We’ve increasingly seen example across the industry of activity employees influencing large tech companies in a certain direction. For example, Google and military contracts and censorship of right wing positions on Facebook. Chappelle’s The Closer was certain to invite this kind of controversy. Ironically, much of the show was about him being canceled. How far is too far? What’s the line on standing up for your beliefs versus forcing that belief on the users of your platform? What’s the standard for being unbiased as these platforms are for everyone not just liberals? ——— Netflix Staff Raised Concerns About Chappelle Special Before Its Release https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-13/netflix-staff-raised-concerns-about-dave-chappelle-special-before-release
There’s no such thing as an apolitical or unbiased company. Whatever status quo of policy decisions exist at a company are just as political as an employee advocating for something in particular. Nothing unusual about employees advocating for certain policies.
Chappelle went off the grid after saying no to the biggest offer during it's time. Many people said it was a career suicide. But Netflix managed to fish him for a bigger number after so many years. Chappelle being Chappelle would have asked for creative freedom and no censorship. Netflix would have obliged. Hence Netflix true to it's word suspended all activists. Should they have done that? No. Should they have pushed back on Chappelle? Yes. Does it look bad on Netflix's end with Chappelle? Yes
I'm gonna make an educated guess and say Netflix told Chappelle to make the specials heavily focused on LGBTQ because it's such a hot button issue. Most of his recent specials focus on transgenders, racism, and women. This is all intentional. Netflix told him that this will get the most viewership due to controversy, allowing Chappelle to make 60 million dollars for a few specials. He's essentially done the same special multiple times now and it always makes headlines.
I doubt it. Chappelle is imo the best comedian alive. He does things on his terms, including hosting shows in the middle of Ohio. It’s more likely that he’s seeking out hot topics other comedians can’t/won’t touch.
Every company has core principles, or at least they should. I think “the line” should be drawn when a decision, product, or feature violates one of these core principles. In that respect, I don’t think any of the examples you gave constitutes an instance of line-crossing (I’m disregarding the whole “FB censors conservatives“ argument because AFAIK, this has been widely discredited). With this standard in place, I think the following actions “cross the line”: - Google placing censorship on search results in China as per the CCPs demands - Google favouring search results beneficial to them, or Amazon favouring their own products in their marketplace - FB lying to investors or concealing known harm (if true). This isn’t really a violation of core company principles as much as just a violation of principles in general Insofar as companies working with government agencies, frankly I think it’s ridiculous to assert that a US company is immoral by selling a product/service to its own government.
There seems to be a double standard. Would you consider Joel Kaplan to be an activist employee? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/03/facebook-politics-republicans-right
Questioning certain aspects of a group, say “xyz” is not “xyzphobia”. Phobia is too strong a word to use for difference of opinion. The word has been weaponized by hypersensitive folks who have taken over the Trans movement.