I like it!
This won’t even be put up for a vote in the House, I assume.
It is guaranteed not to be put too a vote in the house, because Ryan included a specific provision in the farm bill that prevents it.
Why he did that, I have no idea, other than “Trump likes the Saudis and Trump runs the GOP”.
Who believes this was an oversight?
But if there wasn’t any proper accounting there couldn’t have been in any fraud involved, per another discussion around here recently. :)
Good grief. Fuck off, Netflix, you should have told the thugs to go pound sand.
If we had some decent competition, I would cancel Netflix over this.
Hulu is pretty good these days and you can always resub later.
I have a Hulu sub already.
Actually, I get Netflix free ish through T Mobile, so I really don’t feel comfortable cancelling something I am not paying for directly.
Note that it was only taken down in Saudi Arabia itself, not across the entirety of Netflix.
This wasn’t actually clear at all to me. Is this confirmed? The FT article is behind a paywall.
Brian Stelter said it in reply to the original tweet. I don’t think he’d lie about that.
Cool, thanks. Good to know.
The episode, titled “Saudi Arabia,” was only taken down from the platform in Saudi Arabia, where it had aired since its initial October release. However, it remains available online through YouTube. (Shown below.)
“We strongly support artistic freedom worldwide and removed this episode only in Saudi Arabia after we had received a valid legal request — and to comply with local law,” a spokesperson for Netflix said in a statement to EW.
I’m not exactly sure what else we can reasonably ask Netflix to do. I’m not sure we want corporations deciding which laws they do not need to comply with in a given country. I am happy that they comply with German hate speech laws, for example.
It gets fairly dicey fairly quickly if we start expecting entities to selectively ignore the legal requirements of a given nation.
No, this would be silly, but at some point it becomes fair to ask that these corporations not do business with repressive regimes.
Yes. I do think it is also reasonable at some point to expect companies not to take blood money. Much like we rightfully now denounce Henry Ford for his dealings with the Nazis. Likewise with blood diamonds, etc.
It raises a difficult question as to where the line is, but at some point we have to hold everyone accountable for the basic morality of not profiting in situations where human misery exists.