[HN Gopher] Bryan Fogel on why streaming platforms were scared o...
___________________________________________________________________
Bryan Fogel on why streaming platforms were scared of releasing The
Dissident
Author : mkl95
Score : 199 points
Date : 2021-01-26 12:19 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (variety.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (variety.com)
| godelzilla wrote:
| The empire is supporting a dystopian nightmare of a "kingdom", a
| genocide in Yemen, a world war against Iran and many other
| garbage policies for the sake of these disgusting tyrants.
|
| Of course it would oppose this movie.
| hnarn wrote:
| Presumably the only effect this will have is that ideologically
| inclined netizens will now start seeding it on your nearest
| public torrent tracker instead. While not ideal, I'm happy we
| still have a free enough internet that these types of rebellions
| are possible, regardless of what you may think of the legal
| implications thereof.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not sure I believe the claims that companies were afraid of
| this documentary for its content. For example you can rent or buy
| this movie on Amazon[1] or Apple[2]. If those companies were
| afraid of the content, that wouldn't have happened. The more
| likely excuse is that it is a niche documentary that didn't have
| enough financial upside to merit purchasing exclusive
| distribution rights and "Here is a documentary _they_ don 't want
| you to see" is great for marketing.
|
| [1] - https://www.amazon.com/Dissident-Jamal-
| Kashoggi/dp/B08QTQFNT...
|
| [2] - https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/the-
| dissident/id1544151386
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not
| bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective
| censorship + plausibile deniability.
|
| See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-
| gawk..., they are quite open about censoring things.
| slg wrote:
| It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship"
| recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes
| internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It
| certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content
| on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the
| project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching
| this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't
| think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing
| excuse.
|
| Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want
| to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20
| for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons.
| If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as
| possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good
| than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think
| the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime
| is because the price tag would have been too high to justify
| purchasing exclusivity.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Who said Censorshsip must be about the government? People
| do misuse "first amendment violation" but that unlike the
| concept of censorship, that is a very specific thing. Don't
| confuse the two.
| slg wrote:
| Apple TV isn't censoring this movie. It is still
| available on their platform. They simply aren't buying
| exclusive distribution rights to this movie. That isn't
| censorship anymore than them turning down purchasing a
| movie I just filmed in my basement is censorship.
| lazide wrote:
| The most common issues and concerns around censorship are
| specifically government mandated or enforced censorship
| for many reasons, as it helps hide abuses, can explicitly
| support abusive regimes, and generally doesn't allow 'the
| people to think for themselves' - enforced by jail time
| or other traumatic penalties (getting shot, in some
| places)
|
| The underlying issue around using it as a term for things
| like platforms choosing what they do or do not want to
| publish, or private companies or actors choosing what
| they want to publish in their name (and taking the
| economic consequences for that) - is that a mandate that
| they CAN'T do that is it's own form of censorship, as it
| will by it's very nature have to proscribe what is and is
| not allowed to be said, and will restrict that entities
| ability to choose their own options.
| vadansky wrote:
| I keep seeing this sentiment, but the fact is his other
| documentary Icarus was HUGE on Netflix, and if The Dissident
| pops up on millions of people's feed saying "From the creator
| of Icarus!!", millions of people would watch it.
|
| Them not being interested is suspiciously leaving a huge pile
| of money on the table.
| chishaku wrote:
| > a niche documentary
|
| niche like Russian doping?
|
| From the article:
|
| > The documentary about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi... was
| one of the hottest films at last year's Sundance. It had
| glowing reviews, a ripped from the headlines subject, and a
| big-name director in Fogel, fresh off the Oscar-winning
| "Icarus," a penetrating look at Russian doping that got the
| country banned from the Olympics.
|
| > And yet, Netflix, which had previously released "Icarus," and
| other streaming services such as Apple and Amazon steered clear
| of "The Dissident."
|
| Wikipedia has a separate article for reactions to Jamal
| Kashoggi's killing from around the world.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination...
|
| Not sure you could call this a niche topic. Heck we're talking
| about it on HN.
| slg wrote:
| The financial viability of a documentary isn't necessarily
| tied to the importance of the underlying story. This one is
| about a bigger story than Russian doping, but it doesn't
| appear to be nearly as good of a documentary as the
| director's previous work. Icarus won an Oscar while The
| Dissident isn't among to top 10 or so favorites in its
| category.
|
| When purchasing a documentary, a network would either want
| something that could potentially become a big hit or
| potential add prestige by competing in awards. It doesn't
| appear likely that this documentary would have done either.
| chishaku wrote:
| Did you read the article?
|
| The film debuted at Sundance to broad critical appeal, with
| the Netflix CEO in attendance, and with tons of media
| coverage.
|
| Netflix is already on the record pulling content at the
| specific request of Saudi Arabia. They explained their
| decision by saying they aren't in the 'truth to power
| business.'
