Netflix Saves Kids from Up to 400 Hours of Commercials a Year
localbabysitter.com
localbabysitter.com
I went to my parents house with my son. He was 4. They turned on cartoons. Then he said, "Dad why'd you change the show? I don't want to watch this." It was a commercial. I had to explain commercials to my son. It was at that moment I realized how much of my tv watching as a kid was commercials.
Random link: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/curious-canberra/2017-0...
Just a thing - São Paulo was the city without ads. Now, state owned boards abound in the city. But it's still much better than any other city I've ever seen in the world.
I would love to be able to eliminate all ads in my life. At the same time, doesn't this feel a little like the advertisers are extorting us for some $$? Lest they jam more ads down your throat.
> People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.
I don't really feel extorted. These things are usually services provided to me, services that probably would not exist without revenue, whether by ads or subscriptions.
I will say this: there are times where I feel somewhat disconnected as a result, especially when it comes to entertainment. Like, I saw Avengers: Endgame without having seen Captain Marvel first... because I didn't know Captain Marvel was being released. It didn't show up on any of my social media, I guess, or I missed it if it did.
Similarly, I've missed new seasons of shows I cared about. No political ads - sometimes people refer to local ads in casual conversation and I'm mostly lost. Stuff like that.
It's sort of eye-opening to realize how much information is disseminated via ads/media. I mean, it's obvious in retrospect, right? But to experience it, well, it's something.
What's more, is that I "realize" that none of the things I was missing really matter. I do not care, at all, that I missed Captain marvel. Nor that I missed my favourite TV show -- I can always watch it later, if I really want to.
Seeing other people then care about such trivialities is a novel experience too.
Nowadays, the source of most of my pop culture current events is my SO. She applies her own hereustics, and (mostly) genuinelyy interesting pieces of info are what pass through her to me. She's getting it via top Instagram/Facebook/YouTube posts anyway. I find this system much better than the earlier one.
They wouldn't have succeeded in this extortion (online) if it wasn't for companies with billions of dollars hiring the smartest people in the world to enable advertisers to spy on people en-masse.
The idea is basically that you pay the publisher out of your own pocket for their ad space, to buy your own impression. This might be a great product if it covers the majority of ad inventories...
It is like the whole city is on Adblock.
My serious guess would be even more paid shills. It's amazing how much more weight a message can have when it comes from someone that's not obviously tied to the company.
These days I usually just type "reviews for XXX reddit", but even that isn't a sure thing anymore.
To me there is something seriously wrong with this way of thought. Why would we collect a small tax to make up for businesses' lost profit? It sounds, to me, downright bizarre, like saying forcing factories to be more environmentally friendly would cost money to the business and cut profits so we should take that money from the taxpayers. Wow.
Ideally decisions would instead be made based on unbiased reviews and rational decision making.
Hopefully the lack of advertising would relieve us from unconscious decision fatigue and free up our energy for other parts of life.
A better solution would be to outlaw ads / billboards, and ticket the offenders to offset the lost income from billboards etc. Municipalities love new revenue streams.
We've seen how ineffective things like banning advertising to children were on reducing smoking, while raising taxes on cigarettes was quite effective at reducing smoking levels. And some advertising is useful. I don't need no advertising in my life, I just need less of it. Taxes would reduce the "arm's race" effect where companies need to advertise because their competitors are advertising. I suspect that the quality of advertising would go up if it were more expensive, as well.
Perhaps at some point in the future, we will have too little advertising and there will need to be a debate on how we should reduce the advertising tax. I long for this day.
Maybe pay me some money for my attention? In exchange you get all the data from me: how much money I spend on X. How often I do Y. Whatever helps you sell your product to me. If you succeed and I like your ad or buy your product, the ad is for free. Otherwise you pay me some €/$/coins.
Contrast this with cable TV ads if you haven't watched cable TV in a while. Annoying, gimmicky, manipulative.
I don't have a problem with commercials on principle - I have a problem with how they're implemented. Banner ads on website that give me good content for free? Great! Informing me there are hot MILFs in my area while I'm pair-programming with my boss? No thanks.
https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Mattel_and_Mars_Bar_Quick_E...
