and more of your kind are turning into our allies. You know why? Straight people are freaks of nature who can’t comprehend the beauty of their own gender and have to foist their perversion on others. When a man “loves” a woman it’s because he wants to stick his raping organ into her like an animal. When a woman loves a woman it’s an intellectual, emotional understanding.

You’re losing allies, and watching you clutch at your crumbling status quo is intensely erotic to watch.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

If something exists, there is porn of it. If none exists, it will be made. Watching Trump supporters get cucked by BBCs and findom futas stimulates my genitalia more than the act of raping a woman for offspring ever could, because children are the worst kind of sexually transmitted disease.

Love wins, and you lose.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Twitter can’t censor shit, fam. They don’t have the power to stop any Twitter user from going to 4chan or Truth Social or some other shitpit and saying the same bullshit that might get them banned from Twitter. Don’t pull the “I have been silenced” fallacy with me, dude⁠—I’m well aware of how that shit works and I’m never going to fall for it.

And yes, Twitter is a privately owned company that can moderate speech on its platform however it wants. Everyone is still free to agree or disagree⁠ with its moderation decisions. Where have I ever said otherwise?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

Ah. This chesnut. What Netflix can do legally, and what netflix should do (be that morally, ethically, or fiscally) are not the same thing.

Techdirt both argues that social media corporations have the legal right to engage in moderation how they see fit, while simultaneously calling out behavior they see as detrimental, either to the brand or to the bottom line.

In this case, while Netflix has the legal right through contract law to restrict password sharing, Techdirt argues that the approach is poorly considered, and such choices have in the past harmed the companies engaging in them. That netflix’s choices are likely to accelerate subscriber losses as similar choices accelerated cord-cutting.

There is no hypocrisy in the argument that netflix has the contractual right to restrict password sharing but that it is a stupid decision they will likely regret.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

Ah. This chesnut. What Netflix can do legally, and what netflix should do (be that morally, ethically, or fiscally) are not the same thing.

Techdirt both argues that social media corporations have the legal right to engage in moderation how they see fit, while simultaneously calling out behavior they see as detrimental, either to the brand or to the bottom line.

In this case, while Netflix has the legal right through contract law to restrict password sharing, Techdirt argues that the approach is poorly considered, and such choices have in the past harmed the companies engaging in them. That netflix’s choices are likely to accelerate subscriber losses as similar choices accelerated cord-cutting.

There is no hypocrisy in the argument that netflix has the contractual right to restrict password sharing but that it is a stupid decision they will likely regret.

Though, I imagine you aren’t talking about netflix password sharing when you discuss “Social Engineering”, so I imagine you were simply wildly off topic.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Ah. This chesnut. What Netflix can do legally, and what netflix should do (be that morally, ethically, or fiscally) are not the same thing.

Techdirt both argues that social media corporations have the legal right to engage in moderation how they see fit, while simultaneously calling out behavior they see as detrimental, either to the brand or to the bottom line.

In this case, while Netflix has the legal right through contract law to restrict password sharing, Techdirt argues that the approach is poorly considered, and such choices have in the past harmed the companies engaging in them. That netflix’s choices are likely to accelerate subscriber losses as similar choices accelerated cord-cutting.

There is no hypocrisy in the argument that netflix has the contractual right to restrict password sharing but that it is a stupid decision they will likely regret.

Rico R. (profile) says:

I first used a shared password to access Netflix. If I had to subscribe at the time instead of using the shared password, I wouldn’t have subscribed then. Yet, I later subscribed to my own account. However, if I ever had to cancel any one of my various streaming subscriptions, the first one I would cancel is Netflix. I don’t watch their catalog all that often to justify staying subscribed. That’s just basic economics. But go ahead, blame the boogeyman of sharing passwords. That will work wonders for building your catalog.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

... no, no the customers are the ones who are wrong.

There’s many reasons for this, including competition, a hugely unpopular price hike, and a Netflix catalog that increasingly includes some fairly banal reality TV shlock that’s cheaper to produce.