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-
| has...
|
| Thinking this is a niche film and thinking this decision is
| based on a simple profitability analysis is incredibly
| naive.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| "Debuted at Sundance to broad critical appeal" is
| basically a euphemism for niche. Every year there are
| very good movies which are hits at Sundance but never see
| any uptake after that.
| slg wrote:
| Are you familiar with Sundance? Every year there are
| movies there that receive lots of attention and praise
| only to completely disappear from public consciousness.
| Being well liked at Sundance is not necessarily a recipe
| for either financial or broad critical success.
|
| Here is a list from Variety of the the favorites for this
| year's best documentary feature Oscar[1]. The Dissident
| comes in at number 22. I can almost guarantee there are
| documentaries above it you haven't heard of. This
| documentary wasn't going to be a mainstream hit and it
| doesn't appear to be a serious contender for awards.
| There is little incentive for a streaming company to
| purchase it.
|
| It is also worth noting that the issue with Hasan
| Minhaj's show was specifically it being viewable in Saudi
| Arabia. That is a very different issue than purchasing
| rights to a movie in the US or other global markets.
|
| [1] - https://variety.com/feature/2021-oscars-best-
| documentary-fea...
| chishaku wrote:
| Is winning an Oscar or being a mainstream hit the
| threshold for Netflix carrying a documentary?
|
| Anyone can look at the catalog and see that's obviously
| not the case.
|
| Setting the goal posts there while ignoring the obvious
| politics around the situation is simply naive.
| slg wrote:
| How many of those documentaries on Netflix are exclusive
| to that platform, debuted on that platform, are popular
| Sundance movies, and from an Oscar winning filmmaker that
| wants to charge $20 for renting the movie? It isn't like
| there is a set price for every documentary. This movie
| was always going to come with a relatively big price tag
| compared to its financial viability.
|
| I am not ignoring the politics of the situation. I simply
| said I don't know if the tale told in the article is
| believable because there are valid non-political reasons
| that seem to do a better job explaining what transpired.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Wait, it _is_ available on Amazon? That 's not what I
| understood from the article at all.
| slg wrote:
| Exactly. They are spinning the story to the point of being
| misleading. They wanted an up front payment to purchase
| exclusive streaming rights. No one jumped at that. However
| these companies are still willing to host this movie on a
| revenue share model that comes with digital
| rentals/purchases. That is a big indicator the motivating
| factor was cost and not the danger of the content itself.
| Hoasi wrote:
| Bryan Fogel, the director, explains his disappointment that his
| documentary is not part of the regular subscription on (AppleTV,
| Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) streaming services here:
| https://open.spotify.com/episode/15p3DpjZeaXCwcXyGTytMj?
| cbozeman wrote:
| I'll have to listen to this episode.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| When one lowers existing barriers to global trade, new barriers
| become enacted.
|
| The Law of Conservation of Barriers.
| slumdev wrote:
| Netflix, the streaming service that mainstreamed child sexual
| exploitation _, is now shy of controversy.
|
| _ From IMDB 's content advisory on "Cuties": "Frequent scenes of
| 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and
| zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still
| in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with
| their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch
| area. These views are fairly frequent, but brief."
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You could put a similar content warning on
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Miss_Sunshine, but it'd
| _entirely_ miss the point of the film.
| speed_spread wrote:
| I've seen "Cuties" without prior knowledge of the controversy.
| It is a good movie that actually denounces indoctrination
| (moral/religious or consumerist/sexual) of young girls. It is
| also a very French movie, which codes may not be familiar to
| American public. Some scenes are ambiguous, reflecting both
| superficial joy and ethical uneasiness. As part of the whole
| story they balance out but taken out of context these images
| will look plain wrong; Netflix mistake was to use those scenes
| as part the movie's trailer.
| slumdev wrote:
| The actresses in Mignonnes aren't young-looking adults.
| They're actually children.
|
| The controversy exists (yes, even in France,) because it was
| unnecessary for Doucoure to sexualize children in order to
| decry the sexualization of children.
| ficklepickle wrote:
| How do you show how bad something is without showing the
| thing?
|
| Children are sexualized by the constant messaging they
| receive from media and advertising. Instead of getting
| upset about a movie that demonstrates the problem, maybe we
| should address the problem.
| slumdev wrote:
| > How do you show how bad something is without showing
| the thing?
|
| Ordinarily, we'd simulate it. No one is actually killed
| in the production of a war film.
|
| But when the actresses themselves are children, it's not
| a simulation.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| There's "controversy that is mostly a Twitter/arts critique
| outrage" that won't cost you much business, and there's
| "controversy that can lead entire _countries_ from blocking you
| out ".
|
| Most people will never hear about, much less react upon, the
| "Cuties" issue, so the business risk was relatively low.
| slumdev wrote:
| What unmitigated cowardice! If a company chooses to offend
| only when there's little risk to the bottom line, they're not
| a brave cultural vanguard. They're the establishment hiding
| under an "edgy" patina.
| ViViDboarder wrote:
| Have any of these companies ever claimed to be edgy though?
| I feel like this is par for the course with all American
| businesses.
| slumdev wrote:
| Do you mean to tell me that the "Praise Satan!" streaming
| service isn't desperately trying to be edgy?
|
| https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/11/the-
| chilling-ad...
| angst_ridden wrote:
| I mean, look at how much Saudi venture capital - and MBS himself
| - is involved in Silicon Valley.
