Saudi Arabia Discovers The Streisand Effect; Gets Netflix To Take Down Hasan Minhaj's Show About MBS's Atrocities
from the bad-ideas-all-around dept
Back in October, comedian Hasan Minhaj's show Patriot Act on Netflix did a pretty thorough critique of Saudi Arabia and its leader Mohammad bin Salman, often referred to as MBS. Go watch it here:
It covers a lot of ground, from the death of Jamal Khashoggi to MBS's arresting of a bunch of his cousins to the catastrophic situation in Yemen... and the complicity of the US government and much of Silicon Valley who has taken Saudi money.
Not surprisingly, the Saudi government was not thrilled with this episode, or the fact that it was available via Netflix in the country. So, as first reported by the Financial Times (behind a paywall), and since reported in tons of other places, Netflix has agreed to pull that episode in Saudi Arabia in response to a "legal request."
Apparently, the "legal request" referenced a cybercrime law that says "production, preparation, transmission, or storage of material impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy, through the information network or computers" is a crime that can lead to imprisonment and fines. Cyber lese majeste, basically.
Not surprisingly, the move by Netflix is leading to tons of criticism directed at both Netflix and Saudi Arabia (but mostly at Netflix for caving).
Of course, this has also generated a lot more interest in that particular episode -- which, again, Netflix has left up on YouTube (and which, it appears, is still available via YouTube in Saudi Arabia). It is the Streisand Effect in action -- and, one might argue that Netflix knew that this was the likely outcome. As such, it not only gets to "avoid" whatever criminal punishment was being threatened by Saudi Arabia, but also gets more attention to this particular pointed criticism of MBS... and, as a side benefit, gets a lot more attention for its Patriot Act show.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, hasan minhaj, mbs, mohammad bin salman, patriot act, saudi arabia, silicon valley, streisand effect, yemen
Companies: netflix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thanks you, MBS
Thank you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks you, MBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thanks you, MBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MBS
Please refer to him by his proper syndicate moniker Mr. Bone Saw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MBS
Originator of the second-worst cover-up in the history of cover-ups, second only to Vladimir "we totally didn't do it" Putin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks you, MBS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
Anyone new here and not know why Masnick headlines "The Streisand Effect"? -- If so, then you've got a hoot in store, though it's not near so bad as years ago. -- But there's no one new here.
Now, let's not leave out what's being left out!
As always with Masnick, only Israel's enemies come in for scorn, never Israel for worse. -- This time he does take a shot at "Silicon Valley", though.
Here's comparable news. -- Oh, and by the way, NO I'm not "anti-Jew": I'm anti-war / anti-murder regardless what country does it. I'm the only one here who ever mentions the US's war crimes of illegal and above all unnecessary invasions / occupations. Anyone NOT opposed to US / UK / Israel actions by now is supporting crimes.
Facebook's Secret Censorship Manual Exposed as Platform Takes Down Video About Israel Terrorizing Palestinians
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50851.htm
Google withdrew ads from populist British news website Politicalite last week, over an article about Marine Le Pen. Online ad platform Taboola followed, accusing the site of violating its Acceptable Use policy.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/12/28/google-removes-ads-from-british-populist-news-s ite-politicalite/
Facebook's New Propaganda Partners
https://fair.org/home/facebooks-new-propaganda-partners/
Old but still most relevant:
Glenn Greenwald (Intercept, 12/30/17) reported that "Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials."
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-di rection-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
Extraordinary claim ... I am not surprised by the lack of supporting evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re
(/s in case it wasn't obvious)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect"
But aren't they and SA(who also earn that honor) functionally allies against Iran? "enemies" is a real stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and for a drooling idiot to complain about the fact. Don't sell yourself short!
"although the tech giant would not explain precisely how"
I had to do a quick Google to see who these people are who are so hard done by. As I expected, the far right nationalist politician is being written about on sites that appear to be largely coloured by anti-semitism and islamophobic agitprop. It's a real mystery what could have been there to cause any kind of complaint for people trying to sell products, truly it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
Ummm, Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies not enemies. Oh sure there is a thin veil of enmity but everyone knows they work together. This isn't conspiracy-level stuff I'm claiming here; you can just go to Wikipedia and read about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
Breitbart?! Say...no...more! Say no more. Saynomore! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Darkened doorstep".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Darkened doorstep".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Darkened doorstep".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is excuse for MM to use "Streisand Effect".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
Ignorance is bliss. Reminds me of the time OPEC nations were looking to invest their windfall take during the 70s. They invested in gold ... and then complained about the price going up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private companies are not countries, you didn't elect Netflix into office.
They are there to make money. There is no such thing as 'ethical capitalism', if it looks like a company is being ethical it's for a financial reason. Not a moral reason.
