| ▲ | lotsofpulp 4 hours ago |
| There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it. It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media. |
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios. What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | vkou 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid? Maybe it's not so simple? |
|
|
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It’s trivial to make and distribute a video It's trivial to shout into the void It's nontrivial to get heard Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices |
| |
| ▲ | cassonmars 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). Why do you feel differently? | | |
| ▲ | gAI 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died. | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). I don't disagree I just don't think it has moved the needle that much. Powerful publishers still direct an enormous amount of the content available online And there are fewer of them, because they have been consolidating for decades now Edit: I think that a lot of people overestimate how much online publishing is independent. A vast majority of it is still backed/funded/owned by legacy media and publishers. I see this all the time with video games. People will say "look at how popular "New Release" is! Indie games are so successful nowadays!" But it turns out that the game they're talking about is backed by a huge publisher |
|
|
|
| ▲ | newshackr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They already paid for it though. The movie was done. |
| |