| https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/1/18511540/silicon-valley-...
| mna8333 wrote:
| Not all 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' are equal. It
| matters foremost what is there to gain/lose. In this case its
| streaming services
| eunos wrote:
| 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech' are just tools to
| undermine Geopolitical competitors.
| tartoran wrote:
| I hope this will pick up some Streisand effect and soon every
| American will have seen this documentary. I don't blame Netflix a
| lot for not picking this up, they are probably to lose a lot of
| money if they do.
| MikusR wrote:
| It costs 20$. Are you going to sponsor it?
| codetrotter wrote:
| I saw this movie recently and just wanted to say I highly
| recommend taking the time to watch it.
|
| The official website has a list of paid services that you can
| watch it on
|
| https://thedissident.com/
|
| You will also be able to find it elsewhere
| Rapzid wrote:
| Site seems busted for me.
|
| EDIT: It's available for rent on Amazon Prime Video for anyone
| interested.
| olemaga wrote:
| Does not seem available in Europe?
| tootie wrote:
| I can believe it's a well-made production, but I'm curious if
| it has been verified for accuracy or it actually uncovered any
| new details.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Wow. It's been more than one decade since I've seen a website
| so terrible.
|
| Anyone know if it's possible to purchase this movie outside of
| the streaming services? For example, as a Bluray disc, or
| simply an unencumbered video file?
| mountainb wrote:
| The bigger issue related to this is not the Khashoggi was
| tortured to death and dismembered, but that America's alliance
| with Saudi Arabia is both immoral and strategically stupid.
| However, Saudi Arabia's corrupt grip on our ruling class is so
| thorough that it is able to suppress speech like this that might
| make the Saudi government look even slightly bad.
|
| We never get to the point to which the Saudi alliance is
| questioned at a fundamental level. The motte and bailey style
| 'debate' stays in the realm of whether or not the Khashoggi
| murder was bad, or on some other irrelevant side issue of the
| Saudi government's conduct. The problem, essentially, is our
| military alliance with Saudi Arabia. This is almost never
| debated. Only side issues such as Saudi women not being allowed
| to drive or Saudi use of the death penalty are ever allowed to be
| raised. It's considered 'unserious' to question the iron security
| guarantee that our republic provides to this royal family.
|
| Saudi Arabia could turn 1 million Kahsoggis into meatballs and
| the American Op-Ed-Oligarchy would be unwilling to question the
| fundamental diplomatic issue of America's alliance with Saudi
| Arabia. We have already tested this commitment when a couple
| dozen Saudi nationals blew up the World Trade Center twice and
| the alliance with Saudi Arabia only strengthened as a response.
|
| This would be like Gavrilo Princip killing Franz Ferdinand and
| the Habsburgs responding by increasing foreign and military aid
| to Serbia, encouraging Serbia to blow up more of its neighbors,
| then going to war on behalf of Serbia multiple times to increase
| its power and influence. 27D chess or corrupt-stupid-evil; you
| decide.
| vmception wrote:
| "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not
| allowed to criticize"
|
| Yeah, but why is the list growing?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| If you respond to a power grab by competing over who can
| surrender the fastest, what do you expect to happen?
| humbleMouse wrote:
| Can't question the isreal alliance either, some things are just
| off topic.
| cbozeman wrote:
| That one is a lot stickier, because no one tried to
| systematically wipe out the Saudi people.
|
| Hundreds of thousands of Saudis didn't immigrate here to
| escape certain death.
|
| There's also the fact that America is still a very religious
| country - and takes it seriously - so many people support
| Israel because they really do believe they're protecting
| God's chosen people. No one should "wish" for war, but I've
| often wondered what would happen if Saudi Arabia decided to
| wage war against Israel. I'm very curious with whom America
| would ultimately side.
| snypher wrote:
| "If Israel did not exist, the United States would have to
| invent one to protect her interests in the region"
|
| "My father would say, were he a Jew, he would never, never
| entrust the security of his people to any individual
| nation, no matter how good and how noble it was, like the
| United States."
| throwawaygal7 wrote:
| For some reason, we never talk about the religious
| motivations behind the creation of the state of Israel.
|
| The balfour declaration was signed well before the
| holocaust had ever happened; using the holocaust to justify
| the creation of the colony if israel is anachronistic at
| best.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > There's also the fact that America is still a very
| religious country - and takes it seriously - so many people
| support Israel because they really do believe they're
| protecting God's chosen people.
|
| From what I understand, there is also a surprisingly large
| base of devout Christians who support Israel in the
| hopes/belief that it will lead to a prophesied battle at
| Armaggedon, helping to usher the end of the world.
| Apparently [0] George Bush Jr. may have been a believer in
| this theory (though others dispute this: [1])
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2
| 009/a...
|
| [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/15/bush-chirac-and-
| the-war...
| leto_ii wrote:
| Your comment reminds me of a series of concepts that I've
| discovered while going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole of
| protestant theology:
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
|
| Some of this stuff makes the blood curdle. If it was
| spewed by some guy in a turban the US would probably have
| had him killed with robots from the sky by now...
