MAGAts drop Netflix en masse

Oh 100% I am now subscribing, and I barely even watch TV :)

Dang, I was ready to drop due to content that I really don't care about and now ads.

Does anyone really think these MAGA boycotts are significant enough to change anything? Small reduction in subscribers - and probably fewer complaint letters about perfectly fine programs that they don't like.

The twitter hashtag happened over a week ago and lasted for a day. It was never a big deal and has already been forgotten. This is a total non-story.

Yup I worked for a company that purposefully made their app more difficult to use because they wanted a certain demographic to leave - namely people who paid 99c each month but spent 5 hours on the phone to customer support. Any hothead who hit the cancel button will save them money in the long run.

Good for him. He can certainly afford it (as a cofounder of Netflix he's worth a few billions), but he might have hedged and donated to both parties or to neither as so many in his position do. He's young enough to have a career ahead of him if he wants, and he might have stayed out of as all but the too-old-or-too-evil-to-give-a-fuck CEOs of any pofile often do.

And I've never been pleased with Netflix as a streaming service over the years. It's nice, for once, to find that I don't need to put on blinders for the auto-pay subscription.

Fuck them! I ended my subscription over a year ago because I don't find their original content worthwhile, but I'm resubscribing after hearing that he supports Harris/Walz. It's good to see that some billionaires have good politics.

We should do this too. Home Depot makes big contributions to the traitorous felon at the top of the Republican ticket, for instance.

Waiting for S2 of Kaos so I'm in.

Another $25/mo more they can flush down the shitter to Orange Jesus, then bawl on social media how being broke after is Biden's fault.

[quote]Does anyone really think these MAGA boycotts are significant enough to change anything?

No, boycotts in general almost never work unless they're about something that actually *matters*, and the chairman of a multinational corporation endorsing a presidential candidate doesn't truly "matter" in the least. (Unless you're a MAGAt with a severe case of white fragility.)

Big deal. In a capitalist system, consumers should have choices. If they don’t like the politics of the person who runs the company then they don’t have to patronize that company. I don’t like the politics of the Chick-fil-A people so I don’t eat there. I also think it’s overrated.

Boycotts rarely succeed by crashing the earnings of a company, they succeed by cumulative small ways and principally by loss of goodwill. The Coors beer boycott by gays began in 1977 and ended 1987 or before (as a part of a massive labor dispute against Coors from 1957-1987.) It was the first major boycott in the US where labor and gay and lesbian advocates joined forces in a significant way. The thing about boycotts is that their beginning and, even more, their endings are imprecise. There is rarely an official start and stop date, and as ssuch the longer a boycott extends the more damage it does in goodwill. Few in the consumer public know the who? what? when? where? and why? of a boycott, they only know that the company pissed some people off and that there is?/was? some kind of boycott, or talk of a boycott. In the early 1990s, a decade after gays finally made progress with Coors, gays and lesbians were still talking about the boycott of the company in the present tense. There's no tidy conclusion, no reasonable understanding of the issues -- and the thing is that that can work beautifully. There's no end date for when a dark cloud passes, it can linger like a bad smell for years, maybe not strangling a company but inhibiting their growth, curbing their advertising campaigns, chipping away at the confidence people once had in a product. No, boycotts rarely have a neatly measurable negative effect, but they do create a cloud of doubt and make it easier for consumers to turn away from a brand.

But too many boycotts all at once? The crazy QAnons and Trumpers have so many and such random gripes that there's no keeping up with them: Target, Wal-Mart, pizza parlors, Netflix, auto manufacturers, Bud Light, and endless media companies, retailers, and ever changing landscape of enemies -- it becomes unknowable and unenforceable or simply easy/convenient to forget who is the the shit list as of today. Only the Koch brothers' family of products are immune. Maybe. With low intelligence followers, a high compliance level is too much to ask for the by the minute ins and outs.

I don't think Netflix has much to worry about. Netflix currently has 240M subscribers, 66.7M of whom are in the US; it can probably weather a cancel rate of 2.8% of 27% of its market. It's not as if many boycotters won't soon forget or overlook principals for a new series they want to see.

So 3,000 people dropped their subscriptions? No big whoop.

Illiterates can't use subtitles anyway.

r14 "No big whoop. "

You sound sharp.

The MAGAts will be back once Netflix starts running its Joseph Goebbels ten-part biography.

Netflix shares are up 10% this morning after 3rd quarter earnings exceeded the consensus forecast.

MAGA should boycott companies more often.

Is this the first known case of MAGAts demonstrating good artistic taste?

Netflix just reported that they added 5 million new subscribers in the last quarter.

So much for that stupid MAGAT boycott.

Why are OP’s thread and multiple other threads supporting Kamala greyed out?

One would almost think that a crazed rightwing troll (who we were just assured “said on Reddit he doesn’t come here anymore”) is using his 50 sockpuppet accounts to FF bomb any pro Kamala thread….

It's not greyed out for me r21.

With the departure of the MAGA faithful, the typical Netflix suscriber is much smarter on average than before.

Record high for the stock. Magats aren't boycotting them; they’ve been fired.