Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people
Nearly three-quarters of Black people want to watch more content that portrays their lives and experiences (Target Market News, 2018), but they can't find enough of it, and when they do find it, it usually hasn't gotten the budget or development resources that more mainstream content does.
When I grew up in the 90s, it seemed like black people had a relatively high number of TV shows to choose from like "Martin", "Living Single," and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". It felt good. I felt represented. Unfortunately, it turns out the 90s were an aberration, and over the next 2 decades, black content would become widely underrepresented in Hollywood. Having watched too much TV as a kid, I foolishly decided to get into media as an adult. I worked as a journalist, producer, media strategist and executive, loving to make content, but always being reminded that my culture wasn’t getting the representation it deserved, and always hoping to do something about that someday.
When I started at YouTube and Google, I thought I would finally be able to help change that; I thought the internet and the world's biggest video source would bring black people the same awesome experience they were creating for other viewers and creators. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Black millennial users of YouTube, despite using it more than any other millennial group, often expressed that the comments on YouTube could make it an uncomfortable place. And black creators often did not get the same chance at success that their mainstream counterparts did, leading to some black creators filing lawsuits against YouTube. Despite YouTube's good intentions, systemic biases in how non-black users treated black creators, as well as the economic realities of Black people only representing 10% of the U.S. audience, have led to YouTube never doing quite enough to address this.
So I left YouTube, and Iyanu and I decided to address this on our own. The creator economy is booming, with black influencers among the most creative, and black consumers often among the most energetic and prolific users. I knew that energy could be harvested into a platform that gave black viewers the content they want, and creators the chance to make it. So we started BlackOakTV with the goal of delivering the most, and the best, Black content possible.
We license content from indie creators and make it available in one place, so Black viewers have a one-stop shop for the content they want to see. We're also creating/commissioning original content, to raise the bar on quality. We're different from Netflix in that our focus on black content means we can identify new black voices earlier, make it easier to find black content on our platform (hint: it’s everywhere!), and better serve the diversity of black viewers rather than just treating Black people as one single niche. As for the other streaming services targeting black users, our main differentiator from them will eventually be our product. Iyanu is an amazing engineer, and with his prowess, our product will provide a unique viewing experience, full of the features black viewers want.
But Netflix’s business model is where we aim to be a lot like them. Because Netflix changed media not just because of how they made their content available, but because for the first time in TV history, the aggregator of the content owned a direct relationship with the end user--and that’s why streaming is so valuable. And it’s why we want to have a product that makes users want to view our content exclusively through our properties. Today, users can go to blackoak.tv or download one of our apps, and after subscribing to our 7-day free trial, they c...
897 comments
[ 8.3 ms ] story [ 374 ms ] threadAnd imagine the outrage if someone had made “X for white people”. There’d be riots in streets.
The bizarreness and racist double standard behind this is just astounding seen from the outside.
The difference between majority and minority is surely not that difficult to comprehend from outside the US?
IMO the solution to that problem is definitely not to reinforce that division.
Will it be racist to continue using this terminology then, once the US reaches 50-50?
Well, yes, and this was codified into US law until the last bits were finally suppressed in the 1960s, but that doesn't mean the underlying racism has been eliminated as well.
So close, and yet so far.
The idea is that "X" is de facto "X for white people" in America. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the argument.
I still thinks it sounds like nonsense, but at least it explains the massive downvotes Im getting :D
It must be hard to live in a country where everyone is so obsessed with race, yet supposedly also how it “is not important”. To me that seems like a massive contradiction.
Perhaps you should put some effort into self-education and understand the context of race and racism in America before making qualitative statements about things you seem to not even grasp the basics of.
Bigotry, hatred, and violence, whether explicit or less obvious (voting rights, bias in many services etc) is the problem that some us unfortunately continue and the rest of us want to end.
In america there are black people alive who weren't allowed to vote because of their race.
Given the history of race in america it makes total sense that america is still grappling with race while also there is significant pushback against that grappling.
White has been the default in America for a long time. Seems like that's slowly starting to change but until it does, there's going to be a need for things specifically targeted at minority groups.
I saw this interview recently: <<<David Bowie Criticizes MTV for Not Playing Videos by Black Artists | MTV News>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZGiVzIr8Qg
It blew me away. He is so on point!
Not saying there were no Black artists: just saying that Black culture wrapped in what white people accept, like is not enough for the Black community.
Edit: you guys downvoting me are likely too young to remember day one on MTV when stuff Blacks actually listened to was not featured on MTV until hiphop culture forced the issue.
Black influence on mainstream music came at a huge cost to Black music stars. They were copied but mostly not included unless they paid homage. Horrible place for them truly.
You have minimal idea about what Black people are really about without another white person’s filter because that’s how it has always been even on BET.
If it's "focuses on content for <minority group>", that's great. Minorities tend to underrepresented and trying to address that balance by creating more for them is all bonus.
If it's "excludes all but <minority group>", I am not a fan; I thin it causes resentment. The ability to have a group that allows <minority> but not <majority>, but not have a group that allows <majority> but not <minority>, is _wrong_ in my mind. Admittedly, having a group that allows both but focuses on <minority> so that <majority> is unlikely to be interested in joining is reasonable.
I guess the act of specifically excluding/disallowing a group, unless it's acceptable for _all_ groups to do the same, inherently conveys "you are the worse of the two groups". It's insulting and an attack.
My apologies; I must not have been clear. Nothing here is an example of something I have an issue with. I was merely pointing out that having "X for <minority>" can go two ways; promote the minority, or exclude the majority. The former is great, the later is not.
I wasn't, in any way, trying to indicate the post is doing the wrong thing. As others have noted, it sounds like a Netflix-ey version of BET which, as far as I know, hasbeen nothing but positive.
If it would merely be a redundancy, why would it provoke outrage? "Conservative Talk Radio" seems pretty redundant to me, but doesn't provoke any emotion.
personally, i think it's great that the founders have chosen to sell this as "X for black people." it is much more honest and cuts right to the point. if they had not, if they had instead chosen words like "diversity," then inevitable drill-downs would be criticizing them for trying to hide their true intentions.
It's rude to troll on someone's Launch thread.
Personally, I'm divided on how I feel about this launch, but if there is a market for it anywhere, it's the US, with its deep-rooted racial divisions and disparities.
The comparisons you are making seem very different, as they are based on language and global geography, rather than skin colour.
Remember the Democrats little kneeling to BLM while wearing Kente scarves publicity stunt? The irony (or symbolism?) of the Democrats dressing up as Africa's most prolific slave traders was apparently lost on most people.
The idea of permission structures for white Americans being somehow erected because some ethnic groups and communities sold people from other ethnic groups and communities (because, and I apologize if this is obvious to some readers, the compaction of people of African descent into "African-American" is, for obvious reasons, something here and not there) is one of a set of apologetics in common use in the United States designed to erase the complicity of our forebears.
Good luck to BlackOakTV. I look forward to seeing what happens next for you all.
However, X for white people is often the default case and is left unsaid. As an American you should be well versed in this. No one is saying that non-black people cannot watch the content, the implication is that the content it is tailored for black people.
These are entrepreneurs. Their job is not to teach everyone melting pot kumbayah culture. Their job is to make money for themselves and their investors. After about 35 years of travel and living I'm intimately familiar with Africa and Asia. There are changes in Africa right now. Changes that feel much different than any changes I've lived through previously, and this product strikes a brilliantly resonant chord with those changes. People, particularly the 18-35 demographic in Africa, will eat this up. They get some black american and african celebrities along with someone like Wode Maya on this thing, and having blackoak would become a status symbol in Africa. At least among the young.
Sure, not great for global society, but awesome for business. Only people who don't realize how quickly Africa is growing would think otherwise.
In another timeline this has already happened. We merely have Governors Abbott and DeSantis and Delta Covid.
That said, this is a great idea and I wish this company the best. I'd love to see something similar for the Hispanic community, as well.
24/7 Caso Cerrado, let's goooo
We tried "rap music for white people" and we decided we preferred the rap music for black people :D
Serving targeted programming to an identifiable minority audience seems like a perfectly reasonable business (and social) proposition.
