I thought it was a pretty accurate assessment of the streaming service business-and-marketing model. Fill your virtual shelves with cheap schlock, keep a few big-ticket items on prominent display (e.g. Netflix dropping a billion on Friends and Seinfeld), and when people have a habit of flicking through random titles looking for something watchable, they may watch the propaganda schlock or they may not, but as long as they don't drop their subscription, you're winning. The quality* content and sloth factor subsidize the wokist bullshit.
I'd make a post on it, but the last time I put effort into a post, nobody read it.
Several points, One I think you posted it during a slow time, several poster has noted that they don't really look for old post, so if it is gone from hot and first page of new, it does not exist.
Two, You are memed here for one ardent opinion which is considered very controversial compared to others opinion, this conflict of ideas create most of your engagement with others, (specially antonio)
Three, This is not even close to the post with least engagement, it probably has a poor effort to engagement ratio, but it is not one with the least engagement.
They're worse than HR. I'd make a post on it, but the last time I put effort into a post, nobody read it.
What, the subscription service one?
I thought it was a pretty accurate assessment of the streaming service business-and-marketing model. Fill your virtual shelves with cheap schlock, keep a few big-ticket items on prominent display (e.g. Netflix dropping a billion on Friends and Seinfeld), and when people have a habit of flicking through random titles looking for something watchable, they may watch the propaganda schlock or they may not, but as long as they don't drop their subscription, you're winning. The quality* content and sloth factor subsidize the wokist bullshit.
Quit your whining or provide data/arguments to refute me.
Huh?
From
Okay, what is there to address?