But sure, it’s those dastardly password sharing people that are the cause of the company’s woes…

Anonymous Coward says:

People have a choice now, disney, hbo max, etc if you want to watch star wars or star trek you will subscribe to disney , paramount, Also at some point you reach the limit of growth , people can also use free streaming apps supported by advertising.Every large media company now has a streaming app.it seem,s to happen to every big company , they lose the urge to innovate or else lose touch with their customers.
netflix can only get paid by people who have acess to fast broadband they are competing with youtube
twitch people streaming games podcasts etc

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Brent Ashley (profile) says:

What is the problem they are proposing to fix?

Problem definition

I would like a clear definition of the problem they are proposing to fix. How is password sharing “bad” and how will they make changes that fix it without breaking valid usage?

The Netflix service my wife and I use provides up to 2 concurrent streams. If we try to stream beyond two connections, access is denied and we must kick off one of the existing connections to continue. If we were to share our login with 20 people, we could still never use more than two sessions at once. Is this a problem? How? Why?

Yow do you identify the unwanted behaviour?

How do you determine a login is being “shared” (exact definition required)? Does it have to do with what devices are using it from which IP addresses?

My wife and I can currently use Netflix from any computing device on our home network, any of our mobile devices via WiFi or mobile data, from a hotel or office or coffee shop, or at a friend or relative’s house, perhaps while on holiday or business trip abroad. I can think of at least 15 legitimate devices using at least 6 different operating systems and many more source IP addresses across multiple continents that would cover all of these completely reasonable accesses to the service just for the two of us without sharing with anyone.

Solution

can a solution
– identify offensive behaviour
– solve the problem
– not break valid and common usage

This is assuming I’m convinced that there IS a problem, which I am not; however I would truly like to know if anyone could propose a workable solution that does not ruin the existing perfectly functional and demonstrably profitable experience.

Brent Ashley (profile) says:

What is the problem they are proposing to fix?

Problem definition

I would like a clear definition of the problem they are proposing to fix. How is password sharing “bad” and how will they make changes that fix it without breaking valid usage?

The Netflix service my wife and I use provides up to 2 concurrent streams. If we try to stream beyond two connections, access is denied and we must kick off one of the existing connections to continue. If we were to share our login with 20 people, we could still never use more than two sessions at once. Is this a problem? How? Why?

How do you identify the unwanted behaviour?

How do you determine a login is being “shared” (exact definition required)? Does it have to do with what devices are using it from which IP addresses?

My wife and I can currently use Netflix from any computing device on our home network, any of our mobile devices via WiFi or mobile data, from a hotel or office or coffee shop, or at a friend or relative’s house, perhaps while on holiday or business trip abroad. I can think of at least 15 legitimate devices using at least 6 different operating systems and many more source IP addresses across multiple continents that would cover all of these completely reasonable accesses to the service just for the two of us without sharing with anyone.

Solution

can a solution
– identify offensive behaviour
– solve the problem
– not break valid and common usage

This is assuming I’m convinced that there IS a problem, which I am not; however I would truly like to know if anyone could propose a workable solution that does not ruin the existing perfectly functional and demonstrably profitable experience.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Are you new here, Mr. Ashley?

I appreciate your comment, because it’s about what Techdirt purports to be. You know, TECHdirt.

However, you’ll not find any of Masnick’s sockpuppets engaging you on this.

They are only interested in starting and maintaining the Culture War.

It’s why Techdirt makes me a little sad, the missed potential. Imagine what the site could’ve been if Masnick had opted to focus on technology instead of leaning all in on hating Americans. He’d be quoted all over the place, invited to talking head news shows, and people would respect him instead of just knowing he’s a Big Business shill.

With coining ‘the Streisand Effect’, Masnick had a chance at the big time. But he blew it, and now sleeps in the bed he made.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Given his position is in full accordance with the viewpoint of both Techdirt and the general user base, that’s a wild claim, and its the second time this week I’ve seen an AC use this language to assert that a commenter whose comments are in agreement with the Techdirt consensus is actually in opposition and would be in some fashion shut down by the Techdirt reader base.