I don’t know that “Netflix for Black People” will test well, but it seems perfectly fine to me. [white middle-aged male if context matters].
Edit to add: It seems like Fubu* is another extraordinarily successful story that used a similar Black solidarity message and targeting to positive effect.
* "For Us, By Us"
In the sense that shows and movies seem like the result of endless series of meetings, where anything that anyone might object to is censored and removed.
To echo what others have said, though, if you are not a member of a minority, it can be difficult to understand how affirming and wonderful it can feel to experience, just for a brief moment and even if by fantasy, to exist as if you were the majority. For example, I am gay, and here are some common thought processes that go through my head that are basically completely foreign to straight people:
1. When I walk down the street with my partner of 20 years, deciding to hold hands is not something I can just do spontaneously. It is essentially a political act when I do it, and so my first thoughts always go to (a) am I safe and (b) do I feel like making a political statement right now.
2. When I travel, the first thing I think about is whether I am going to a place that is accepting of gays. I'm just too old to want to deal with anti-gay attitudes when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself on vacation.
3. When I introduce myself to new people, I do a mental calculation as to whether I feel like mentioning my partner and thus outing myself in that situation. Again, it's always a conscious calculation, where it almost never is for straight people.
So the first time I visited the Castro (a well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco), it was kind of magical to me, to just walk down the street and have people assume I was gay before assuming I was straight, and it was really the first time I could completely relax and feel like what it was like to be a member of the majority.
So that's what things like BET, LogoTV, Telemundo, etc. are really about, it's about actually feeling like you are the focus of attention for a short time.
Also, it’s not like this blackoakTV doesn’t allow white people to sign up. But I bet you won’t, because you have no interest in black stories. Which in turn kind of proves why it should exist.
Whereas in the case of Black products culture and location are not the distinct.
Edit : what I am writing is really confusing and I should have stopped 2 seconds before commenting.
"X for white people" makes more sense in a population where caucasians are the minority, for instance in China.
Totally hypothetical example... "NBA for white people" - basically majority-white professional basketball teams playing each other. I'm sure that would ignite a firestorm if someone tried to do that.
No problem with e.g. "X for German-Americans" or the like, if the niche is there.
Is this really true, today? I can definitely see that even 10 years ago, but just glancing through Netflix recommendations, I see characters from all over the place. I wonder if anyone has been able to quantify this progress.
>know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.
Wait, what?
Asking seriously, I'm European.
that means, this channel intends to highlight stories from or about black people, but it doesn't suggest who should watch it.
saying "it's for black people" is patronizing because it is claiming that it is not for me, whereas, if it is "about black people" then i feel welcome to watch it, because i happen to be interested in that.
Maybe some black people like to see shows with diversity, too.
In some other post someone was commenting how their wife, who is a director of advertising, got complaints for using a white female hand for an advertisement. I proposed using profile information to show people advertisements of people that matched themselves, but that was met with disdain in HN. It was argued that we need more diversity, not pigeonholes for people to be isolated in their subcultures.
Honestly when I read the title, I immediately thought, "Drinking fountains for black people."
Presumably black people who like to see shows with [non-black] diversity are already having their needs met. Addressing a market whose needs are not being met has business (and social) value.
This isn't the same as "drinking fountains for black people" because it's targeted programming but it's not exclusionary.
"Drikning fountains for black people" existed because "Black people using white drinking fountains" was prohibited. It wasn't a preference.
Wow, that is egregious. We ban accounts that stoop to vile tropes like that. I doubt that you intended it that way but you did it anyhow—seriously not cool. If you want to keep commenting on HN, please don't do anything like that again.
The gratifying thing is that the commenters who replied to you were so entirely decent. That's the sort of thoughtfulness that you ought to be practicing, even when you encounter something that rubs you the wrong way on the internet. Or rather, especially then.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But I don't think the divide is anywhere near as insane as you're imagining. People don't just belong to one culture and ignore any external infulence. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. people all watch the NBA, NFL, watch Marvel superhero movies, so on and so forth. It's just that everyone also has additional niches.
Then someone pointed out to me that my favourite super-hero was Spider-Man because Peter Parker is a 20-something loser, just like me.
But there's something authentic about Miles when other characters feel like pandering.
----
Nick Fury Junior is technically a newer character. (The original Nick Fury Senior is white). They just handwaved the difference by sticking a junior in the name without elaboration though.
------
Black Panther from the 70s is definitely pandering lol. But the writers were good at it. (Blatant pandering isn't necessarily a bad thing in the right context)
Now as a parent with a tween and younger kids, my understanding of the current state of the science is that there still is no overwhelming consensus on increased violence related to media, however it seems to be agreed that aggression is linked. 30 years later Mortal Kombat is the number one fighting game franchise of all time, and murder rates are lower and violent crime are relatively unchanged.
Smash Bros and Street Fighter are probably more popular actually.
Mortal Kombat really, really sucked between 3 and 7. MK started to get good again around 8, but really it was "Injustice" (which used Mortal Kombat's engine) that made people start taking MK seriously again.
MK9 is a modern, competitive fighter. But its not as well respected as other games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Smash Bros even. Japan has a real arcade scene (or at least, it did before COVID19 struck), so the games that have proven themselves in the public arcades are more fundamentally competitive than American games like MK9 or Killer Instinct.
I dunno how Smash Bros became so popular though.
----------
Honestly, the extreme violence of Mortal Kombat is a big turnoff to the competitive crowd IMO (much like the extreme "sexiness" of Dead or Alive is also a turnoff). Its good for carving out a niche, but... I don't think people actually like seeing the characters they attach themselves to die.
-----------
There was a study I saw: its not that violent video games cause violence. Its that violent individuals choose violent video games.
In a mainstream setting, you'll just gross people out with a lot of the Mortal Kombat stuff. I think kids like it (because they like seeing their parents get grossed out). Otherwise, when adults get together to play fighting games... "Injustice" seems to be more popular than Mortal Kombat, despite Mortal Kombat being the mainline game and Injustice the DC-superhero "skin".
---------
Now that I'm an adult, here's my viewpoint on the whole thing. Children like breaking taboos. Adults don't like it when Children break taboos (children should listen to Adults). I feel like Adults sometimes make up stories for why children should listen to them, but this only encourages more taboo-breaking behavior from kids. That's why Mortal Kombat is such a draw for me when I was younger (I knew my parents didn't like it, but that was part of the charm).
Similarly, I see my sister freak out about her daughter playing Mortal Kombat (despite me and my sister playing MK back when we were her age) and turn off the game. My sister claims that the improved graphics make it different... but my eyes see the same thing. Her daughter likes breaking taboos and sometimes not listening to her mom, and playing MK is an avenue to do so.
It's accessible (no crazy button combos), fun (at a party or whatever), and not really "violent" in the same way that Mortal Kombat is bloody as hell. Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.
> It's accessible (no crazy button combos)
Melee is not. You need to consistently wavedash into double-shine combos while foxtrotting to remain competitive. Every landing must be L-canceled (especially during combos). Its a horribly inaccessible game, and was all we had for many years.
Following Melee was Brawl: where "tripping" was invented to randomize the game and piss off competitive players. The most popular "Brawl" was the version people __hacked__ to rebalance the game (taking advantage of the Epona glitch from Twilight Princess to install the Homebrew channel: you can remove tripping and arbitrarily rebalance the Brawl game entirely). It wasn't until Smash4 (WiiU, 2014) that players got an actually competitive game.
Smash Ultimate is finally a very, very good game. But it makes no sense to me why the Smash community stuck with it through the Melee and Brawl years.
> Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.
I think that's a good point. The Smash series (and Marvel vs Capcom series) was timid on violence and sexiness... focusing mostly at the "cartoon" level that was mainstream and acceptable.
The other fighting games leaned into violence (Mortal Kombat) and/or sexiness (Soul Calibur's Ivy, Street Fighter's Cammy, KOF Mai) to try to get some appeal, but I think that lowered the chances of the wide mainstream acceptance.
Smash was always a "Kids" game, and therefore safe for kids to play. No reasonable adult would turn off the game or otherwise be worried that their kids were playing that game. Marvel vs Capcom was at a similar level.