| angst_ridden wrote:
| In the past few decades, unequivocal support for Israel
| has fallen among American Jews, while it has grown among
| Evangelical Christians. Admittedly, these numbers are
| complicated, as a majority American Jews say they feel an
| "emotional connection" to Israel, but nearly 60% are
| critical of the country's policies, and fewer than 25%
| are both pro-Israel and supportive of the current
| government policies. See
| https://jewishcurrents.org/are-95-of-jews-really-
| zionists/, https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/80-percent-of-
| us-jews-say-the..., etc.
| orange_tee wrote:
| Christianity and Protestantism in particular have
| historically been sources of antisemitism and this was true
| up till well within the 20th century. The fact that
| hardcore American Christians have now been converted to
| pro-Israel fanatics, makes the whole thing much weirder, if
| anything.
| spijdar wrote:
| The reality is more complicated than that. This line of
| "pro-Israel fanatics" goes back quite some time, albeit
| in different forms. Take British Israelism as an example.
| [0]
|
| Granted, British Israelism would morph into an even more
| insane (and downright misanthropic) off-shoot, but you
| know, humans gonna human I guess. I think these attitudes
| about Israel have existed for quite a long time anyway.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > There's also the fact that America is still a very
| religious country - and takes it seriously - so many people
| support Israel because they really do believe they're
| protecting God's chosen people.
|
| Even that's stickier than it initially appears, in that
| some of the American evangelical supporters of Israel do so
| because they think it's necessary to start the End Times.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/
| h...
|
| These prophesies don't actually end well _for the Jews_.
| ficklepickle wrote:
| Everyone thinks their group is chosen by god. News at 6.
|
| None of theses superstitions end well for humanity.
| [deleted]
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The Israel alliance is hard to question simply because,
| unlike Saudi Arabia, Israel is very popular in the US. If all
| you saw was the polling data - there's a country A with 70%
| favorability overall, at least 50% within each political
| party, and their main rival B has 20% favorability - you
| wouldn't be surprised to see a strong and hard to question
| alliance with A.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| Haha. It seems you have hit the nail on the head with
| exacting precision
| noelsusman wrote:
| You can't question our alliance with Saudi Arabia without
| questioning our alliance with Israel. Well, you can, but the
| former flows from the latter. If we're going to be allies with
| Israel, then Iran is our enemy. If Iran is our enemy, then
| Saudi Arabia is our friend. We've come up with all sorts of
| other rationalizations over the years, but that is the core of
| it.
|
| I've begun to see the faintest whiffs of questioning the Saudi
| alliance among the foreign policy establishment, but I suspect
| our deeply pro-Israel sentiments will prevent anything from
| changing for a long time.
| chishaku wrote:
| > will prevent anything from changing
|
| also petrodollars and preserving reserve currency status
| stretchcat wrote:
| JFK's attempts to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program ended
| when he got shot in the head. His successor, LBJ, dropped the
| issue.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > If Iran is our enemy, then Saudi Arabia is our friend
|
| Why is this?
| cbozeman wrote:
| Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.
|
| And what's worse, its over oil - a resource that, no matter
| what your stance on climate change is - from which we are
| rapidly transitioning away.
| joejohnson wrote:
| Absolutely. I am pro-climate change and I still think the
| US's relationship with Saudi Arabia is strategically stupid.
| enriquto wrote:
| > I am pro-climate change
|
| Wait, what? What do you mean?
| [deleted]
| joejohnson wrote:
| What does "no matter your stance on climate change" mean?
| (parent comment)
|
| For the record, I am also pro-gravity.
| cbozeman wrote:
| Whether you believe climate change is real, not real,
| man-made, not man-made, naturally induced, unnaturally
| induced, etc., its all pointless.
|
| Electric cars are the future no matter what. They're
| quieter, they produce less emissions over their life
| cycle, they have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership),
| they're faster, and frankly, every electric vehicle I've
| ever driven is just plain more fun to drive (granted I've
| only ever driven three, but still...).
|
| Our shipping is moving away from oil and to natural gas,
| because shipping is an enormous contributor to CO2
| emissions.
|
| So oil's value is going to be dropping precipitously in
| the next 100 years.
| enriquto wrote:
| It sounds as if you fought for the climate to change
| faster, liberating tons of methane in the atmosphere and
| burning fossil fuels like crazy.
| pc86 wrote:
| Which is a stance that nobody believe, so it's clearly
| not that.
|
| Even people who deny climate change as a science wouldn't
| describe themselves as "fighting for the climate to
| change faster."
| cbozeman wrote:
| This would actually be hilarious... some deranged Bond
| villain who's conspiring to melt the permafrost to
| release all the methane so as to drive humanity extinct,
| lol...
