904
Streaming giants have banded together for lobbying power
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
904 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
58137 readers
1537 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Brace yourself for a tidal wave of corporate apologists rushing to point out that “revenue isn’t profit!,!”
The number you're looking for is $1.49 billion in net income for Q2 2023.
See? Clearly not profitable, need more ads
What's that? You want to share your four-screens-at-a-time account with three other people outside your house?
Fuck you, pay us more.
Anybody can look these numbers up. I'm not sitting on some secret Bloomberg terminal LOL
Then why only mention revenue?
I didn't realize people can't do a 10 second google search on their own. 🙄
Net income isn't the whole story anyways, especially when this article points out that one of their costs is lobbying for a cause that isn't necessary. They're raking in billions of dollars every year.
"just Google it, bro" is never a source.
Not my fault you aren't capable of typing 4 words into a search engine.
It's not a 'source', bud.
🙄
Did you know profitability =! Net income?
Yes. Did you know that "just Google it, bro" isn't a source?
Positing a claim =! positing a source. That's 0/2.
You can't count, either? That's rough, buddy.
0/3
...but it's not. And I really think people either don't understand that or they are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
Being level-headed and fact-driven isn't "corporate apologist", it's how you maintain integrity and don't derail your own movement by being dishonest about shit that doesn't even matter.
It's like when Trump lies about his golf games. No one cares about his golf games but it makes you realize that if he's willing to blatantly and badly lie about something so trivial, he's probably also lying about absolutely everything else about him that might even remotely appear negative.
Plenty of people understand it, and some of them understand that profit is so malleable that it’s not really a useful measure of a company’s financial health. What really matters is how much they make over their essential production operational expenses. They can tailor their non essential expenses to seem as profitable or unprofitable as they want and use stock valuation tricks like buybacks to make money for shareholders regardless.
What does it matter if the company is profitable or unprofitable on paper when certain people can make lots of money off it either way? Twitter was “unprofitable” it’s entire life but somehow I bet the executives still got their bonuses, I doubt the shareholders were dissatisfied with their stock valuations or the buybacks, and it sure didn’t stop them from acquiring other companies.
Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could. I must admit, I was losing my cool with people being irrational about this.
I don't know if people are ignoring expense scaling and stock buybacks or purposely choosing to hide it.