Edit: Mortal Kombat’s major advantage over Smash is that it’s available on every platform. I think Street Fighter’s problem is that Capcom doesn’t bump the version, so it’s non obvious how Super Street Fighter V Arcade Edition is different from Street Fighter V (which also had a bungled release).
Of the three SF would be my preferred franchise, but sales suggest WB is doing something right.
Not that I doubt your stats. But Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken and so forth were largely arcade games.
MK2 was an arcade game for sure, but later MK games dropped out of the arcade scene.
Smash never was an arcade game.
I have to imagine that a lot of players paid one quarter at a time to get their Street Fighter skills. But MK players (especially recent ones) are console games. So I'm not sure if copies sold is the best metric.
Agree. I could imagine Netflix-for-Turks streaming in Europe for overseas Turks!
Most well educated gypsies are being frowned down by their own relatives as if they became "non-Gypsy traitors" and they often run away from their own ghettos to never, ever come back.
That never happened in the US with Black people, even in the worst racist laws in the 50's. They even tried to live with the same rights as the White people.
Gypsy people in Europe, at least the tribalistic ones want to secede from the society, as a reverse MLK and live by their own rules, having those priority over state laws.
To the broader point, I think what Uzo is talking about is "representation."
Which doesn't just mean "some type of person on the screen." It means the full diversity of experiences and aspirations of that type of person... on the screen.
Living Single isn't Friends with African Americans.
It's African Americans put in the situation of Friends, and then living their own similar-but-unique story in that situation, informed by cultural differences. (IMHO, it's also a helluva lot better of a show)
The 90s had a lot of shows about middle class, successful African American families.
That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.
And the lack of aspirational and affirmational media that speaks to every person is absolutely a problem.
Eth bro dot co at gmail
Living Single was a good show because, unlike Friends, it was actually funny.
> That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.
But let's be nuanced about this - I don't think that skin color is the real case. Everyone watched Cosby (and for the sake of discussion let's ignore the current situation with him). My (white) heavily bigoted/borderline racist grandmother watched Cosby. He was America's dad and loved by everyone. I think the real problem was that black characters weren't put into shows that represented widely popular, aspirational American ideals or lifestyles, which Cosby had (nuclear family with professional parents and kids dealing with kid stuff). If you want to say that really doesn't represent the majority of the black American experience you wouldn't be wrong, but it also doesn't represent the majority of the white/Hispanic/Asian American experience either. It was something to aspire to.
Those sorts of mass-appeal western values-type shows, IMHO, will be some of the best bridges to build in regards to race relations.
I'll watch a movie set in Scotland just because I think Scottish culture is super interesting, regardless of whether that movie aims to make Scotland seem charming or "well integrated" with my own culture.
But the thing is, nobody (at least in America) expects a show about Scottish people to shoulder the burden of holding up a bridge between Scotland and the world. But there is a sense (at least in America) that the cultural success of Black stories is to be benchmarked against the Cosby Show. Which is weird, when you think about it.
Implies that America thinks this way. Again, nuance is needed.
> the mission of making Black people seem cheerful and unthreatening to America
_seem cheerful and unthreatening_ is in particular what I take umbrage with. That implies that America finds black folks threatening which is why there better be some deep clarification in that statement. But on it's face who really thinks this way? Only ignorant people and true racists have this perception. As far as I can tell that percentage is low.
As far as the business goes I think there's more opportunity in casting that wider net like Cosby or more recently The Neighborhood and creating more appeal for a larger audience. The model of "Netflix for black people" immediately excludes about 86% of the population. Some non-black folks will subscribe, and giving a very liberal 16% of that share they are still excluding 70% of the potential population. This doesn't mean that they won't be successful though - Tyler Perry basically does the same thing (though not overtly so) and he does pretty well for himself. If I were an investor I'd have to examine this under a microscope before jumping into any investments. But who knows? Hopefully they will do well.
You are certainly welcome to subscribe no matter who you are, and you might well do that if you're interested in stories told in a Black context --- for the same reason you might have been super interested in watching Babylon Berlin even if you don't even speak German. Or you might not. That's one of the cool things about pluralism.
EDIT: short of a Tyler Perry or Oprah Winfrey jumping on board (someone that has significant momentum), the only other way this survives is with an acquisition. Netflix would be primed to pick this up as the start of a black-interest channel within Netflix itself. If this is a real market Netflix will either buy them or start their own.
And just a note here - I care nothing about the racial aspects of it but do like it when companies and people win and thrive. I want to see that here too but I think they're lopping off too many potential customers.
Implies that Living Single came after Friends, but it debuted the year before.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/white-ripoff
What constitutes under-repressented? Is proportionally represented ok?
I mean, I'm one of those "subcultures" and honestly I don't feel the need to be represented in media. I'm ok with it, but I don't see what does it bring to me or to my "subculture". We need investment in infraestructure and political-institutional changes.
I understand it's your country, so your own to decide but I agree with the other user, I really can't understand why so much focus with media representation in the US.
It feels weird, and honestly the logic behind it comes as very superficial and light-minded.
Reminds me of an article a while back complaining that Muslim characters were underrepresented in film despite being 2X proportion, meanwhile Christian characters in film are rarely represented (and secular characters wildly over-represented). When identifiably Muslim and Christian characters are portrayed in film, they are frequently villains (Muslims being terrorists and Christians being bigots, typically) and when they aren't villains they are fundamentally secular but maybe they wear a cross necklace or feature prominently in a corny Christmas special (e.g., Turk from Scrubs). Anyway, this is all a tangent, sorry for the digression, etc.
Don't hire people who are white, if you can help it. That's inclusion.
Create institutions, like TV channels, only for specific races. That's diversity.
Pass lots of "stimulus" bills to trigger inflation through printing money, causing everyone from the middle to the bottom to get poorer, but the same amount of poor by the end of it. That's equity.
"Bobo's in Paradise" and "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy are good books to explain what's really going on.
But here’s the thing you’re missing - if your race is a dominant part of your identity, like it is for many black people in America, it’s certainly normal to look for stories that feature black people and black stories. Stories where the characters experience problems and issues similar to the ones they might face in their lives.
Yeah, maybe, I can perhaps agree with that, but I still fail to see the political proposition.
Maybe I should live in the US to understand it, but honestly when I read about black-americans It seems many of their pressing issues are material ones, and the ones that aren't are probably very related to material ones and I fail to see how a netflix for black people is going to change any of that, except reinforce an ingroup-outgroup dynamic.
There most certainly is an ingroup-outgroup dynamic, but I don't think a Black Netflix intensifies it, it merely caters to that audience, just like Netflix is doing with #blackAF or DisneyPlus is doing with blackish.
If I was in a more predominant subculture, maybe I'd be interested in accurate representation, but expecting a lot of that from entertainment doesn't seem wise.
Accepting entertainment for what it is, and not necessarily representation, feels like a more manageable remove.
Where do you draw the line in your definition of "subcultures"? Is it Black/White/Brown? I always feel weird that I'm pigeon-holed into "white", as if I have anything in common with those of Italian or Jewish ancestry.
>The country has a deep history of racism and black people being literal slaves
The USA is astoundingly multi-cultural. Why do you think so many people from around the globe try to get there?
Why not just create a hip / fresh / cool network? Identifying it with race is a violation of societal primitives.
I like “black content” even though many black creators are not 100% black. A lot of white people have direct African heritage.
And of course, EVERYONE’s grandparents are ultimately from Ethiopia. My ancestors left Northern Africa before a black person’s did, thus I’m different than them?!
And the world is deeply racist. Mexico is ran by all light skinned people with Spanish heritage. Russia, Japan and all of the Middle East is way more racist than the US. Very dark skinned people are discriminated all over the world including in the US by black communities.
Sam Harris had a great podcast on how race is a myth-
https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/182-unlearning-race
It is weird how we just tend to generalize over all of this because of the color of one's skin.
Wouldn't BET+ be BET for the internet?
Black people are certainly entitled to watch whatever content they choose, but they are not unique in their "different lived experiences". "White people" are not some amorphous, homogeneous group.
Then again, we live in a society where discrimination against white people is 100% legal and promoted, so I won't have much hope for this being inclusive for all.
That's entirely your own interpretation and you might want to consider why you think this way.