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's what Bitcoin is, essentially.
| cbozeman wrote:
| As someone with quite a few Bitcoins, and who actively
| mines using my hardware when it isn't in use, that is
| most emphatically _not_ what it is.
|
| Every cent you "save" is diluted when the Federal Reserve
| decides to print up a trillion or two.
|
| You can't "print up" a few trillion Bitcoins. You can't
| add more. You can't magically make them go away (unless
| of course your throw away your hard drive with the wallet
| data on it...).
|
| And unlike any other type of currency, where some shady
| deal can take place and there's absolutely no record of
| it... there's a ledger of every single transaction ever
| made on the Bitcoin network. You may not _know_ who that
| address belongs to, but the transaction is there.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Every cent you "save" is diluted when the Federal
| Reserve decides to print up a trillion or two._
|
| And yet, disregarding exceptional circumstances in world
| history, it's generally stable. I can buy bread for
| roughly the same amount of dollars I bought it for last
| year.
|
| > _You can 't "print up" a few trillion Bitcoins. You
| can't add more. You can't magically make them go away
| (unless of course your throw away your hard drive with
| the wallet data on it...)._
|
| You can do plenty other funny things if you have
| equivalent amount of power.
|
| > _And unlike any other type of currency, where some
| shady deal can take place and there 's absolutely no
| record of it... there's a ledger of every single
| transaction ever made on the Bitcoin network. You may not
| know who that address belongs to, but the transaction is
| there._
|
| Sure. But instead, you can just... give someone the key
| to your address. Roughly equivalent to how shady deals
| happen with fiat - you give someone a briefcase full of
| cash.
|
| All of that is irrelevant to the point here, though: the
| point is that if you tried to imagine an evil mastermind
| hell-bent on accelerating climate change, Bitcoin is what
| they would come up with - an engine of unlimited energy
| waste, fueled by naivety and unadulterated greed.
| [deleted]
| chongli wrote:
| I don't think it's just over oil. Saudi Arabia is also
| considered strategically important as an outpost against
| Iran. I went to Google Iran and this was the top hit [1]. The
| timing of these two stories is very interesting.
|
| [1] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-
| exploring-...
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| The dissident was a good movie!
|
| I just watched A Thousand Cuts over the weekend. It's about
| Dutertes war against the Press and Maria Ressa.
|
| https://youtu.be/LixnwDIh2wU
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Facebook blatantly allowing the manipulation of politics.
|
| Twitter / youtube deciding what the people can talk about.
|
| Now netflix refusing content exposing a brazen crime with global
| implications.
|
| For how long will we allow non elected superentities control our
| lives?
| qeternity wrote:
| > For how long will we allow non elected superentities control
| our lives?
|
| ...you say, freely commenting on a site, that is freely
| discussing another site that is openly reporting on the fact
| that Netflix are doing this.
|
| The mere fact that you know that this documentary exists and
| that Netflix is passing on it due to geopolitical influence I
| think is proof that Netflix is not controlling our lives?
| newsclues wrote:
| My mom doesn't read hacker news.
|
| She didn't see this film on the streaming services she pays
| for. She didn't see it on the tv news or hear about it on the
| radio.
|
| Is my mother's life controlled and I've hacked my way to
| freedom?
| felipemnoa wrote:
| Tell her about it. She will tell her friends. Streisand
| effect...
| newsclues wrote:
| You're missing the point.
|
| We are the exception to the norm. Most people just watch
| whatever is on Netflix.
| qeternity wrote:
| That's not an argument for nationalizing Netflix and
| using it to indoctrinate people according to some agenda
| that you find agreeable.
| [deleted]
| zarkov99 wrote:
| Oh yes, everything is fine, because HN is not censoring some
| anonymous reader. Come on. Control over information might be
| the defining issue of this century. The danger is real and
| existencial and as a society we are completely unprepared to
| meet it.
| qeternity wrote:
| My point isn't that HN is fine, my point is that the
| internet is literally filled with places to engage in free
| discussion.
|
| You're worried that people won't do that and that if they
| don't, we should somehow force some Big Tech Co to
| indoctrinate them with an agenda that you find agreeable.
|
| Just because most people elect to use a service despite
| having gobs of alternatives doesn't make that service a
| monopoly.
| zarkov99 wrote:
| Forget what I find agreeable or not, that is not the
| point. The point is that this movie, which in all
| likelihood would have done quite well, was supressed from
| netflix for political reasons. This supression will have
| a huge impact on the film's reach and therefore greatly
| reduced it's impact. The fact that netflix is now a
| political agent, with the power to manipulate a giant
| audience for inscrutable but likely very ugly reasons
| should worry us all. This is a dangerous state of affairs
| that should not be reflexively shrugged off just because
| the wrong tribe complained about it first. This is coming
| for us all.
| tootie wrote:
| This is not at all equivalent though. Netflix isn't refusing to
| allow this on their platform, they just weren't willing to pay
| for it. Fogle could post his video on youtube and it wouldn't
| be a problem. He wants to be paid millions of dollars to get a
| big distribution deal. That's squarely a privilege and not a
| right.
| caymanjim wrote:
| What's your solution? Forcing Netflix to purchase and
| distribute content they don't want? Do we just force Netflix,
| or do we force every media company to host it? Who makes that
| decision?
|
| Want to vote? Stop using Facebook, stop using Twitter, stop
| using Netflix. The film is available for streaming elsewhere.
| Go watch it.
| cbozeman wrote:
| A documentary about a journalist being murdered because he
| criticized a truly legitimately shit regime.