BrentAshley is not targeting Techdirt with his commentary. His title “What is the problem they are proposing to fix?” uses the pronoun ‘they’. This indicates he is not talking to Techdirt or the author, for which the pronoun ‘you’ is appropriate. ‘They’ indicates one or more third parties to the conversation between Techdirt and BrentAshley occurring in the comments. Which means all of your comments are wildly off base because they make no sense if his questions aren’t being directed at Techdirt.

Sabroni says:

Public companies can’t just consistently deliver a quality, well-loved product.

So they’re not fit for purpose. Clearly we need a better funding model that would allow public companies to continue successfully without becoming shit.
I notice that’s not the thrust of your argument. You seem to be saying “This is the way of the world, if only there was another way”.
There are many other ways.

Rich says:

Missing the point, algorithmically speaking.

It seems that everyone has forgotten what Netflix actually does. They might not yet have actual commercials, but much like any other cable or TV station, the actual content that the customer receives is only the means to an end. They are as much about marketing as anyone else.

Of course password sharing is a major problem, as anyone who shares a password knows whenever they open the Netflix app or page and see a bunch of nutty suggestions based on what your nutty friends watch. Password sharing befuddles the algorithms and befouls the resulting data.

Don’t forget that the most valuable thing a company can sell is the personal and behavioral data gleaned from their customer base, and password sharing cuts into the accuracy, and thus value of the such data.

How does the Techdirt community not know this?

Rich (profile) says:

Missing the obvious?

This has nothing to do with the loss of subscriptions. It has more to do with the pollution of their much more valuable user data.

Netflix, much like any other Cable/TV station, has become less concerned about quality of content, and much more about marketing. The problems that come from password sharing is not consumer confusion or subscription loss, it is data. As demonstrated anytime you log into Netflix and are immediately met with a bunch of nutty suggestions based on whatever your nutty friends are watching with your account, password sharing beffuddles the algorithms, and befouls the personal and behavioral data covertly gleaned from the user base. The more people that share passwords, the less accurate their behavioral profiles are, and thus the value of their most prized asset suffers.

I am truly surprised that the Techdirt community doesn’t already know this.

P.S. Is Techdirt no longer taking posts from non-logged in users? I posted a couple of hours ago, but no sign of it now.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

You might be on to something there, that’s an interesting idea and one that would certainly help explain why they’d shift to being so hostile to their customer base.

P.S. Is Techdirt no longer taking posts from non-logged in users? I posted a couple of hours ago, but no sign of it now.

The new system seems to be a little buggy at times, I’ve had comments register as posted but not appear for a while myself so it’s not just a matter of not being logged in. Give it a bit and they’ll show up has been my experience so far and judging by the comment above this one that seems to be a duplicate it looks like it went up as well at some point.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

We’re still fixing a bunch of bugs, and continuing to roll out improvements, including a bunch of improvements to the commenting/spam filter… which is currently slightly more aggressive than the old one (indeed, a lot of my own comments get caught and I run the place!). And, yes, hoping to bring back the splash page, because the lack of it is leading to confusion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Success in Capitalism

Well, once you’ve captured pretty much all the market-share in your segment you can’t continue to ‘grow’ which means your value as a publicly traded company is gonna tank. If you’re a private company, the government might step in and break you up…

Gotta love Capitalism, once you win, you lose. But when you lose, you just lose.

nerdrage says:

just a smokescreen

Netflix came up with the pw sharing crackdown when it knew it was going to report some pretty catastrophic subscriber numbers, but before they actually reported them.

This is just a classic diversionary tactic. They needed another bullet point (along with ads!!!) to convince investors not to run like crazy. Who knows whether it will have any appreciable impact on subscriber levels. It might end up as a PR debacle that they have to back off of, fast.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...