There is nothing stopping a white person from subscribing to "Netflix for black people" if they think the content may be of interest to them.
You are in America:
Vending machine for Americans sells Gatorade
You are in Mexico
Vending machine for Mexicans sells Agua Fresca
Vending machine for Americans sells Gatorade
This is no different then X for X people.
They aren't saying you aren't welcome, it's more so that you likely don't know if you'll even like Agua Fresca. Mexicans know they love Agua Fresca.
Maybe Mexicans don't really like Gatorade, but they know that the Americans in Mexico would like to have some Gatorade - boom it's a niche, it's a business, profit can be made.
This is NOT discrimination, it's catering to a market. Discrimination is treating unjustly. It has nothing to do with providing X for X. Y could totally have X, no one cares, it's just that Y just may not enjoy it, relate to it or even want it.
I could certainly be mistaken, but I'd bet my net worth that this is about making a product that will resonate with global black youth. From Canada to eswatini. From Addis to Trinidad and Tobago.
And that market is enormous.
There are of course those who immigrated later.
I think it terrible what the US is heading too (equalizing culture with skin-color)
Oh man that's some small minded simpleton-vibes here :)
Long story short: The average lifespan of the dollar is approximately 28 days in Asian communities, 19 days in Jewish communities, 17 days in white communities — and just six hours in Black communities. Meaning after that time, that dollar has to go into another community for a product or service.
We in the US have a long history of subjugating and violently suppressing the rights of black slaves (and every black person after outlawing slavery). The last few years have shown that the number of people who still believe that should happen is much larger than we suspected.
It's not a fetish - it's a straight up fight to end discrimination against a group of people.
If it wasn't for the rightwingers (American and otherwise) who want blacks to sit in the corner and shut up, or get attacked and discriminated on, there wouldn't be a problem.
All this ”we have long history is america black slavery blaablablah” is not any kind of a counter argument. By segregating people you are doing exactly the same thing what slave owners, south africans and those hillbilly right wing extremists do.
Many institutions in the Western sphere either don't match the demographic/ethnic composition of the target market any more or never have. Parliaments, cabinets, newsdesks, movies, highest level management in big companies, even access to voting - all of this has been dominated by white, straight and often old men, with women, non-White people and LGBT not being represented at all.
Over time, many of the discriminatory policies fell - but the reality was, until maybe a decade ago, representation still lacked - and now, change is coming in ever faster and faster. You now have female-centered superhero movies, Black superhero movies, transgender people in parliaments, a Black US President... and the speed of that change was for many conservatives simply too high, so they framed the quest for equal representation across all parts of society as a "culture war" instead.
You should see the diversity threads on this board. It's the same dog whistling every time, but here its about some made-up 'we're reverting back to segregation' argument but no one had a problem with Minari winning awards about the Korean-American experience. It's the same idea, simply expanded to an entire platform of such content.
Where I work (US-company, but I work outside of US) it is similarly weird to me.
We appear to have gone backwards in the past 5-10 years in my view - no longer can you just be "you", but now it feels like we have to be labelled, categorised, and segregated into different groups. We now have to make a big deal and a big song-and-dance to highlight our differences and define what our ethnic backgrounds are (apparently to "celebrate" it or whatever), despite there being various laws (at least in the UK) about this sort of thing being a protected characteristic that you simply cannot talk about during interviews - its weird.
What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet? What if I don't want to explain in detail my family tree and pointing out which ethnicity my ancestors were? This idea that people are 100% Ethnic-Category-A/Ethnic-Category-B/Ethnic-Category-C and fit neatly in those slots without any kind of overlap seems willfully ignorant at best, and subversive at worst.
Now I concede there is grossly unequal enforcement of laws. But the words on the page are just the words on the page. It's the people who enforce those laws in an inequitable fashion.
My perspective as a white man is that when black people create something for themselves like this, it's reclaiming the power. Like how they use the N word with each other, or how Gay people use that word, it's a reclaiming. Taking the hurtful racist division and turning it into something empowering is the point.
I have no idea if that works in the long term or not, but I always think about Morgan Freeman who said something like the only way we can solve racism is if we stop talking about it
I am white and was nearly killed by a black officer in South Florida. He piled drived me head first onto a concrete floor on video tape. Prior to that, he choked me and threatened to kill me.
I was in Miami to attend the VMAs with a billionaire, yet they claimed I tried to fight them. Eventually all charges were dropped. The cop was actually working private security when this happened.
It’s just men, testosterone, and power emboldened by a badge. The cop — Mr. Ritchie — later won Detective of the Year, while his Sheriff went to federal prison. Reality is different than what you read in the papers.
That is nonsense.
I love cops in general. I am a cop supporter. I have known excellent cops.
But cops enjoy a great license in the performance of their duties. Because of that it’s very important that we 1) hire cops of outstanding character, not just bullies who want a civil service pension, and 2) hold them to very high standards, a standard of behavior higher than you would an average citizen.
If dealing with aggressive criminals turns you into one you simply don’t have the strength of character to be a cop. And good cops who tolerate bad behavior in their peers are not good cops.
Separate but equal was a dismal failure in the US. I don't understand why it deserves a second attempt.
I disagree with your implicit assumption that all bubbles are inherently negative.
Regardless, who decides which category a site/app falls into? There are legal remedies that can fix literal "war between 2 camps", everything else is freedom of expression.
It was not a failure, it was an lie that succeeded quite well at exactly what it was supposed to do, and was struck down for exactly that reason.
But there is a difference between de jure segregation of public services to assure that one community is underserved and crafting of commercial services to the serve a distinct set of preferences associated with a particular demographic.
https://www.epi.org/publication/schools-are-still-segregated...
That seems less like segregation and more of just statistics. If black students are a minority, then by definition they won't be a majority in a random subsample.
> As shown in Figure B, black students are also in economically segregated schools. Less than one in three white students (31.3%) attend a high-poverty school, compared with more than seven in 10 black students (72.4%).
That's probably the stronger argument in your link. That outcome isn't surprising given that most school funds come via property taxes - if most economically depressed areas are minority occupied due to lower costs, then those same schools would also be economically depressed.
The residents in their area are mostly black.
> Why is school funding tied to property taxes?
That's how most of your city is funded.
> Why isn't there a level of mobility that would allow students to go to a more well funded school?
There is? Like, you can move to a different school district but it's going to be more expensive. Nobody is preventing you.
> Who made these policies and why?
It's not clear what policies you are referring to. That we fund things via property taxes?
It's really more about how much money you have in your pocket, what neighborhood you're in - but please continue driving a racial wedge to further divide the nation and distract from our broken system's root causes.
And the most important that you don't mention, the mobility. If there is no mobility and black people will be forever on the poor side, the elephant is still in the room.
Ask yourself this, what makes Blacks in America different than Jews or Asians? Heck, the Jews are probably the minority who has suffered the most historically (and still does, btw!), and they managed to integrate quite well.
What has the gov't done to help Jews or Asians advance that it hasn't done for Blacks? Nothing.
I think it's time to look for other solutions, rather than keep blaming the amorphous "white man" for all problems.
This implies that there is a "white experience" and a "black experience" which is simply false and subtly racist. This is kind of the point of the parent's post--we've gone from understanding that variance within a race far exceeds variance between races to a mistaken belief that different races have such different experiences that we basically can't understand each other, that we're practically different species. Consider the white translator who was forbidden to translate the work of a black poet, the eminently qualified white school board volunteer who was forbidden from working with students because he wouldn't "understand the experiences of nonwhite students", or the anti-standardized-testing folks who argue that blacks are innately unable to compete in standardized tests.
On that latter point, there's a popular analogy[0] circulating over the last decade that implies that different races are like different species of animal--chimps, goldfish, elephants, penguins, etc--and standardized testing is like a tree-climbing test. To put a fine point on it, these folks are implying that blacks are innately inferior at standardized testing while whites (and presumably Asians) naturally excel.
[0]: https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/137652006277390336...
Simply too much mutually exclusive duality, such as "We are all equal. But my group specifically-- we're different and we need special things and special treatment!"
As someone that grew up extremely poor. I am not aware of the two education system other than the “historically black university”.
What do you call the “white education system”?
