I hadn't watched it but thanks to this I am gonna watch it now.
Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
51–60 of 137 posts
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#52First time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good. The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with humor.
> political commentary sprinkled with humor. I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#53simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#54huffingtonpost.com is regurgitated misleading crap.
Fin times which doesn't have to resort to shitty click bait titles and broke the story has the correct title
"Netflix pulls episode of comedy show in Saudi Arabia"
It wasn't a "Complains" it was a legal request of sorts.
Do we seriously expect by default for Netflix to "break the law"? Netflix is not to blame here, but you'd need the proper news article to get the real story I guess, not misleading inciteful huffpo babble.
I'll add Soap Operas are consider by some studies as amazingly empowering for women. I have no idea if there is an equivocal for men, but the people don't need political shows to move forward, this isn't the hit we think it is. Netflix in Saudi Arabia is what's empowering and can create change.
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#55I hadn't watched it but thanks to this I am gonna watch it now.
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no law (in any jurisdiction, as far as I know) that states a corporation must relentlessly pursue profits. An owner is free to stay out of markets for moral or other reasons without any strategic or financial justification. The only thing stopping them would be other shareholders who disagree. Private, public, public-benefit, etc... doesn't matter.
How does this square with the principle of shareholder primacy and Dodge v Ford? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely part of it is them trying to latch on to new industries so they don’t go kaput when the oil runs out. But I do think they want seats on boards of tech companies so they can push their agendas too. Aside, I would like to see the actual justification behind how the episode constitutes cyber crime aside from “because we said so”
their agenda seems to be to make more money.
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#58This is why Saudi Arabia is trying to buy up tech and especially social media (Snap, Twitter)
Re: Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no law (in any jurisdiction, as far as I know) that states a corporation must relentlessly pursue profits. An owner is free to stay out of markets for moral or other reasons without any strategic or financial justification. The only thing stopping them would be other shareholders who disagree. Private, public, public-benefit, etc... doesn't matter.
How does this square with the principle of shareholder primacy and Dodge v Ford? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .
Did you read the bottom half of the entry's summary or the entry itself? Specifically:
> In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly
> The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.
and quotes from a number of law journals:
> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law.
> the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases.