What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hulu and the Political Ads Issue (1 Viewer)

This appears to be a situation where conservatives tell us how great capitalism is, then when capitalism spits out results they don't like, they tell us how awful liberals are.  This is literally an example of capitalism working exactly as intended.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right, see this is just false.  No one "forced" anyone to do anything (with the possible exception of Disney forcing Hulu).
oh for christ sake....there is no exception, Hulu had no intent on changing it until Disney forced them too. 

And yes, you can (and prob will) argue that Disney is the actual owners of Hulu. I can accept that. 

However the policy was never an issue until the Democratic leadership (who is NOT the owner of disney or hulu) raised their voice and rallied their base to put pressure on Disney/Hulu to change it. THAT is forced. 

Yes, they could have held strong and said no, but the public at large knows that most companies will bend to enough pressure. So like a shark smelling blood, they will keep pressing until it is changed. THAT is forced. 
 

 
oh for christ sake....there is no exception, Hulu had no intent on changing it until Disney forced them too. 

And yes, you can (and prob will) argue that Disney is the actual owners of Hulu. I can accept that. 

However the policy was never an issue until the Democratic leadership (who is NOT the owner of disney or hulu) raised their voice and rallied their base to put pressure on Disney/Hulu to change it. THAT is forced. 

Yes, they could have held strong and said no, but the public at large knows that most companies will bend to enough pressure. So like a shark smelling blood, they will keep pressing until it is changed. THAT is forced. 
All of this is capitalism working exactly as intended.  What's the part that's making you unhappy?

Edit: Also, there's no need for you to repeat or explain what happened in every response.  I'm not disputing what happened.  I'm trying to discern why you think any of this is an issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This appears to be a situation where conservatives tell us how great capitalism is, then when capitalism spits out results they don't like, they tell us how awful liberals are.  This is literally an example of capitalism working exactly as intended.


I'm not disputing what happened.  I'm trying to discern why you think any of this is an issue.


Because this is not capitalism. This is direct gov't interference. Nothing about this policy was an issue before the Democratic party realized that the Hulu demographic was important to their message but wasn't accessible to them. So instead of meeting with Hulu and seeing if they could advertise there, they created a false narrative of being censored and turned it out to their base to do the dirty work for them. And again, this policy wasn't an issue until now, just before the mid-terms and the party is looking to save every vote they can. It cant be any more transparent. 

If Hulu had screwed up, posted content that was unacceptable by the public, or did something that went against their subscriber base, I would agree with you. But in this instance specifically, most of Hulus customers did not want political advertising as proven in communication with them. So you can't claim Capitalism doing what it is meant to do, b/c the large majority of vocal protestors are probably not even subscribers. And even those who are will put party over platform b/c the issues appeals to their emotional side.....today. I'm sure that opinion would flip once Trump starts running re-election campaigns there. 

And its funny b/c if you actually went to Twitter with the hashtag #boycotthulu, you'll see that many tweets are still opposed to Hulu accepting political advertising. So its not like Hulu/Disney bent to overwhelming popular opinion. If Hulu was not owned by Disney—who is currently in damage control with their mostly democratic leaning cast members after the Dis/Desantis dustup–I doubt this issue would have ever happened. This is a whole lot more about political PR than it is capitalism.

And for the record, I was against anytime Trump called for whatever boycotts. I don't believe that the presidential or governing platform should be used to dictate or sway people in that way. People have put too much blind faith in whatever their party's figureheads say and when statements like this are made from those podiums...and they know this. Govern, that is your job. In a true capitalistic society, businesses and their policies should be controlled only by the specific agencies assigned to oversee them, like OSHA or Equal Opportunity Employment Agency. 

Politicians shouldn't have the power to sway a private business policy just because they think "its not fair to them" 

I'll also add that "why this is an issue" to me is also personal. I think political advertising is the lowest form of messaging. They look at us and say "We need the truth out there" but in the end all we get—the people forced to watch them—are ads designed to throw low, often dirty jabs at their opponent and doomsday fear mongering messaging. We should not be encouraging more of this, we should be expecting better from our leaders. Many subscribers have left network TV for exactly this reason. They want to spend that time being entertained and not sold to, esp when the ads are controversial in nature or aimed at the viewers ideals.

As I said upthread "the Truth" is subjective and in many instances different based on your beliefs. On the idea of abortion, Conservative "truths" are that life begins at conception. Liberal/Left "truths" is that its not a human until much further into a pregnacy. So which one is actually "true?" Neither, because a definitive decision has ever been made. So calling for change in the policy in the name of "the truth" is bull####. It's calling for a change in the policy for YOUR version of the truth. And doing so opens up the conservative version of it and in the end, the subscriber base is left dealing with this pissing match. 

 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@glvsav37 - do you see it as similar to Ted Cruz doing his Nike boycott and if so, were you against that?  I'd have a bigger issue with either political side forcing political ads on the streaming services than I do with a politician/party pushing for their constituents to boycott said streaming service.

ETA - nevermind, I see you addressed it with your comment about Trump.  Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@glvsav37 - do you see it as similar to Ted Cruz doing his Nike boycott and if so, were you against that?  I'd have a bigger issue with either political side forcing political ads on the streaming services than I do with a politician/party pushing for their constituents to boycott said streaming service.
Honestly I had no idea what happened between Ted Cruz and Nike. I just looked it up and I think Cruz was wrong. Again, I don't like politicians using their platform for that type of stuff. I also don't like sports figures using their platform for stuff like this (in this instance Kappernick causing Nike to not release the shoe). But this is the mind boggling value we have put on these people. 

Sports personalizes are there to play a sport. 
Actors are there b/c they are good at make-believe.
Elected officials are put there to govern policy.
Business make a product or service that the consumers choose to put value in. 

I don't care what sneaker Cruz had as a 5 year old. I dont care what typer of boxers he wears. I do care about laws and policy he enacts. (actually I don't, I don't live in his district, and personally I think he is one of the sleaziest politicians out there regardless of political affiliation)

As to your second point, and as above, I dont believe a politician should be calling for boycotts or using their political power to pressure a company into running their ads if against their policy. 

By how I read your post, you're NOT OK with a politician forcing their (lets call it a) product to be accepted by a private business, but then be OK with that politician then using his reach and position to call for a boycott of that business for not accepting his product?  

What if it was you or I, the little people, who had a product that we wanted represented at a certain business but was declined. Would we go on a boycott rant that would be anywhere near successful? No we don't have the platform. But instead we would take feedback from the company about our product and work towards making it so that the company became interested in it. 

Overall, I have no problem with personal "boycotts." There are plenty of business I wont patronize but the reasoning is poor service, poor product, or I dont personally believe in the way they conduct themselves. But in all instances, that decision was made by me, not because some celebrity told me to and I blindly nodded my head and said "Yes of course I'll boycott them b/c you told me too" Thats just blind loyally that I dont subscribe to. 

Nobody likes commercials, thats why premium subscription models exist. So I'm expected to believe that all these people came out in favor of those warm and fuzzy political ads b/c they need them in their lives, or that they blindly parroted what their party leadership told them to do b/c the party needed them to be used as pawns in the political machine. 
 

 
Because this is not capitalism. This is direct gov't interference. Nothing about this policy was an issue before the Democratic party realized that the Hulu demographic was important to their message but wasn't accessible to them. So instead of meeting with Hulu and seeing if they could advertise there, they created a false narrative of being censored and turned it out to their base to do the dirty work for them. And again, this policy wasn't an issue until now, just before the mid-terms and the party is looking to save every vote they can. It cant be any more transparent. 

If Hulu had screwed up, posted content that was unacceptable by the public, or did something that went against their subscriber base, I would agree with you. But in this instance specifically, most of Hulus customers did not want political advertising as proven in communication with them. So you can't claim Capitalism doing what it is meant to do, b/c the large majority of vocal protestors are probably not even subscribers. And even those who are will put party over platform b/c the issues appeals to their emotional side.....today. I'm sure that opinion would flip once Trump starts running re-election campaigns there. 
There is no government interference here.  The Democrats wanted to advertise.  Their base wields enough power with Disney that Disney feels compelled to change course in order to maximize its bottom line.  That is exactly how capitalism is supposed to work, whether the boycotts come from liberals, MADD, MAGA, or people who don't like cartoons.

You keep saying their subscribers don't want this, yet you follow that with evidence that directly contradicts it.  Hulu/Disney clearly felt that enough of their customers do want it that not acquiescing would harm their bottom line.  You referred to it as "political PR".  I've got news for you; public relations IS capitalism!

In a true capitalistic society, businesses and their policies should be controlled only by the specific agencies assigned to oversee them, like OSHA or Equal Opportunity Employment Agency.
No, absolutely not.  "True capitalism" would mean that businesses and their policies should be controlled not at all by the government and only by what their customers will buy

Overall, I have no problem with personal "boycotts." There are plenty of business I wont patronize but the reasoning is poor service, poor product, or I dont personally believe in the way they conduct themselves. But in all instances, that decision was made by me, not because some celebrity told me to and I blindly nodded my head and said "Yes of course I'll boycott them b/c you told me too" Thats just blind loyally that I dont subscribe to. 
This may be an ideal world where every customer is educated and high information, but that isn't the real world.  In the real world, most people make decisions because of marketing.

You may personally be opposed to boycotts, but the fact is boycotts sometimes work.  It's why they are employed as a tactic.

 
It will never not be baffling to me how people can see this stuff so clearly when it's Trump, and then go blind to this stuff when other folks come along and do the same thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It will never not be baffling to me how people can see this stuff so clearly when it's Trump, and then go blind when it's their tribe.
Feel free to show me one instance where I complained about Trump or the red tribe calling for boycotts.

I'm baffled at those who can't spot the difference between legislation and calling for the public to make their voice known.

 
This appears to be a situation where conservatives tell us how great capitalism is, then when capitalism spits out results they don't like, they tell us how awful liberals are.  This is literally an example of capitalism working exactly as intended.


Yeah Im ok with this. Run the political ads. People will choose to cancel or not cancel. 

:shrug:  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top