You seem to not be informed that black people were expressly banned from many American universities as recently as the 1960s. Even after racial bans were made illegal racial discrimination was heavy, things don't change instantly just because a law is passed.
The only reason black universities exist is because black people didn't have other options. Creating black univerisites couldn't possibly make the problem worse.
The media is dominated by white writers and actors and as a result the large majority of content is based on white culture with storylines that appeal to white people. Black actors audition and black stories are pitched, but most don't get hired or funded. BlackOakTV is making a space for those who are rejected and can't get funding for stories appealing more to a black audience.
Likewise here in BC.
I believe it is illegal to discuss race, gender, pregnancy, family planning, and so on and so forth during the interview.
Very harmful.
See Michael Harriot's "blackfamous" thread:
https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/120569584639172198...
I will admit, I did not know who Stacy Adams is. I wonder about the size of the portion of people who know who Stacy Adams is, or who Louis Vuitton is, that also know who Corrinne Yu is.
No, we haven't. “Don’t label me, I’m not a soup can” was a reaction by certain people against what they saw the current dominant culture to be at the time in exactly the same way that pointing to that as an ideal today is. Except that the latter adds in the construction of an idealized view of the recent past on top of it.
EDIT: But, it is true that the 90s—basically the last period of sustained, strong, broad economic expansion (subsequent expansions have been much worse distributionally)—was also a local high point in subjective perceived quality of race conditions, though not particularly in objective measures. People are a lot more prone to be concerned with fairness issues when their experience falls short of expectations than when they don't.
Personally, I don't really understand all this need for individual representation, but then neither do I really have to.
I’ve been alive for almost half a century, and I notice no such change.
I have noticed lots of people feeling like there is a recent change when they realize the identities that arr important to many people outside their immediate bubble (or even inside, though those are often just silently assumed within in-group dialogue or by dominant groups), often in the late teens or 20s.
> We now have to make a big deal and a big song-and-dance to highlight our differences and define what our ethnic backgrounds ar
No, we don’t. Some aspects of identity are important to some people. Why some people who notice that then suddenly also feel the fact that certain dimensions of identity are important to other people implies a general obligation, I don't know.
People for whom Black is an important aspect of their identity don’t, as a rule, think it is important for being White to be central to White people's identity. (And the same is true, mutatis mutandis, with other dimensions of identity.)
> What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet?
Then...you are just like everyone else, in that regard.
> This idea that people are 100% Ethnic-Category-A/Ethnic-Category-B/Ethnic-Category-C and fit neatly in those slots without any kind of overlap seems willfully ignorant at best, and subversive at worst.
Sure. But many of the people to whom minority identities are most critically important and worthy of attention would be the first people to tell you that; in fact, they have a whole analytical framework around it (intersectionality.)
See story on that from Les Earnest: https://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/earth/mongrel.html
I think most of the world is just completely weirded out by how US culture tackles this issue.
It's really tiresome.
What's next? Here are a few ideas:
The NBA channel for white people and please only white basketball players on the teams Track and Field channel for asian people with only asian athletes on the teams Chess for dogs channel with only dogs playing chess, poor cats they are not allowed to play chess on this channel Landscaping for black people with only black landscapers on the shows
What i like about the porn industry is there are many sub-genres within it, so one could argue that this BlackOakTV is an attempt at a subgenre. However at a time like this in the US... You know, Edward Bernay's was right in his book Propaganda, create a suggestive environment and people will buy what ever the environment suggests and they will think it was their own idea for wanting to buy it. But who knows, maybe the equality and diversity crowd really is screaming inside for more segregation and preventing all sorts of freudian slips from surfacing.
Actually i have a better idea for the chess dogs, let's only have dalmatian dogs playing chess and keep golden retrievers from enjoying any media attention while playing chess on this channel. This will lead to great narratives in the minds of the niche consumers and dalmatian ownership will skyrocket along with chess board sales.
Anyone want to give me funding?
Good luck with it regardless. More friction in the market means someone is making money. Let it rip.
Indian Americans regularly consume music and foods that most other Americans don't.
Hispanic Americans mostly are bilingual with Spanish/English. There are more spanish only speaking hispanics than there are english only speaking.
America has a history of racists laws (goverment) and bylaws (corporations, institutions, universities) created directly to disenfranchise non-whites that shaped present day distribution of races in different states, neighborhoods, socioeconomic status, cultural values and more.
As recently as the 60s, blacks were expressly banned from many colleges so in order to fill the gap, HBCU (Historically Black Colleges & Universities) were created because black people had no good options.
Most media in America is created by whites and the stories are based largely on white American culture. The Indian and Chinese Americans are another group that have a very hard time finding tv shows and movies that resonate with their culture. BlackOakTV looks like an attempt to offer more content representing the real differences in black American culture written from the perspective of those who actually understand it.
Is more or less what I thought, (with the difference that I thought "Y for Z people").
So I can't judge if it's necessary or makes sense, but from the point of the author it seems to be the case.
Which is sad as black people are not a small minority in the US and so I would expect more representation of them.
I mean Netflix (or any thing similar) should be "for everyone" featuring a diverse mix at least similar to reality (or maybe slightly more diverse (1) ).
(1): For <small> minorities in a country representation with a mix "like reality" would mean they would not get much representation as just a <small> number of content thingies would represent them. So increasing the degree of diversity above it is I think a good idea.
“Black” in America is, confusingly to lots of people, the name of an ethnic/cultural group formed by centuries shared experience of kidnapping, deliberate eradication of prior cultural identities, deliberate ongoing disruption of the family unit, slavery (and after slavery de jure discrimination, and after that substantial ongoing public and private discrimination in fact) to which the racial group also labelled “black” was subjected in America.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
And even if I started it, it was up to dozens of others to not comment on my comment. Could have just downvoted it to oblivion.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
A. We're all equal! B. We need something special, because we're different!
In most of mainland Europe this woukd be against the law
HN makes me realize why so many black people find the tech world hostile and stay away.
Edit: This feels a bit like the idea that showing children stories about gay people would somehow "turn them gay".
I just have some skepticism about juggling so many different pieces in order to get this to work.
Does the existence of ESPN encourage a divide between those who like sports and those that don't? Do Spanish-language channels encourage a divide between people who speak Spanish and those that don't?
It seems to me that, unless this new service will be in the business of directly funding or creating their own content, it would be morally wrong for them to engage in exclusive content agreements.
This is a great way to encourage representation and sponsor more content within the culture, for everyone to enjoy as they see fit.
If not, what's the difference? Each is a cultural group - one just has a history of being violently attacked and suppressed...
I wonder to what extent that was also true with BET, which is an obviously extremely successful outcome. (Maybe I’m just chicken.)
Again, best of luck; this seems like a really smart idea and has a team that’s got very relevant experience on at least the tech side of the house.
One, Netflix has to worry about competing with a lot of other major players, while also being profitable going forward, so they really can't over-spend on an audience that is likely underrepresented among their customer base relative to the global population.
And two, we think focus is big. Serving just one audience means we can do more things with content and product that Netflix couldn't do because black people are a small percentage of their base (not to mention the possible alienation as evidenced by this thread). Media is probably the industry where serving "niches" has proven the most worthwhile. We hope to follow in that trend!
Really would love a modern day family show that is relatable and shows a successful family. Not too far fetched, but real like the set of Cosby show with the kitchen room and living room was relatable to me. Before moving to America my family with 5+ people lives in two rooms that were like 12x12. I’ve tried watching shows like Modern Family and they just don’t really carry the same weight IMO. Too rich or fake seeming.
Good luck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZchP89w2pJo
> Deshawn Brown 1 year ago If you think about.. Huey is actually right. Im black. And i think bet only breeds arrogance and ignorance.
This is a streaming service set up to elevate content by black creators, to make up for the fact that the mainstream media under-represents those people. I'm struggling to see the outrage on a cultural level and on a startup level I can absolutely imagine there is a market for this.
I'm going to guess that "Netflix for black people" is not going to be the tagline the business will advertise itself on, it was chosen by an early-stage startup to catch your eye and make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people.
I've seen people suggest that censorship is only censorship if the government does it, but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first.