The thing that got me as a kid was seeing all the cool food everyone else got that my parents wouldn't give me. I just wanted hot pockets in my house like they had. Kids will always want toys like the shows they like. But the other stuff isn't necessary.
Commercials for children are a cancer to society. They're a distraction and a waste of our precious time. Parents don't want it (they got enough on their hands as it is), children don't want it (it isn't content, they get manipulated).
While I will protect my children (and myself) from any commercials, its also good to teach them that not everything they notice is truth or can be achieved/bought.
You show it to their parents, don't you?
> The Consumer Protection Act prohibits advertising that targets children. To determine whether advertising is directed at them, the Act stipulates that it is necessary to take into account the context of the advertisement’s presentation and the impression it gives.
> The Act also provides three criteria that correspond to the following questions:
> • For whom are the advertised goods or services intended? Do they appeal to children?
> • Is the advertisement designed to attract the attention of children?
> • Are children targeted by the advertisement or exposed to it? Are they present at the time and place it appears or is broadcast?
[...]
> Goods or services essentially intended for children and that therefore appeal to them. Ex.: certain video games, toys or candy primarily consumed by children.
> The ad must not:
> • be designed in a way that appeals to children;
> • be broadcast or distributed in a place where or at a time when children are normally reached.
[...]
> The fact that an advertisement or advertising method appears to target adults does not mean that the advertisement is intended exclusively for them. Following an analysis of the two other criteria, an advertisement that attracts the attention of children can still be considered as advertising directed at children even though it seems to target adults because of its verbal or written content. That may be the case if the product advertised appeals to children.
- https://www.opc.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/media/documents/consomm...
Teacher's unions publications/newsletters would be a no-brainer, as would popular blogs or Youtube channels focused on child-rearing.
her: "Dad, what is this? I want to play my game"
me: "Oh sorry, that is an ad, let me fix this."
her: "I hate ads!"
She is basically the same with trailers.
Glad my kids don't have the same amount of brainwashing as I did. However, we have our own generational problems to deal with, like YouTube "merch" begging, clickbaiting, etc. Now that I think about it, maybe I'd rather they'd see TV adverts...
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/kids-think-food-in-mcdonald-s-wrappe...
He also picked up that when we search a toy on amazon, afterward there would be an ad on the side of YouTube for the same toy, he pointed and asked how they did that. This was around the same time, he was 5 or 6.
All those shows still exist, and recently we did that again, and we were all baffled by how much commercials we had to watch. Dutch public TV has commercials, and that's looking increasingly odd now that we're all so used to Netflix. My son was calling to skip it, but we couldn't.
TV is fine in moderation.
Also we don't have TV and less than a year ago got rid of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, our home internet connection, our mobile internet connections, and our landline telephone.
I find that now we read a lot more books and talk a lot more and explore the world around us more often and more actively. And we all like to share the exciting new things we learn about, them from school and us from reading at home. So there's no shortage of learning from lack of TV.
(I don't have a cute story, though. They just tried it once, I told them it didn't work that way, please stop smearing the TV with your hands, and they stopped. No cute questions or comments about the TV being "broken".)
Also, some relative gave us some kids' VHS tapes and I still had a player so I figured why not? Well, let me tell you why not: Nobody has time for rewinding to take place and the low-quality video and audio is quaint, but it's dead tech. The VCR and all the tapes got recycled shortly thereafter.
VHS could be stopped where you wanted to stop. Who hasn’t played the frustrating dance where streamed video buffers, plays some other part or jumps back to where you were. VHS rwd and ffw buttons just worked.
(And a while host of other parental techniques incidentally)
Kids today get crazy ads on Instagram and are asking for Supreme shirts, Yeezus shoes, Kylie Jenner makeup kits.
It was absolutely terrifying and we should all be collectively ashamed for allowing it to persist and to happen in the first place.
Here's a random example I just found on YouTube (first 30 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXzR3-w3vEQ
It's not (or not just) that they're getting worse, it's that once the familiarity wears off you can't help but see how psychologically damaging and hostile they are.
