Hacker News Reader

Comment by roflyear | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand these responses. Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions?

What if I am a shareholder (I am, through ETFs) of Netflix and I disagree with this? Shouldn't I be allowed to discuss and criticize the action?

View on HN

The only thing you need to understand about people that make comments like that is that they don't care about anything unless (or until) it affects THEM personally.

The second it affects them, now it's real, now it's "OH this shouldn't be legal". Those people lack empathy.

100% agree. So many of the responses here are of the "why can't they just eat cake?" variety. Actors are striking because (a) they want to still have a viable career and (b) studios still need actors, and AI still needs humans for training. Do I think any of these commenters would be OK if the script was flipped and instead the deal was "We will pay you a thousand dollars to train this AI programmer for a week so we can then fire you and have the AI write all the programs instead."

Borderline psychopathy in my opinion.

a) Disagreeing with Luddites isn't psychopathy b) Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI

> Article is complete bogus, nobody is talking about replacing actors with AI

That is just 100% wrong. It is literally a major point of contention in the demands of SAG and big reason they went on strike.

https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/285059234

Even if you’re not a shareholder, you’re welcome to discuss and criticize the action with anyone who will listen.

I agree, if you're a shareholder you should feel obligated to - but everyone has the right to discuss whatever they want.

$NFLX is in the S&P 500. Most US white collar employees are shareholders, at least indirectly.

> Are you trying to push the window to make people feel like it is unacceptable to be critical of a company's actions?

I'm trying to encourage thinking a bit more about the circumstances at hand. Hot air criticism is useless an so is economistic (or, Luddite) bargaining. The issue is at the root of how our society is organized. In short, new technology should benefit all of society equally because all new technology stands on the shoulders of all working people and their ancestors.

We know that isn't how things work.

In a field like acting where stars make millions per year, and the critique of this job is that somebody amounts to "this person is making too much money," the critiques run a bit hollow.

Will the SAG put a cap on actor's compensation? What makes an AI job worth inherently less than acting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com