|
|
|
|
|
by dcow
1771 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.