I think you've misunderstood this post. This is less like a "white's only" restaurant, and more like an Italian food restaurant. It's supporting a cultural niche, not excluding another.
"The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s, which is still in living memory, so I don't think it's that surprising that there would still be measurable differences in culture and media interests.
Think about how much your parents' lives and the stories they told you are reflected in your present-day values and interests.
I see it regularly today, as African-Americans and many other people commonly say. We can recall that overt racism is practiced in certain political groups which have expanded in popularity. Research shows that racist attacks have greatly increased over the last few years. Regarding the law, many of the laws that existed before the Voting Rights Act have been recently reinstated since the Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the Act and banned federal courts from addressing many state voting issues.
It's also not rare anymore in my personal experience, as it was before 2016. In the last month a white person told me that people with black skin were 'biologically different', which accounted for economic inequality. Over the weekend another told me, highly ironically, that 'minorities' were more prone to disinformation than white people, and that was the cause of problem of disinformation on the Internet. (For the record, I disagreed with both as effectively as I could - you can't tacitly approve.)
A significant cause of discrimination is that its impact and presence is overlooked by people who aren't affected by it. Racism doesn't affect me (directly), so it's not hard to say it's minimal.
I intentionally avoided discussing modern politics in order to make a stronger (albeit more limited) argument, by emphasizing explicit legal discrimination. Even if someone doesn't believe in systemic racism, it's not a point of debate that black people alive today were explicitly persecuted under the law based on the color of their skin.
I understand what you are doing now and that used to be my approach. Now, I feel that it just allows the denialist rhetoric to perpetuate. I'm not even going to call it a myth because it's such obvious nonsense, I believe even to the people that say it - it's just push-back, a tactic.
They don't necessarily. Not speaking for the BlackOakTV folks here but I don't think this is trying to target all black people. The US is somewhat unique in having a large population that was ripped from their respective home countries and forced to create their own shared culture under the thumb of slavery. Someone that immigrated from Nigeria in the last decade doesn't have that same experience.
Unique?
"Between 1502 and 1866, of the 11.2 million Africans taken, only 388,000 arrived in North America, while the rest went to Brazil, the European colonies in the Caribbean and Spanish territories in Central and South America, in that order"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Latin_America
People can have more than one cultural background, and American "black culture" is the common cultural heritage around the experience of being black in America, which has a lot of broad commonalities regardless of where in the country you are, and also locale-specific subcultures (e.g. west coast vs east coast vs deep south).
Like the whole point of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was that Will Smith and his uncle's family had very different subcultural contexts (although their divide was less "Nigeria vs Jamaica" and more a class divide), but also shared the broader experience of being black in America.
There's the further concept that due to systemic racism, Jamaican and Nigerian culture will blend into the larger black culture than the larger US culture. And the Nigerian and the Jamaican will experience a similar American experience, very different from what an Irish or German white person would.
It's really self-centered when we use "black" to mean "African American". It's strange when it goes the other way. You'll hear some Americans call Idris Elba an African-American.
I'm all for dropping the term African American, unless it's referring to a recent immigrant. It's a misnomer from the past, that for some reason people consider PC.
Based on their skin color, they are treated the same way by much of society. They are often compelled, for safety and for just day-to-day peace from racism, to live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, visit the same websites (where they don't have to read racist comments), play the same online games (ditto), etc. - heck, you can't even watch porn without encountering endless racist portrayals based on skin color. So people with 'black' skin have many common experiences.
Also, market segments don't have to be perfectly defined. We can always find flaws - no two people are alike; no one person is exactly alike from one day to the next.
Both are referred to as "black" (or worse), anywhere they go in the world, and both suffer the effects, prejudice and discrimination of racism - anywhere they go in the world.
Another fan fact - your hypothetical Jamaican and Nigerian, are the most likely to type "How does country X treat black people" before deciding whether to visit a country on holiday - something very few other people (if any) do - so there is a lot that binds the Jamaican and Nigerian together - the nonsensical (but very problematic) notion of "race".
HTH
Edit: For clarity, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the homophobic cake shop in Colorado strictly on freedom of religion grounds, however religion is clearly not the factor here. And for your argument to be effective, you'd have to agree that a homophobic cake shop can't get away with discrimination simpliciter.
I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay.
Wow. Pets, okay.
> I get that this tag line is more for marketing purposes, and in fact they might not refuse to take white ppl's money that want to sign up... but they are in fact discriminating in the type of content they will produce and stream-- but since its against whites it is okay.
Lemme ask you a question: are the American arms of Univision/Telemundo/Korean Broadcasting System also discriminatory since they also will likely not put up content by ethnicities other than their own, which would also be "against whites"? Cause they actually have FCC approval.
You can target a niche, thats fine, but doing this type of headlines, you just end up segregating yourself.
>“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”[0]
Not only is that utterly unclear, it doesn't even make a distinction between "they said something that offended Phillips' religion" and "you can't make/apply laws that are hostile to Phillips' religious viewpoint". I don't think there's a queer person in America that would perceive "vastly different outcomes" from a ruling like that.
[0]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
Remind me again which side won Masterpiece Cakeshop at the Supreme Court.
Also, there is a huge difference between denying service on a particular basis and designing a service to appeal to a particular community while leaving it open to all.
It was actually "cakes for anyone except gay people."
It's the exclusion that gets you in hot water, not the targeting.
I am all for discrimination, but you have to let everyone discriminate and currently whites can't.
1. And let's not fool ourselves thinking that because I've used the word "history" that it's not still very much the case.
Importantly, even if you're right in a lot of the instances, it doesn't actually move the discussion forward in a useful way because it paints with too broad a brush and encourages others to do the same.
This is most comments on HN.
> When I grew up in the 90s, it seemed like black people had a relatively high number of TV shows to choose from like "Martin", "Living Single," and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". It felt good. I felt represented. Unfortunately, it turns out the 90s were an aberration
I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all.
Something I've already wondered is, what if that aspect of the 90s wasn't an aberration, but a feature from a time when there were fewer channels and diversity was concentrated in the fewer places everyone watched, due to how content was structured?
And is it unfortunate that relegating "black" content to its own service gives it a "niche" status that it doesn't deserve? Am I missing out on good content because signing up for any new streaming service is a high bar and something I don't do?
Will the bigger streaming services drop the content offered by this one, so that the largest audiences lose the opportunity to see this content?
Was having fewer channels actually in a way anti-monoculture?
What was weird for me was as I got older, all of these shows became just samey Horsein Around type crap on top of that I do remember at a certain point noticing a stark difference between shows that were on UPN, WB, BET ect and ones that were on say like FX, Fox, ABC NBC I'd say starting around the early 00s.
This difference became so stark, but when I was younger there seemed to be far less of a difference. Almost like we started off with the here are ethnic families, they are similar to you but slightly different. Then ended up with, here is this completely different culture that you don't understand so it no longer is going to appeal to you. You being me and me being clearly at the end not the target demographic.
In retrospect maybe the beginning was a fantasy that was never really true. My point is overall, I think I'm pretty burnt out on content that is meant to be hyper focused on identity. I hope more people get burnt out on it and realize that centering your life around aspects that you have no agency over is a waste of time.
I remember this fork in the road quite clearly. First noticed it when I saw ads for "The Parkers" on UPN during ad breaks for "Star Trek: Voyager." Prior to that point I'd watch hours upon hours of Cosby Show, Fresh Prince, Sanford and Son, etc. without the slightest feeling of otherness. I am also white.
The problem isn't the idea, is being sold and marketed as something it's not. This isn't like BET. This is... I don't know what it is. But it's not a Netflix competitor with classic black talent sitcoms.
If you read the OP, it's a blatant bait and switch.
Remember the first law of the 48 laws of power - you are still a minnow playing in the huge pool, and you have to appeal to ALL (if not MOST) of the current gatekeepers - who would not be as passionate about this as you are.
If you have any "fangs", this is not the time to "bare" them.
My advice is to be less explicit in the beginning, and use careful "dog whistles" in your messaging to target your audience - have you not learnt anything from history?
What's good for the goose, is surely good for the gander too.
BTW, I support what you're doing, and wish you all the success, you've just got to be more subtle with your messaging - as all the bleating in here suggests.