Same thing happens to me with TV news. I used to watch them, but now, everytime someone else is watching, I can't help but see how much they manipulate the content to their convenience, and how much they blatantly lie.
This, one billion times. I don't care which network or show you watch, or which newspaper you read, they are all lying. They are all pushing an agenda very clearly.
I mostly make do with Bloomberg, WSJ and NPR. I can't even read the NY Times these days.
Clarification: PBS Newshour is as much (national / international) news as you need in a day, and doesn’t sensationalize.
This seems nuts to me. That is 4.5 hours a day! For a 2 year old? Who are these parents...
No it's not.
Second one, leaving your 9 year old at a park all day while you are not there. I can see why that is a problem.
The third one is maybe where the is controversy. It would be nice if a 6 year old could play on the street by themselves. I think there is some discretion here and it depends what your street and suburb is like to some extent.
The last one is tragic and totally unfair to the family. Looks like another nail in the coffin for people without a lot of money in the US (who can't call a babysitter on short notice) and who use common sense. Then they get a criminal record, lose their jobs etc, can't get a new one etc. F'd.
I know, anecdata and all that, but it's really crazy out there.
That and the fact that "oh and then the charges were dropped and in some cases local laws changed" is inevitably (I think purposefully) left out.
Reason.com went on a year-long bender of self-promotion and half-truthing about 3 years ago when three women were arrested in three states, claiming that "jack-booted big gubmint was comin to take yer kerdz" and plastered people's pictures and stories on fundraising materials and tried to get people to buy their "free range kids" books, as though three incidents in a country of 300 million was an epidemic.
Of course, the most confusing thing about all of this is that a Venn diagram of "people who think that the government is rounding up mothers all over the country" and "people who immediately, vocally, and vociferously criticize the government for NOT protecting the welfare of children" is a perfect circle.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/26/free-range-kids-the-u...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/13/parent...
> In December, the couple was accused of neglect for allowing the children to walk around their suburban Washington neighborhood together unaccompanied by an adult. In one instance, Rafi and Dvora were walking from a playground two blocks from home; in another, the park was about a mile away.
They are two people, each of whom works at a job (Which is necessary for most families), who don't live with their retired parents (Who would watch, and play with grandkids for free), and can't afford a nanny. (Or, as rich engineers call them, an aupair.)
In short - normal 21st century people.
(And if they are single parents, this equation becomes even more screwed up. The problem with being a single parent, is that you have to live with whatever life decisions lead you up to that point, for the next 18 years.)
That said, I see working involved parents that hand their kids an iPad the minute they get home from daycare so I suppose it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
I'm still a bit shocked that the distribution would result in 4.5 hrs on average. The bullet points from the referred page were actually more interesting:
"TV viewing among kids is at an eight-year high. On average, children ages 2-5 spend 32 hours a week in front of a TV—watching television, DVDs, DVR and videos, and using a game console." [http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv]
I think this implies that kids playing video games (which at that age is mostly shape matching, colors, words, vocabulary) is included in television.
Not that I'm complaining... Honest, I'm not.
> Who are these parents...
Remember "It takes a village"? Well, in all honesty, it does. And if you don't have a support system in place, you'll have a hard go of it.
New findings from The Nielsen Company show kids aged 2-5 now spend more than 32 hours a week on average in front of a TV screen.
- Public television shows (PBS) stuff is so lovingly created and charming. You can really tell they had experts and creatives work side by side to craft positive stories. Even if it's not particularly exciting.
- Super-smart and creative shows (like the first couple seasons of Spongebob, or Gravity Falls). Great shows on their own merit, super funny and creative. But they are an art first and not necessarily focused on development. Good at clueing kids in on structuring jokes or references, not much else.
- Bland and harmless. Shows that drive a story or characters, but not necessarily lovingly made or particularly funny. I have found most of the Netflix/Amazon/Hulu stuff falls in here.
- Colorful garbage. It's a lights and noise show, with huge focus on licensing. Cartoons of my era are particularly susceptible to this (Dragonball Z, Yu Gi Oh, Transformers, etc).
