Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people • Hacker News Board

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#611

Post by dang » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

All: please don't turn a thread like this into a same-old flamewar about race. It's tedious, nasty, and never changes. HN is for curious conversation, and there's zero curiosity in that, obviously. If you want the sort of angry activation that comes from repeating the same thing over and over, please find some other place to do it.

These guys have identified a market opportunity and are going for it. There are a lot of interesting aspects to discuss. If you don't want to do that, there are other threads to read—you don't need to muck this one up.

As for "how is X for black people a thing" - come on you guys, BET was founded in 1980. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BET

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#612

Post by OrvalWintermute » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

unmole wrote: post #205

I am not American but the overwhelming majority of the media I consume is American. Given the near hegemony of American popular culture, that is likely true for millions of non-Americans. All these people consume American content because they find it enjoyable and at some level relatable despite living in very different countries and not speaking English as their first language. At the end of the day, the human condi…

I think a certain geographical segment of America (coastal areas mainly covering NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, Miami, and a few others) is frequently portrayed in the media, but this segment of America is not actually representative, and over-represents itself.

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#613

Post by thegrimmest » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #603

thegrimmest wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that while "hispanic" indicates a linguistic origin, "black" (like "white") indicates a physical trait - having skin pigment past an arbitrary threshold of darkness/lightness. You can be black and hispanic, or white and hispanic. You can't be a white black american, even if that accurately describes your skin and culture respectively. Also, you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen…

No, Black culture is not simply about skin tone.

That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.

It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#614

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

I'm not in the target market for this product, but the hostile reaction it's engendered would kind of seem to be its own advertisement for its utility.

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#615

Post by imbnwa » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #582

imbnwa wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LMAO, you're really reaching for those grapes. The courts ruled that "cakes for straight people" meant cannot be sold to non-straight people , which is in fact discriminatory and also illegal. I don't think BlackOakTV is requiring photo identification as proof of Blackness to sign-up. Stop it. Edit: For clarity, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the homophobic cake shop in Colorado strictly on freedom of r…

SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of Masterpiece on freedom of religion grounds, they ruled that the Colorado commission didn't exercise religious neutrality. It was an extremely narrow ruling and essentially kicked the problem back to Colorado to fix their commission. This is an important distinction as it results in vastly different outcomes.

Not that this discussion is pivotal to my point but the court wrote that:

>“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”[0]

Not only is that utterly unclear, it doesn't even make a distinction between "they said something that offended Phillips' religion" and "you can't make/apply laws that are hostile to Phillips' religious viewpoint". I don't think there's a queer person in America that would perceive "vastly different outcomes" from a ruling like that.

[0]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#616

Post by namdnay » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #570

namdnay wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I’m European, so maybe I’m not in the right cultural mindset for this, but your comparison really highlights what is problematic for me: based on someone’s skin colour you are determining their culture/heritage. What does a Nigerian have in common with a Jamaican, apart from the melatonin in their skin? Why would they have similar tastes in media?

In the US, the vast majority of black people have descended from the enslaved Americans who have been in the US for hundreds of years. When people say "black culture" that's what they are referring to. Not that recent immigrants from Jamaica and Nigeria are from the same culture. There's the further concept that due to systemic racism, Jamaican and Nigerian culture will blend into the larger black culture than the la…

Ok I think I get it. Maybe more “African American” than “Black”

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#617

Post by kbenson » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

disneygibson wrote: post #598

kbenson wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I think "by" implies creation/ownership of the company in that case, but the important part is what it provides, not who owns it. Just like the GP, does "Water by Black (Whatever)" really have a draw? Some people may want to support people they identify with, but I think most just want a good product, so the trick is making sure that product is easily identified for those that are interested in it. Mayb…

My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t. Restaurant for Italians. Suggests that non-Italians don’t belong here. Restaurant by Italians. Suggests that Italians make the food here and that it’s not for a particular group.

> My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t.

I'm not disagreeing with that specific point. Just making a corollary that by doesn't necessarily identify what it is in all contexts, as it's more ambiguous depending on where it's used. For a restaurant, it's fairly obvious because we have prior assumptions about the service. It it was laundry, the assumption might just be it was advertising itself as a black owned business. For a streaming service? Probably more on the side of how a restaurant is seen, but why even court that confusion? Most restaurants would avoid it as well, and call themselves Soul Food or some other moniker that clearly communicates what it serves as opposed to who runs it.

"Restaurant by Black People" might communicate something about the restaurant enough to most people, but it's also just a poor choice of description all around. Netflix by Black People is similarly a poor description, IMO.

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#618

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

skyde wrote: post #418

Joeri wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are apps that cater to comic book fans, are they promoting the comic nerd divide? What is wrong with a service that caters to a content niche? Separate but equal is only a bad thing when people cannot choose which of the two systems they select into. A black person can choose to get regular netflix instead of this niche service.

it’s bad because it create a bubble. It’s like the instagram for republican (parler). It turned into a social network for dangerous extremist very fast and is one of the reason the capital got attacked

[deleted]

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#619

Post by emodendroket » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

kadabra9 wrote: post #171

essem wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racial segregation is a stretch. They do not block you from subscribing if you're not black.

Realistically though, how many white people would pay for a platform with all black content, one that they are told is explicitly not for them?

I am not persuaded those numbers would look better with different messaging but the same content.

Re: Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

#620

Post by dang » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

knicholes wrote: post #109

sokoloff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BET wasn’t offensive me. Telemundo wasn’t offensive to me. Nickelodeon wasn’t offensive to me. Food Network wasn’t offensive to me. Serving targeted programming to an identifiable minority audience seems like a perfectly reasonable business (and social) proposition. I don’t know that “Netflix for Black People” will test well, but it seems perfectly fine to me. [white middle-aged male if context matters]. Edit to add:…

It kind of assumes that all black people will like these kinds of shows, like Nickelodeon assumed that all kids would like their shows. In a world where diversity is so celebrated, I find it odd to try to show black people only other black people. Kids like kids shows because the content is more suited for kids. I know the original poster said they felt good seeing the shows with black people in the 90s, but can't th…

> Honestly when I read the title, I immediately thought, "Drinking fountains for black people."

Wow, that is egregious. We ban accounts that stoop to vile tropes like that. I doubt that you intended it that way but you did it anyhow—seriously not cool. If you want to keep commenting on HN, please don't do anything like that again.

The gratifying thing is that the commenters who replied to you were so entirely decent. That's the sort of thoughtfulness that you ought to be practicing, even when you encounter something that rubs you the wrong way on the internet. Or rather, especially then.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html