| HN Mirror

> So why do we need a Netflix for black people?

Someone perceives an unmet need, and seeks to meet it.

> Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it?

They could. Someone with sufficient motivation and resources to launch a business thinks they aren't. That's...kind of true of most startups—an incumbent could meet the need they are marketing too, but they think the incumbents aren't.

> Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?

The proposed offering is neither exclusive nor segregated; no one is excluding people from subscribing or segregating them.

My point is not that I think they're wrong for trying to address a market. Everybody is welcome to do that. My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people" and it's not designed in an exclusive way such that it aims to only serve a white audience. I'm probably not conveying my sentiment well: please read it more as "I'm excited about this effort and want include myself as an audience member to help promote the content they are promoting." If you tell me your service is for black people then I am excluded. My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people" since that seems racially motivated (which we agree is an expression of tribalism) and I don't find our tribal desires to assert subculture dominance to be productive in society. I view western liberalism as an effort to transcend tribalism where we treat all participate as equals rather than continue to divide into subcultures.

> My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people"

Well, no, because Netflix is the example that defines the segment; that dominant incumbents tend to be focussed on the preferences of the dominant socioeconomic cultural segment, which is predominantly White in the United States, is...not a novel observation.

For many people, IOW, the “for White people” is implied.

> My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology

Content “for women” is often not “motivated by biology”, but, more to the point...

> but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people"

Who cares? It’s not seeking government subsidy, or proposing the existence of a social (externalized) good, its proposing meeting an unmet private need.

crooked-v 1771 days ago

> My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people" and it's not designed in an exclusive way such that it aims to only serve a white audience.

Well, sure, because that's not their target market, but also because there isn't really a single predominant 'White culture' in the U.S., distinct from mainstream culture in general, in the same way that 'Black culture' was united by centuries of slavery and cultural destruction.

But you can certainly find media out there specifically targeted at people of Irish descent, Spanish descent, British descent, etc. It's just less of a mass-market thing because those groups don't have as much in the way of a distinct culture from the 'mainstream'.

There are plenty of outlets for distinctively and unapologetically ethnic content that serve other ethnicities; we don't know about them not because there isn't much of it, but because we're not the intended audience. I'm not watching any Polish-language dramas because I don't speak Polish, but they certainly exist, as do Korean soap operas and Japanese game shows. We hear about some of these things when they break into the mainstream, but most of it doesn't.

We don't even get all the English-language culture there is around the world. Easy example: most of us are totally unfamiliar with popular Christian media.

Really, the appeal being made by people objecting to this site is that Black people shouldn't have sites that nurture that kind of content, because it somehow squicks white people out. That is a weird argument to make, and not one these founders should take seriously.

> Really, the appeal being made by people objecting to this site is that Black people shouldn't have sites that nurture that kind of content, because it somehow squicks white people out.

At least some people are arguing that it should exist, but should not be marketed to the demographic it is designed to appeal to, because it squicks white people out not that black content exists, but that people marketing it acknowledge that it is designed to appeal to the unmet needs of black consumers, because white people want to buy it but not if the marketing says it was designed to meet black interests.

It "helps" by satisfying a market need for a space for Black creators to tell Black stories without shouldering a burden to translate, soften, or attenuate that culture for other audiences, as would be the expectation on a mass media cable channel. It's not complicated; venues like this serve all sorts of ethnicities.

I think like many have pointed out, there's a messaging issue. I want to feel like I'm welcome, even though I'm not culturally black, to consume content created by black creators on a platform that helps promote that content. I like k-pop, I like Bollywood, I like Sister Deborah, I generally enjoy experiencing other culture. I don't need attenuation. One of the strengths of America is the capacity for cultural exchange. "Netflix for black people" does not achieve that. It makes me feel unwelcome on the platform and triggers angst related to my opposition to the idea of asserting ownership over and further segregating sub-cultures being part of the solution space. If BlackOak is truly trying to promote black cultural exchange, then don't use exclusive language. I really have no problem with a production company like BET geared at being a space to promote a given subculture. Personally, If I was the founder, I'd welcome this type of feedback even if it feels tired because the appropriate messaging may be integral to the success of the venture.

Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people". If that were happening I'd immediately be on the side of any effort to stop censoring it because I believe in freedom of expression.

> I think like many have pointed out, there’s a messaging issue. I want to feel like I’m welcome, even though I’m not culturally black, to consume content created by black creators on a platform that helps promote that content.

I don’t see a messaging problem. I see you positing a different unmet need than the one that firm here has identified and is addressing. Which is fine, but “Netflix for people who want Black-created content but get icky feeling about products marketed to Black audiences” is, I suspect, a much narrower niche, and certainly a different niche, than BlackOakTV seems interested in serving, whose existence (to the extent it exists) does nothing to invalidate the niche BlackOakTV is trying to address or their efforts to do so.

filoeleven 1771 days ago

> Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people".

Why do you think that this messaging is what you associate most with black pop culture? Attenuated messaging does not have to be universal. Imagine if white pop culture was almost exclusively promoted as Britney Spears et al., Dumb and Dumber, and slasher flicks. Is that an accurate portrayal, or a curated subset that projects a certain image?

I didn’t say those examples are exclusive. I simply said there exists non-attenuated content.

filoeleven 1771 days ago

I didn’t either. Your phrasing suggest that it’s mostly violent and sexual.

I don’t think I was suggesting that.

ptr2voidStar 1770 days ago

Thank you for stating this. I was just about to write what you said.

The fact that what he/she associates with "black" culture is so negative - and doesn't seem to stop to critically analyse that - but accepts it as "normal".

At the same time, he/she doesn't understand why people from that community might want to create something for themselves - where (for once), they are the gate keepers of their own content (aka "writing their own narratives").

They're not trying to promote Black cultural exchange. That's not the point. Rather, argumentative message board nerds are telling them that's what they need to be doing, rather than serving the customers they really need to love them. They would do well not to take that advice, not least because it is not, in the main, well-intentioned.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting about my intentions or those of people giving honest feedback here. If BlackOak is only interested in black viewers, then good luck. They simply won't be getting my money or attention, then, since I don't identify as culturally black. Personally I don't see why their (or any) platform needs to be exclusive to further their mission. If I made a "Neflix for white people", what do you think the response would be?

I don't know anything about your intentions, but this whole thread is a good illustration of, again, something YC tells people all the time: start by making something that a few people love, rather than something that everyone will like a little bit, or, worse, just not object to.

Well I don't disagree there. Maybe I've just spoken sloppily. I wish BlackOak success in their mission. And I hope at some point I can be part of their vision for audience. Everything else I've said can simply be considered feedback, which I think the founder solicited in the OP.