I feel there is a substantial divide between a narrative adventure story by a Japanese manga artist crafted as a parody retelling of Journey to the West and followed by his eccentricities (Frieza was an alien and power ranger parody, Cell was a bishonen parody, there was tons of messaging in the core narrative about passing the torch, etc) and a product like Transformers designed by a corporate committee of Hasbro from day one meant to sell toys. Sure, the further into Dragonball you got the more commoditized and derivative it became, but at least the original Dragonball show is a worthy classic.
There absolutely is a class below all those shows, where there is absolutely no narrative development and every episode is designed and manufactured for self contained entertainment with no greater depth. A lot of Hanna Barbara cartoons fall into that class, Scooby Doo absolutely - where every episode is designed to be disposable and ultimately meaningless, just meant to distract.
> - Colorful garbage. It's a lights and noise show, with huge focus on licensing. Cartoons of my era are particularly susceptible to this (Dragonball Z, Yu Gi Oh, Transformers, etc).
What PBS shows are you imagining? Clifford? Sesame Street? I never thought they were targeting the same demographics as the 'colorful garbage' like Yu-Gi-Oh (early elementary vs. late elementary/middle school). Also a lot of other popular shows (like Spongebob) seemed more like colorful garbage to me than things like Yu-Gi-Oh that you lumped in there.
And what about classics like Tom & Jerry, Roadrunner, etc.? There wasn't much particularly educational or colorful or really anything about them but man now I'm tempted to go watch them again.
Tom & Jerry and Roadrunner would squarely go into the "super-smart and creative shows". All of Chuck Jones' work really is supremely well made and exists for its own merit (as opposed to an educational one).
I lump in Spongebob because they at least picked a unique topic, had unique characters, and had some very unique jokes and comedic structures. At least in the beginning.
for me, it's like dora the explorer -- just lots of noise, triggering some visceral response in me of "turn it off now, mute it, make it go away" akin to many people's aversion to certain forms of advertising, or nails on a chalkboard.
You will get the impression in the first 20-30 10-minute episodes that the show is really fun but nothing special. It builds so slowly you don't even notice, then it really takes off.
Example "Hey let's call an uber" says character A.
"I watched X on netflix yesterday" says character B.
- Netflix has gobs of kids shows (i.e., cartoons) that have zero product placement, at least as far as I can tell. This includes both Netflix originals and the rest.
- TV has 6-minute ad breaks every few minutes that are non-stop pitches for toys and other shows. It's unbearable.
Even shows on premium networks with some product placement and mentions are 1000x better than regular cable. There's simply no comparison.
I also recently saw this on "A million little things" there was an absolutely useless shot of a main character opening the trunk of the car with a foot wave. It was so over done and out of place.
There are rules restricting it in the UK, which must complicate broadcasting some American TV shows.
There are also companies using software to replace the branded product according to different markets — so they can rebrand that cereal box for the rerun if necessary.
I’m so accustomed to Netflix and it’s child controls that I totally forgot what legacy tv is like.
In the end of the day I 'd rather get a big blinking "this is an ad" banner on my ads, rather than the characters smirking on camera while drinking from a nescafe cup while waiting for an uber to arrive. Maybe those are not actual ads and the show writers just added uber and nescafe for narrative purposes, I don't know, because it doesn't tell us.
The first one is about how well it is integrated in the show, or how "respectfully" it is done.
Let's say for example... Car brands are very welcome and a must in the Fast and Furious movies. It would be pretty silly if they had fake car brands in such a movie, and the presence of real car models can excite and make the enthousiasts nerd out more about them. Overall a victory for everyone involved.
But hearing how great of a family car a Volvo can be, in a movie about aliens... not so much.
-------
The second is about transparency. Assuming you do not like let's say Monsanto, or Scientology and you would like to avoid works that are funded by them. Product placement is a form of guerilla marketing, noone says who they took money from. So it lacks transparency and is disgenius to the consumers.
It's a bit like influencer marketing, when influencers "forget" to include the #sponsored hashtag.
User ksdale has left a very nice comment on the subject.