|
| A documentary that almost everyone who watched it says is
| borderline child pornography.
|
| Guess which one was on Netflix and which one wasn't.
| Bakary wrote:
| If you are not wealthy enough to no longer have to work, your
| employer already controls more than a third of your life, and
| exerts all sorts of peripheral control through all the
| pressures necessary to maintain a specific job (location,
| social trail, etc.). Comparatively, what you describe seems
| like a non-issue
| marcinzm wrote:
| Want a solution? Have the government fund public broadcasting
| and communication sites like in various other countries. Wait,
| you don't want the government to see and control all your
| information and communication? But you also don't want private
| companies to do so?
|
| edit: As for de-centralized approaches, imho those don't work
| great when you want creators to make money rather than simply
| having everyone pirate the movie.
| racl101 wrote:
| I know one way to not support a company.
| falcor84 wrote:
| > For how long will we allow non elected superentities control
| our lives?
|
| What does that even mean? Who is it who's allowing or not
| allowing a media company to control people's lives?
| cbozeman wrote:
| It means people are scared enough of "Big Tech" to actually
| defend Donald Trump, which is what Angela Merkel did.
|
| When he was banned from Twitter and YouTube and Facebook,
| they all perked up... because they realized, "That could be
| me..." If these companies can ban the most powerful human on
| the planet, they know they could be next, the moment they end
| up in the crosshairs.
| Bakary wrote:
| Merkel made those statements because Germany has a specific
| cultural attitude towards censorship and privacy
| considering their own history.
| idownvoted wrote:
| Somewhere in Ankara, a not-so-slightly fascist is giggling hard.
|
| To have the west's narrative-forming-class believe the fairy tale
| of Kashoggi as a fighter for free speech is quite an achievement,
| as the only reason Kashoggi got to be a politically critical
| journalist in Saudi-Arabia was that he was an upper class guy,
| heir to millions of USDs - and like many in this socio-economic
| group a big fan / member of the Muslim Brotherhood (as means to
| overthrow the only class that sits on top of them).
|
| Yeah, just an ordinary freedom fighter who is best buddies with
| Erdogan. Right...
| angst_ridden wrote:
| Ah, so he believed something questionable. He clearly deserved
| to be cut up with bone saws.
| noarchy wrote:
| So is this the narrative that is being pushed by pro-MBS
| astroturfers?
| MikusR wrote:
| Even Youtube, Vimeo and Peertube?
|
| Besides a simple Google search brings a free one on Youtube made
| by Deutche Welle.
| mkl95 wrote:
| Many comments are mentioning Netflix. It's worth mentioning
| Amazon and Apple have rejected it too.
|
| Edit: Apple and Amazon seem to have picked up the documentary
| since the time of the interview.
| 1wd wrote:
| Seems to be available on Amazon. (And worth watching!)
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I watched it on Apple TV.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I liked reading books since when I was 12. I would read anything
| challenging, even if I wouldn't understanding.
|
| I was also reading books of lyrics. I remember reading lyrics of
| Metallica, Iron Maiden, Sex Pistols songs, way before I actually
| listen to their music. That gave me an appreciation of the
| words/meaning.
|
| On the Sex Pistol's song "God Save The Queen" they sang:
|
| "God save the queen 'Cause tourists are money And our figurehead
| Is not what she seems"
|
| I am not discussing the political aspect on the governing systems
| (Kingdom vs Anarchy), but the phrase "cause tourists are money"
| has so much wisdom in it. In modern 'american' language we would
| say "money talks, BS walks".
|
| Just like NBA shat up and rolled over (oh yes they did) for
| China, Netflix (and the likes) do for Saudi Arabia.
|
| There was a discussion a couple of days ago regarding users
| migrating from WhatsApp to Signal/Telegram and how "a few
| friends" declined, forcing the "many" to either ostracize them,
| or stick to WhatsApp.
|
| MBS/Saudi Arabia do the same. If you want us, shut up and keep
| the status quo (murder, rape, inequality, torture). They got
| trillions of $. Wegot two options. Shut up and roll over
| (Netflix, NBA), or isolate them and allow them to develop
| similar/close services. The third option that "slowly they will
| join us".. well.. how slowly is slowly? 1 year? 5? 100? never? I
| fear they (SA/MBS) will always be 100 years behind this
| 'democratic' curve.
| cbozeman wrote:
| Probably about 25-35 years. That's about how long we can
| subsist on _current_ proven oil reserves given the amount and
| given the yearly consumption of oil and accounting for usage
| increase and fluctuations.
|
| Which is another way of saying we have 25-35 years to get
| electric cars up and running and to really "solve" the
| alternative energy crisis. This is why we need to be pouring
| massive amounts of money into fusion power research, because if
| we can crack that nut, we're set.
|
| Or hey, maybe never.
|
| Look at other Middle Eastern nations.
| purephase wrote:
| It's sadly not the first time that Netflix has avoided
| controversy with MBS:
|
| https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/netflix-cou...
|
| It's sad, but in a way, this type of censorship tends to increase
| interest in the content, so hopefully this happens here. The
| Khashoggi murder is one of the most blatently horrible incidents
| in the last few years that should be discussed at length and
| those responsible actually held responsible.