If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it. There's a reason for MotorTrend to shift into cable and on-demand, Disney, etc. The market can get slice 'n diced in a million ways from the Left Handed Channel to TrannyTV (for transmission specialists naturally).
>make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people.
Heck, it (Netflix) doesn't serve me, and I ain't black. It's a pity that they can't run out and buy rights to a jillion older movies, but I guess everyone is still loathe to license them (or too expensive).
Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity?
Just because it is branded “black” doesn’t mean it won’t perpetuate harmful racial stereotypes, such as “being black is the most important thing about you as a person”. In fact, it would have every reason to amplify that message to keep and grow their “segment”, regardless of its psycho-social consequences.
Not to be rude, but what do you think a 'market segment' is? What is there besides market segments? For that matter, what is there besides money? at least in terms of the entertainment biz.
On the contrary, you’re making my point.
The objectification already exists. This won't change that. It will, however, hopefully result in more content existing for a market that's hungry for it.
OP also identifies as black, so I trust that they understand that branding their product as "for blacks only" will only hurt them, even within their market segment.
Or also just get you to talk about it, because controversial.
/r/BlackPeopleTwitter mods are douchebags.
To each their own. Good luck!
You just have to look for it.
They're focusing on a particular cultural group to aggregate content and sponsor more... none of which excludes anyone else. Marketing niches are a core concept across the entire business world.
What makes this one niche less effective?
Can they build a good business doing that? If they can discover and secure great content, then I think so.
Please remember to ignore this HN thread. I can already see it's becoming absolutely atrocious and is not even remotely representative of society at large.
Reese Witherspoon’s Hello Sunshine to be sold to Blackstone-backed media company for $900 million: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/02/reese-witherspoons-hello-sun...
If you study the history of the world, "tribalism" in some sense is a common theme throughout all cultures, many wars and many injustices. It might have been "Protestant vs Catholic" or "Sunni vs Shiite" or "Serb vs Croat" or whichever tribal, ethnic, religious or language grouping was relevant to the area.
In every single case, if the groups remained separated and saw one another as "othered" the problems spanned years and generations and the societies remained fractured and insecure. Only in the societies where people dropped the labels that separated them and merged into one identity did they thrive and improve conditions for all people. In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.
And you think the source of this power and significance is...media streaming companies?
While I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I agree with you that "tribalism" is generally problematic. However, you'll also find that "tribalism" has also been essential throughout history for the persistence of marginalized people and their cultures. There is an inherent tension in many places and times throughout history between identity and assimilation.
> but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.
The issue is not the power of the identifier, but the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines.
Which brings me back to my original point, why do we not see the same ire when talking about resources directly aimed at specific underserved needs of women?
However, while tribalism is definitely a thing, women are generally seen as being included in the tribe. Perhaps that's why you see it as being less contentious.
I'll also point out that this "the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines" is exactly what results from the power of the identifier.
“X for Women” is seen as contentious. In fact, “X for Women" articles on HN often have all the same arguments, with gender in place of race, as this thread, with very slight changes, with focus on serving the unmet needs of women with regard to X painted as sexist and equivalent to external regulation based on gender role stereotypes just as this is compared to state-mandated segregated services.
From what resources you are likely to have available to you in childhood; how you are treated by the justice system; what jobs are available to you; your ability to get a mortgage despite having good credit.
“Race” is, in origin, a mythology drawn around culture; it is either an actual ethnicity that is an in-group or an imaginary one ascribed on the basis of external appearance as an out-group. And the mere act of creating that distinction by an in-power group can create a shared experience reifying the ascribed ethnicity into a real one over time.
But, no, race is not apart from culture, but a product and aspect of it.
Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people". If that were happening I'd immediately be on the side of any effort to stop censoring it because I believe in freedom of expression.
Yes, I am. I’m not asking for content that caters to me. You don’t have to white wash your content in order to be inclusive. You don’t have to burn any narrative fuel on fragile whites. That would be awful.
I’m asking to be invited to participate. Not on my terms.. on theirs. For me it’s a subtle but significant and important difference.
Take a look at https://allblk.tv/. Inclusively, yet unapologetically, black. It’s not that hard and really we’re not just talking about appeasing message board nerds here. If that was the case they really shouldn't listen to anybody on this forum, now should they?
I don’t see a messaging problem. I see you positing a different unmet need than the one that firm here has identified and is addressing. Which is fine, but “Netflix for people who want Black-created content but get icky feeling about products marketed to Black audiences” is, I suspect, a much narrower niche, and certainly a different niche, than BlackOakTV seems interested in serving, whose existence (to the extent it exists) does nothing to invalidate the niche BlackOakTV is trying to address or their efforts to do so.
Why do you think that this messaging is what you associate most with black pop culture? Attenuated messaging does not have to be universal. Imagine if white pop culture was almost exclusively promoted as Britney Spears et al., Dumb and Dumber, and slasher flicks. Is that an accurate portrayal, or a curated subset that projects a certain image?
The fact that what he/she associates with "black" culture is so negative - and doesn't seem to stop to critically analyse that - but accepts it as "normal".
At the same time, he/she doesn't understand why people from that community might want to create something for themselves - where (for once), they are the gate keepers of their own content (aka "writing their own narratives").
Someone perceives an unmet need, and seeks to meet it.
> Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it?
They could. Someone with sufficient motivation and resources to launch a business thinks they aren't. That's...kind of true of most startups—an incumbent could meet the need they are marketing too, but they think the incumbents aren't.
> Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?
The proposed offering is neither exclusive nor segregated; no one is excluding people from subscribing or segregating them.
Well, sure, because that's not their target market, but also because there isn't really a single predominant 'White culture' in the U.S., distinct from mainstream culture in general, in the same way that 'Black culture' was united by centuries of slavery and cultural destruction.
But you can certainly find media out there specifically targeted at people of Irish descent, Spanish descent, British descent, etc. It's just less of a mass-market thing because those groups don't have as much in the way of a distinct culture from the 'mainstream'.
We don't even get all the English-language culture there is around the world. Easy example: most of us are totally unfamiliar with popular Christian media.
Really, the appeal being made by people objecting to this site is that Black people shouldn't have sites that nurture that kind of content, because it somehow squicks white people out. That is a weird argument to make, and not one these founders should take seriously.
At least some people are arguing that it should exist, but should not be marketed to the demographic it is designed to appeal to, because it squicks white people out not that black content exists, but that people marketing it acknowledge that it is designed to appeal to the unmet needs of black consumers, because white people want to buy it but not if the marketing says it was designed to meet black interests.
Well, no, because Netflix is the example that defines the segment; that dominant incumbents tend to be focussed on the preferences of the dominant socioeconomic cultural segment, which is predominantly White in the United States, is...not a novel observation.
For many people, IOW, the “for White people” is implied.
> My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology
Content “for women” is often not “motivated by biology”, but, more to the point...
> but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people"
Who cares? It’s not seeking government subsidy, or proposing the existence of a social (externalized) good, its proposing meeting an unmet private need.
Or to put it another way, with an example: I'm sure there are plenty of non-religiously-observant American Jews who would be happy to treat race as a non-entity, but that's not much of an option for them when anti-Jewish slander and violence is an ongoing part of society.
I fail to see the "segregated" and "only" parts. Marketing to a particular demographic and reflecting the life experiences of that demographic doesn't mean that other demographics aren't allowed, nor does it mean that nobody else is going to be interested.
> BlackOakTV - A streaming service promoting content by black creators focused on black culture
instead of:
> BlackOakTV - Netflix for Black people
OP asked for feedback. They can do what they want with it (including ignore it).
It is easy to overlook this unpleasant fact though.
You might want to reevaluate what you wrote. The last 500 years or so (of American especially, but also most Western European - Spain, France, UK etc.) history wouldn't exist if your statement was remotely true.
I my opinion the problem isn't that there is no demand for black-focused media, its that its just become another subcategory of Netflix. And because it may not be as popular on Netflix it doesn't get as much production. Look at what Netflix is producing these days - its mostly lowest common denominator algorithm driven garbage.
This, the best content on Netflix in the last two or three years for my taste are largely foreign productions
Twitter on the other hand seems to do everything possible to push you away from your niches and selected content, even though the whole idea is to follow people.
