While I will post the link to the tweet be aware that there a like 100 blue check bootlickers defending Netflix here https://twitter.com/SaeedDiCaprio/status/1699136050331799627

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    ·
    10 months ago

    It's true that Netflix isn't directly responsible.

    It's also true that Paul should have made more for his labor given the popularity and how that system seems to work.

    Point your anger at capitalism, people. Netflix is small potatoes.

    • Tomboys_are_Cute [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      10 months ago

      If Netflix isn't then they should be. If I remember correctly a big part of the SAG strike is about online streaming residuals so it is highly relevant that Netflix has paid him $0. Yes Capitalism is bad but you're literally on Hexbear, we already know that.

      • ZapataCadabra [he/him]
        ·
        10 months ago

        Hey bully for Aaron Paul, but he got paid more than the crew. Where is even any talk of the residuals for general workers.

        • autismdragon [he/him, comrade/them]
          hexagon
          ·
          10 months ago

          General workers should get residuals too, but SAG is actually doing a strike for residuals right now as we are speaking and as communists we should support labor action. Dont do that thing that happened during the video game voice actor strike where people were like "well what about the other people working on the games?". Thats not the point. Those people should get more compensation too. But support the labor action that is actually happening instead of asking "well what about this other group". That just serves the bosses interests.

          • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
            ·
            10 months ago

            The compensation for others follows as a natural consequence of some getting it. It really confuses me as there is no temporal aspect to some of these criticisms.

            Of course others would fight for their own compensation after seeing that others could get it, there's historical precedent for this. It's unfortunate that it can't happen in one fell swoop and that isn't enough to stop support.

        • Egon [they/them]
          ·
          10 months ago

          "it's bad for them so it should be bad for him too" seems like a weird argument, and one I often hear against labour improvements. "Why should they be paid well to flip burgers, when I'm not paid well and I do something more important?"

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        10 months ago

        My point is that the SAG strike will eventually end with some individuals ending up in a better situation -- but the system as a whole will be largely unchanged. That will always be the case when the focus is on the individual over the collective.

        • Egon [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Communism doesn't come by hitting a big old button. In lieu of a revolution, strikes and winning concessions is actually very good.

    • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      So we should vaguely angry at a concept, but never at specific organizations that are a part of the class structure that upholds said concept? Not even when they're involved in an ongoing labor negotiation+strike?

      .

      porky-happy

      obv the point isnt "wow netflix is a bad apple but capitalism is the best system we have" it's more "netflix is bad just like every other corporation, they all exploit the working class, solidarity to the striking actors writers, etc"

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The "class structure" you mention is also, in this case, an effect of capitalism.

        But yes, I guess we agree? I don't really understand the point of calling out Netflix instead of the head of the snake though, if the goal is the same, as you suggest. That's really my only point.

        There will be an endless number of these situations until we, as a society, focus on the head of the snake. If we focus on all the individual companies first, nothing changes. There will always be more companies. It's divide and conquer.

        • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]
          ·
          10 months ago

          on second glance I think we do agree, sorry if that came off too aggro. I don't think this post is meaningfully overfocusing on netflix though. zooming in on an ongoing labor struggle doesnt inherently distract/detract from larger class conflict IMO

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            ·
            10 months ago

            I don't think this post is meaningfully overfocusing on netflix though

            Perhaps not! But yeah, I also agree with your point about the labor struggle.

    • autismdragon [he/him, comrade/them]
      hexagon
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean, for me, the whole "Its AMC that should be giving him residuals not Netflix" isnt the point. The point is that someone should be paying him residuals. And the community note here denies that he deserves residuals for streaming at all.

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        10 months ago

        I agree with all that. I'm just saying that both parties will point the finger at the other ad infinitum. We should focus on the system that allows them to do that.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      10 months ago

      Up until recently Netflix was a massive, massive middleman putting a cash price between people and their ability to enjoy their cultures stories.