this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
193 points (95.3% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2 readers
2 users here now

General discussion about movies and TV shows.


Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:

::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::

Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!


Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)


Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Uh. Didn't predict this.

Yet another example of corporations running the world and nothing to be done about it on an individual level.

I'm out of fucks to give. May the world burn.*turns on AC*

[–] lntl@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] user1919@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

37°C here, AC STAYS ON

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's 10 degrees outside, ffs!

[–] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Have you ever heard the stories of the Dutch and British East India Companies? They're not stories the capitalists will tell you

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Guessing the gains are in places the policy isn't in effect. I'd be surprised if they grew in the US.

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The article says this growth is happening on places where the restrictions were made. So I would say it is up in the US.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet another example of corporations running the world and nothing to be done about it on an individual level.

I mean, there are plenty of things to criticize Netflix for (SAG-AFTRA say hello), but not allowing people who aren't paying for their service to use it for free really isn't a particularly heinous crime in my eyes. It's annoying, because having to pay for things is annoying, but it's not like it's actively immoral

[–] Kichae@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're not using it for free, though. If I have a Netflix account with multiple profiles, I'm paying for that. I don't see why I don't get to determine who get to use those profiles.

Particularly after Netflix's own marketing department pushed out that "Love is sharing a password" tweet.

If they wanted to bump the price of multi-profile accounts, fine, but this accusing your customers of wrongdoing for doing something you yourself promoted is bullshit.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

The point is that the terms have changed, and that is no longer what is being offered. By all means, be upset, complain about it, whatever. But to say that a business is morally obligated to continue offering a specific service under specific terms simply because they did so in the past is something I genuinely can't follow.