|
| I'd never heard of the film, but now I am definitely going to
| check it out.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> one of the most blatently horrible incidents
|
| For all the horror, this was still only one person, one victim,
| killed. There are a great many other incidents in which large
| numbers of people have been deliberately killed yet we seem to
| just take such things as normal. The specifics of Khashoggi's
| murder were shocking, but the murder or disappearance of such
| persons is far from unusual on the world stage.
|
| Fyi, a similar Saudi kill team was recently intercepted at a
| _Canadian_ airport. Such attempts at murder barely make news,
| only coming to light via lawsuits months later.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55232926
|
| "The court filing says the group - which included a man from
| the same department as the man accused of dismembering
| Khashoggi - were carrying two bags of forensic tools. However,
| Canadian border agents "quickly became suspicious" of the group
| and refused them entry after interviewing them, it says."
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/saudi-hit-squad-aljab...
|
| "Public Safety Minister Bill Blair would not comment on the
| specific allegations in the lawsuit but said the government was
| aware of incidents in which foreign actors have tried to
| monitor, intimidate or threaten Canadians and people in
| Canada."
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > For all the horror, this was still only one person, one
| victim, killed. There are a great many other incidents in
| which large numbers of people have been deliberately killed
| yet we seem to just take such things as normal. The specifics
| of Khashoggi's murder were shocking, but the murder or
| disappearance of such persons is far from unusual on the
| world stage.
|
| This is hugely important context to always keep in mind. The
| fact that MBS had managed to bamboozle the western media into
| fawning over his token "reforms" prior to the Saudis brazenly
| murdering Kashoggi was a disgrace.
|
| It's telling that the media only really started caring about
| Saudi governmental corruption and criminality after one of
| their own - a fellow pundit who traveled in elite western
| circles - was grotesquely killed. MBS presumably had good
| reason to believe he could get away with murder, with
| Kashoggi being the exception that proves the rule.
| justin66 wrote:
| So little of this comment makes any sense at all.
|
| > The fact that MBS had managed to bamboozle the western
| media into fawning over his token "reforms" prior to the
| Saudis brazenly murdering Kashoggi was a disgrace.
|
| If Khashoggi and the Washington Post had stuck to fawning
| rather than sharp criticism of the Saudi government, he'd
| be alive.
|
| > It's telling that the media only really started caring
| about Saudi governmental corruption and criminality after
| one of their own - a fellow pundit who traveled in elite
| western circles - was grotesquely killed.
|
| The media "caring" about Saudi governmental corruption is
| _why_ Khashoggi was assassinated.
| free_rms wrote:
| Kill a hundred thousand Yemenis and nobody bats an eye,
| but you bone-saw one little washington post reporter and
| now it's a crisis.
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| Also, people seem to care more if there is a single victim
| as opposed to a bigger group. The story becomes more
| relatable.
| purephase wrote:
| I'm not saying that there aren't other good examples. But, to
| target a US journalist like this, at a foreign embassy where
| there are recordings, logs of people entering and leaving
| (with visitor logs) where you could conceivably find those
| responsible and run it up the chain for accountabiliity is
| the rare element here that could and should be used.
|
| If we actually start to make an example here, that this is
| not acceptable in our society, then perhaps others will feel
| less emboldened to do the same.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> this is not acceptable in our society
|
| World society? American society? Turkish society? Or Saudi
| society? All apply, some more so than others, depending on
| which aspects of the incident one feels more relevant. The
| suppression, exile or even disappearance of dissidents is
| not universally condemned.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| In any of those societies. There's no country in the
| world except maybe North Korea where this kind of
| behavior is generally seen as acceptable; even in Saudi
| Arabia, the government officially disapproved and tried
| the people who did it for murder.
| fakedang wrote:
| > even in Saudi Arabia, the government officially
| disapproved and tried the people who did it for murder.
|
| So that it could save MBS's ass when his people
| questioned why the rest of the world was hating on him. A
| lot of people in Saudi Arabia were shocked by the
| gruesome nature of the murder (which American media
| deftly used to sling shit on them, since Khashoggi was
| one of their own). If Khashoggi was some ordinary low
| profile Saudi citizen, and not distantly related to the
| Royal family and being from a wealthy family himself, his
| death would have been pretty routine in Saudi Arabia.
| It's an open secret that Prince Bonesaw ordered the
| killing, and that the later execution was a farce. Even
| then, I suspect the execution was disposal for a sloppy
| job.