Just like everyone says “I am going to Google that” not “I’m going to search for that”. One sounds stilted. The other sounds natural.
Obviously a less than successful product placement. /s
Pretty sure it was the Eggo waffle thing you are referring to. IMO they did a pretty decent job integrating that plot-wise.
Like it or not productions cost money and the people who pay those bills will always look for a way to share the load. If you don't like it prepare for $40/month Netflix.
I know my own kids tend to have Netflix on all the time, but are also playing games, making art, talking to each other, doing chores, etc.
I myself have it on for many hours a night, but I spend almost no time sitting in front of the screen. (Sundays have been an exception for GoT.) It just makes doing dishes, cleaning, and laundry so much more bearable.
That's what these studies always seem to fail to address. The assumption is if the TV is on, you must be staring at it. And that's simply not the case.
But I have a very active mind. My fear is that many children will actively consume media rather than passively consume. A major part of the issue probably depends on how parents teach their children to watch TV. This issue needs more investigation because not all TV watching is the same. My fear is that not all parents are as mindful as you or mine.
Jesus. 4 hours of TV every day. That's nuts.
When I was a young child before I could read books, I learned tons about the world from watching Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, and similar high-quality shows. I still spent plenty of time with my Legos, but my childhood would definitely have been worse without the programming on PBS.
I think you're also overestimating the amount of meaningful education kids get from TV. Language skills are learned via use. You don't actually converse with the TV. Interpersonal skills are best learned by practice. Basic facts? Maybe the TV can help here, although most kids shows don't cover anything except pretty basic stuff. Kids shows are primarily entertainment, same as adult shows.
Maybe they're watching Bandersnatch? ;)
"What!? Bobby Sue watches cartoons before school instead of practicing mindfulness and studying the periodic table, what terrible parents!"
This seems nuts to me. That is 4.5 hours a day! For a 2 year old? Who are these parents...
Here is the WHO guidelines https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/24-04-2019-to-grow-up-h...
Nice #ad for Netflix, I would never spend a cent on it knowing that they do geoblocking and limiting shows to specific countries because of agreements with other platforms, such as Sky. Instead, I would go for some third party Kodi Plugin and skipping the need of having 2-3 accounts to watch all the shows I want, freely.
uBlock Origin with all the extra filters makes youtube.com tolerable on desktop.
[1] https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/time-flies-...
Just as my life is not for them, their life is not for me. At least they have some way to entertain themselves, whereas every second I spend relaxing comes with anxiety over whether I'm spending my time "usefully."
I cannot understand that behavior. Even an hour or two a day seems like a lot for a kid to me.
7:00pm-8:00pm -- dinner with the family (during tv, possibly)
8:00pm-11:00pm -- homework + tv (mostly tv)
11:00pm-1:00am -- tv
---
Even including sports practice, we've cracked over five hours, and that's from when I was in grade school.
Some parents have the TV on in the background but the children are distracted with other tasks.
For example, I will watch the news while my daughter plays in the same room doing her own thing.
"Saves kids", yeah right. Must be just great to spend all that time in front of the tellie eaten em tater chips and drinkin that mountain dew.
Idiocracy Now!
In the US I normally turn off volume when there is a commercial or avoid commercial content at all costs. However, when I visit my friends in Europe I find that their (TV) commercial a lot more enjoyable. Anybody else experienced this as well?
Meanwhile, Netflix and YouTube today are 24/7 tracking and saving a record of everything a child has watched every day of every year, with no limits on how that data can be used.
Not worry. This data could never be used in a way that makes them more susceptible to advertising.
There was an image with overlaid text going around on Facebook on Mother's Day that said, "Happy Mother's Day to the iPad that is raising your child."
I try to find a balance, knowing that I grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons and playing games on Apple II, Commodore 64 and NES.
I'm not convinced that binge-watching with no breaks is ideal for anyone; let alone kids.
No way to do that and it seems like a pretty basic form of control that should be table stakes for a kids oriented service.