Just for clarity, when YC funds a company, the goal is not to have it get acquired. It's to have it go public. Acquisition interrupts that, so it's a suboptimal outcome. That said, YC supports what founders want to do.
Be honest. It's less capital intensive, with much higher valuations.
"Be honest" is the same as "you're a liar"
And the best part is these shows are good! They are really fucking good!
Nothing is stopping you from consuming that content and incorporating into that homogeneous base upon which you build your interactions.
I assume you are just as critical of things like Crunchyroll?
I'm turning off of this site for a while.
1. Fox/WB/UPN. These fledgling networks broadcast a lot of black-oriented content trying to grab a foothold in the market. This in turn spurred ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same to avoid losing market share.
2. Bill Cosby. The success of the Cosby show in the 80s/early 90s instigated a lot of attempts to grab a piece of that market. Cosby had further success with the spin-off show A Different World (which was notable also as being the only TV show at its time to focus on Gen X characters).
Perhaps the niche-ification of streamed content has resulted in Black shows that don't feel relevant to non-black people. And since the majority don't feel it's applicable to them, they lose the algorithm game.
Just a guess, I don't have any real evidence to back this up. But if that's the problem, it seems like it would be solved by this startup.
Don’t think that’s okay?
Netflix and HBO Max is filled with LGBTQ of all races already. To the point it breaks from immersion. What are you talking about being “under represented in Hollywood?” 13% of the us population are black Americans, it’s at least that in shows (likely much higher).
I’m sick of this racism. If I started a “Netflix for white people” I’d be banned everywhere.
With the accompanying explanation by Uzo0312, how is this racist?
"For black people" does not mean "Not for any other people". I want to watch great content and if Blackoak produces it, I'll watch it like I would with any other provider.
The fact that they'll encourage and fund more black creators seems like a great thing. I'm sure there are funds out there for women directors, are those sexist?
Netflix for Women focusing on stories with female leads or with female directors doesn't sound offensive to me either.
Good luck with Blackoak, it seems like there is a great market for it and it will elevate black creators.
Celebrating a culture is not racist.
But, be honest: would you be offended by a "The White Network - A Network for White People", with a mission/focus on white, traditional European culture? Would you similarly interpret this statement to "not mean 'Not for any other people'"?
For many, the divisiveness isn't from the existence of such channels and networks -- it's from the double standard.
Black hair products can be a thriving business, just as this potentially can be as well.
Again, realistically, how many white people would pay for a platform like this? If you think the number is substantial you are delusional. For starters, its being marketed "for black people", its all black content, and other platforms e.g Netflix already have content from black creators (albeit not as focused)
Having said that, they do not need white people to sub to build a viable business. I think it could work - the real secret sauce will be in securing great content naturally. But positioning your business as "$X for black people" does pigeon hole their potential market quite a bit.
Umm, no? Like I tried to convey in my original comment, "for <group>" means a focus on that group, as opposed to just general content. Nothing I've ever come across that was marketed as "for <>" has ever been intended to exclude me as a non-member, nor have I ever interpreted it that way.
I suspect you have a bias to hear it as exclusionary more than is typical.
Anecdotally, I watch BET fairly regularly, if not often. I'm aware that it's business model is generally content by black creators, for black consumers, but again, I don't remember any hints anywhere of implications of "if you're not black, you can go". If anything, wider viewing would be more informative and promote sharing across groups.
But they in no way market to Japanese, or Asians in general. I think that is the key.
You should be marketing "black content for everybody", not "content for black people". Sure, the segment that responds will be heavily slanted to certain demographics, but at least you aren't putting up artificial barriers, and you'll stir up a lot less upfront negative reactions.
Unless controversy is part of the marketing strategy, which is risky, but sometimes works.
Feels like some kind of "Outrage marketing" strategy, I mean, look how this thread has blown up over the last hour. I'm sure the OP is smart and knew what they were doing when wording this post.
Without snark also.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
A suggestion: have some description of your content somewhere. At least logged out, I can barely see more than the episode title, I have no idea what any of the shows are about.
In any way, I (white) think this sounds like a great idea, congrats on the launch and good luck.
And yes, our site needs a lot of work in terms of the meta data. We're working on getting that filled in across the site as much as possible. Hopefully, the free episodes we made available have their descriptions in place!
I'd also be worried anything big with wide appeal would be snapped up by Netflix et al. Here in Australia Cosby, Family Matters, Fresh Prince etc were all very popular. But this was in a mainstream way, African-American issues and experiences were largely irrelevant to us as viewers.
And the alternative is?
> African American
It’s such a weird term, but as far as I know it’s the term people over there use?
Personally, I see it as a misnomer and a way to create an other. Note how you rarely if ever hear white Americans referred to as European American.
I also feel you missed my point. I'm not saying "Black" is rude, I'm saying the term "blacks" is rude.
It also creates the confusing situation of having white Americans from Africa ;)
> I also feel you missed my point. I'm not saying "Black" is rude, I'm saying the term "blacks" is rude.
Thanks, though at least Wikipedia uses the term very liberally, and there are several sources cited that use the term as well, including modern ones.
But, of course, there are TV stations for all sorts of ethnicities all over the world, so the answer to your question is just "nobody would care except message board trolls".
That certainly isn't unique.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Africa is both one of the largest and one of the most populated continent on earth. There is no Black African subculture in France. There are African immigrants from many different places in Africa each with their own cultures and many descendants of immigrants with a mix of sensibilities towards the culture of their parents places of origin.
As a French, the idea that you could have a "Netflix for black people" in France slightly insulting but our culture is extremely different from the American one. We used to have a channel dedicated to the cultures of French oversea territories but it was stopped as it wasn't doing very well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9903503 ("Afrostream (YC S15) Is Netflix for African and African-American Movies")
Blacks of different origin also have different cultures.
I mean, if one tried to start up a netflix for blacks in an european context, with the same leiv motiv as this one (political) it would be very difficult as different blacks come from different backgrounds.
They surely share stuff, to a same degree one would say white europeans share stuff too.
Also, I haven't discussed this issue with black people, but my gut feel given their reaction to other stuff is that the suggestion that they have a "different culture" to the country they live in may even be offensive to them.
Since the american worldview is always trying to get influence through media and the internet, this may be changing with newer generations.
In most other countries, including other countries that practiced slavery, either more of the original cultural of Black residents remains intact, or there's been more time post-slavery for a united-by-slavery monoculture to more visibly break up into smaller subcultures, or both.
Yet there's no one making claims based on that, and I'm not aware that such claims existed in the past neither. People just accepted as a fact of life and moved on.
If you look at how all the relations played out between southern europe, the Ottoman empire and northen africa in general, you'll see this isn't from so distant past.
Besides, not all forms of slavery are equal; what made American slavery fairly unique is that you were born in to it, was for life, based on skin colour, and was an important part of society/the economy.
While the general concept of slavery goes back to before history, this particular combination is actually fairly rare as far as I know. In modern Europe slavery was never part of society in the same way (i.e. you didn't have a slaves in England or Belgium, just the colonies), and in more ancient times slavery was a lot more "flexible" (detail differ greatly) compared to US slavery, in some cases being a temporary thing as punishment or crimes etc.
The descendants of people who bear the same skin hue of the formerly enslaved still have to live with the stigma caused by slavery.
This (and in many other ways as pointed out by the last commenter), is what makes the effects of the Translantic slavery still reverberate today - because people are still judged by skin colour because of that precedent that was set back then.
I don't know why this has to be continually explained to supposedly intelligent people - wilful ignorance?
Not everyone is from the United States; reasonably sure the person I was replying to isn't (I'm not either).
https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/14/africans.in.america/index....
>Ezeamuzie recalled finding himself more confused by his experience with some African-Americans: Why were they so cliquish? Why did they mock students for being intelligent? Why were they homophobic and bent on using the n-word? Why did every conversation seem to involve drugs, girls or materialism?
There is also a significant divide between Brazillians that immigrate to the United States. If you are five generations removed from Germany, but born in Brazil (essentially 100% Caucasian / white), there is a huge social gap with mixed and Black African origin Brazillians. I was also surprised by that in New York City.