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| Is this comment seriously doing moral relativism about
| state assassination of journalists? lmao
| Rapzid wrote:
| I agree. The details of the killing itself while shocking
| aren't the most shocking aspect of this.
|
| The most shocking aspects were the context(US resident,
| WAPO journalist, how blatant it was) and how we witnessed
| our government wipe MBSs ass with our values. In slow
| motion. We knew EXACTLY what was going on, how disgusting
| it was, and it unfolded anyway; nobody could stop it.
| cronix wrote:
| Here's a good example, but from America. I find it
| especially abhorrent when an American President orders the
| killing of American citizens (at least 1 directly ordered
| with several other "unintended" murders) on foreign soil
| without their guaranteed 5th Amendment trial, which states,
| in part, "that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty
| or property without due process of law."
|
| > Since 2009, the United States, in the conduct of U.S.
| counterterrorism operations against al-Qa'ida and its
| associated forces outside of areas of active hostilities,
| has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen,
| Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of
| three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S.
| counterterrorism operations over that same time period:
| Samir Khan, 'Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan
| Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted
| by the United States. -Attorney General Eric Holder, May
| 22, 2013
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/kesha-
| roge...
| purephase wrote:
| I'm in agreement for sure, extra judicial killing of any
| kind is questionable. I think we should review all of
| them and hold those responsible for their actions.
|
| However, drone strikes have "collatoral damage" and
| unintended side effects like this (not saying this makes
| them good and they should continue) especially when
| they're deployed in areas openly holding people who are
| in active conflict against people in their own countries
| and there is military deployed. Again, this doesn't make
| it right.
|
| There's a big difference between that and a lone citizen
| applying for a marriage VISA, in another country
| entirely, being kidnapped and murdered due to his writing
| against the regime. And, due to the nature of the
| relationship between the US and SA it has been nearly
| covered up.
| pradn wrote:
| I don't understand how the crisis in Yemen, greatly
| exacerbated by MBS and supported by the US government, a
| crisis in which 200k+ Yemenis have been killed (including
| 80k+ children dead who starved to death), 3 million+
| displaced, with the deadliest cholera outbreak in modern
| history - isn't on the front page news every day. Every
| little tidbit of court minutae at the venal Trump White House
| was covered (which press secretary was leaving, who was
| getting pardons), but not this enormous crisis that the US
| has direct control over.
|
| It was disgusting how easily MBS was fawned over (see this
| absurd feature on MBS by Thomas Friedman [1]), how the
| Western media only cared about one of their own (Khashoggi
| was a WaPo journalist), and how quickly companies are coming
| back to back MBS's fantastical investment schemes like the
| Jetsons city-from-scratch NEOM, after stepping back for just
| a year.
|
| The US doesn't even import all that much oil from Saudi
| Arabia! It's only use is as a lever to press other countries
| that rely on Saudi oil to come under the US fold.
|
| [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-
| mbs-...
| cronix wrote:
| > The US doesn't even import all that much oil from Saudi
| Arabia! It's only use is as a lever to press other
| countries that rely on Saudi oil to come under the US fold.
|
| True, but they are the U.S.'s #1 purchaser of military
| weapons.
|
| > The U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons
| worldwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 -- up 33
| percent from the previous fiscal year, and a near record.
| In 2017, the U.S. cleared some $18 billion in new Saudi
| arms deals.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-
| buyer-o...
| pradn wrote:
| That is a good point.
| medium_burrito wrote:
| That last sentence of yours is key. The US now is the top
| oil producer, but it's still useful to have KSA there to do
| our bidding- basically we can crush Russia's and Iran's oil
| industry instantly, any time we feel like it. And our newer
| gas discoveries in the US will also let us control that
| market.
|
| Now, I think we shouldn't be supporting MBS, but I
| understand the logic behind it. I am sympathetic to the
| idea that if the House of Saud goes down, a bunch of our
| other friends in the region are going to be in real
| trouble- ie all the little emirates, Jordan, Israel, Egypt.
| rebuilder wrote:
| The shocking part isn't so much the murder as it is the
| brazenness, i.e., ineptitude of the whole thing. The Saudis
| seemed to act like it was their right to kill Khashoggi, else
| they would have planned better to avoid getting caught.
|
| This is even more evident in reactions to the Russian
| governments assassinations, attempted and successful. It's
| not that we don't think they'd try to kill people, but the
| way they don't really even bother to cover it up is what is
| really shocking. It's a slap in the face of the idea of law
| and order - murderers are at least supposed to do their best
| to hide their actions.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _It 's a slap in the face of the idea of law and order -
| murderers are at least supposed to do their best to hide
| their actions._
|
| False flag operations on the other hand are supposed to let
| many things unhidden...
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| If you have information to share, then share it. Making
| vague implications with nothing to back them up about
| state-sponsored killings is the height of crass.
| rebuilder wrote:
| Have you reviewed e.g. Bellingcat's reportage on Russian
| involvement in the Navalniy poisoning?
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Actually they miscalculated and didn't realize Turkish
| intelligence had thoroughly infiltrated their embassy. Like
| so well that the Saudis had actually done a counter
| surveillance sweep and not discovered it.
|
| They then further miscalculated the politics of the
| situation and didn't think the Turks would weigh in once it
| became clear the murder was captured on tape.
| hintymad wrote:
| I wouldn't call it censorship, as Netflix does not have any
| obligation to distribute a film, especially when such film may
| conflict with the company's financial interest (I assume what
| the article says is true).
| chokeartist wrote:
| I watched the movie. It highlighted to me how over the top the
| effort was, when I previously did not appreciate how exotic and
| ridiculous the killing actually was. No wonder the Saudis did not
| like this movie.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-26 23:02 UTC)