(Account > Parental controls > Restrict specific titles)
It was a Disney movie - but he wasnt ready to sit thro character buildup etc, and complained the cartoon was too "long". I thought he lacked patience due to watching Youtube fastcut episodes (GuavaJuice and such), then I saw him watching 45mins of a hand opening candy wrappers one by one, patiently folding it, then opening the next one. I dont know what to make of it :)
From my perspective there are a number of issues with advertising which should be looked at - such as advertising to children, advertising of products with large negative externalities (e.g. cigarettes), and heavily targetted advertising (more because of the dystopian visions it brings, and with the potential complete erosion of privacy caused by the data-collection which it necessitates). But I believe a blanket "all adverts are bad" is probably a bit much. That said, giving users an alternative to receiving adverts seems like a great alternative to the pervasive data-capturing we have going on today.
I'm really good at tuning out ads online after so long seeing ads everywhere, but if I was brand new to the medium and hadn't yet learned to tune them out, would I be more likely to be influenced by them? Is that a good/bad thing? And now that I use adblock everywhere, when I do see an ad it's more annoying. It will be interesting to see the long-term effects going forward.
Ads didn’t have to try so hard to be WAY LOUDER THAN THE SHOW. They didn’t have to be trying to sell obviously-terrible things (“Get StupidDrugName! <happy music> Side effects may include: death”). They didn’t have to subject you to 12 identical copies of the same commercial in one broadcast. They didn’t have to greedily demand an increasing share, to the point of significantly reducing the length of a show. And that’s just TV...web ads have lots of avoidable crap too.
They got greedy, they made ads suck, now people have no use for them.
Many figured this was the logical conclusion, absent regulation.
Of course, the industry fought the concept of regulation or even self-regulation tooth and nail.
So here we are.
The idea is, like old-school picture books, to give space to the imagination, while introducing kids to a healthy relationship w/ technology. Hand-drawn illustrations, gentle interactivity, stories inspired by the natural world...
I'm currently beta testing the pilot episode online before distributing a fully-featured app. Feedback appreciated :)
I found this quote, however, a bit shocking: "The average 2-5 year old is spending over 1,600 hours a year watching television"
That is over four hours each day watching TV. And in my opinion, the quality of most of the programming on Netflix, Prime, etc. is not substantially higher than commercials. Like broadcast TV, many are just long-form commercials in and of themselves.
And then there is product placement in everything else.
Dont know if its better. It is deffinitly more "sneaky".
It’s already presenting with people who lose their social media accounts or followers, and that’s arguably short term effects. We’ll need more time to see long term effects.
My kids don't watch a lot of TV / screen time but when they do I want to be able to monitor it, and yet also maintain my own sanity.
This could also be added as feature to existing large scale longitudinal studies.
Note: I am not a parent.
What?! Is this for real? Nowhere near these numbers in my house....
If Netflix and other streaming services didn't exist, kids would not be watching 1600 hours of terrestrial TV with ads
There are plenty of studies showing how kids watch way too much TV or equivalents.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/222032-how-much-tv-does-t...
I would also say this is different than restaurants who is able to sell locally or products that can be sold with media (i.e. cartoon shows that sell related toys).
It's not like they spend 24/7 on Netflix, they are probably getting bombed with ads more so than ever in history out in the real world. And even more so, probably even more aggressively than the commercials they are missing by using Netflix.
Occasionally teachers would get VHS tapes with recorded TV from the US, and we were more enthralled with the commercials than the programs themselves.
Do you mean something like, the Internet?
Advertising is so pervasive, you'd probably have to do something drastic like Amish style technology banning to avoid it; even that may not be enough.
As a side note, even though Netflix doesn't have separate advertising, I'm sure there's at least product placement and other forms of advertising in their content.
Admittedly I haven't found a way around billboards, adds playing on gas pumps (though I try to avoid those gas stations), playing in stores, or the occasional sponsored link on some sites I visit, but compared to old TV or radio these are fairly painless.
For awhile this was apparently just a hidden feature, recently I saw one where the button was labeled.
That said, I've made Hulu my default now specifically because of Netflix's pushy dark patterns.
Thanks for giving me a new excuse for being a misanthrope.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/media/social-med...