If your job is to sell subscriptions of shows to a country and a country says "take this one episode down or so help me!" you take the damned episode down or you lose your job when the stock holders scream at you for losing an entire country because you didn't remove a single episode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if they do something shitty, it is the obligation of the free press to call them on it so people can make an informed decision on this. That is how this is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes if they are seen as useless they can be marginalized and ignored. But many good publications have dried up and died because they couldn't compete with the spectacle 24 hours day time news filled with crap and questions like "IS IT OK TO EAT PASTE AND FART?! MORE AT 11!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would explain most of the troll brigade…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure just how much of a "request" it was.
You do realize that most, probably all, countries reserve the right to disallow companies from operating within their sovereign borders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, corporations exist to make money.
The flipside of this is, when they do something unethical, this can result in bad press and loss of money.
That's an essential part of free-market capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad press and loss of money
I think our corporations are not as governed by bad press and loss of money as this hypothesis implies.
A lot of products are purchased and preferred despite the bad press. Often people don't have a choice. Often competing products are unfamiliar, more expensive, or not the same quality. Also competing companies may have other unethical policies.
Some unethical practices are difficult to understand so press about them doesn't affect their reputation much.
Marketing a product so that it seems more ethical is often cheaper and just as effective as engaging in ethical practices.
Lobbying the government to allow for unethical production is one of the most profitable investments a company can make. If they already have the laws they want passed, the government can still be lobbied for unconditional subsidies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad press and loss of money
All that's true, but the anon I was responding to seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't criticize companies for unethical behavior, a stance which grossly misunderstands how capitalism and markets are supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should / shouldn't criticize unethical behavior
We should make unethical behavior by large companies and institutions criminal with heavy penalties. And we should enforce those laws.
Criticizing them isn't even enough, as they won't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This reminds me of all the right wing screaming when Netflix signed up the Obamas to do a show and put Susan Rice on the board. Should they be boycotted for that crime too? Some people think so. Probably more people will cancel over this than over Saudi Arabia, but it will be extremely minimal in both cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People can and should boycott over whatever ridiculous notion enters their heads if the mood takes them. That's the free market at work, even if objective observers think their cause is stupid. They're also free to ask other people to join them in their boycott.
You're right that virtually nobody is realistically going to join either boycott, and certainly not enough people to make an actual difference - Netflix, for example, will have looked at their viewing figures and worked out that it's worth more to them to have Saudi customers than have the show on their site. But, in a free country you should be free to choose where your money goes, even if your reason for doing so is silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No such thing as 'ethical capitalism'"
That makes for a strong indictment of basing our society on capitalism.
When it comes to goods and services on which the people depend, maybe there should be a state offering.
Or maybe, leaving all to the path of least resistance, when the nation serves the companies and no longer the public, the public should eat the companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "No such thing as 'ethical capitalism'"
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/25/netflix-china-iqiyi/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cancelling netflix
Cancelling Netflix? Why would I do that? A boycott of one, or even a thousand has proven not to work.
And that, too, makes a strong indictment of capitalism as a model on which to base our society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cancelling netflix
But, boycotts *can* work, you just need to organise enough people to join your cause. Even if you don't make any immediate changes to their behaviour, isn't it more important not to be giving companies you disagree with morally money every month?
The reason why ethical capitalism is relatively rare is because too many consumers like you will shrug their shoulders and pay them no matter what they do. If more people boycotted - even in small groups at a time - things will eventually change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Boycotts work"
How many people is enough to make a boycott effective? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? It takes a massive mount of money and effort to organize those numbers, especially if the call to arms is something more obscure than a school massacre. I call bullshit.
Some of us -- and in the current state of wealth disparity, I'd argue most of us -- cannot afford to make our purchasing choices with a philosophy, even when we have a conscience and political awareness.
And as I noted above, sometimes all suppliers are unethical one way or another. Sometimes unethical behavior is too complex to understand. Marketing often works to obfuscate unethical behavior.
I find the notion of an acceptable cost / benefit analysis of a boycott dubious, especially for those of us who don't have the time and energy it takes to organize one in the massive numbers.
And that it is so difficult to oppose common consumerism serves as an indictment of capitalism.
I'm, incidentally, not a Netflix customer. I just don't watch that much television. Though I will watch Patriot Act S01E02.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Boycotts work"
Depends on the company and the issue. Boycotts have been effective in the past, some have not. But the answer is never "I won't bother because I assume nobody else will" if you want action. It doesn't matter if you're the only person boycotting, even if you don't affect immediate action, at least you're putting your money where your mouth is.
"Some of us -- and in the current state of wealth disparity, I'd argue most of us -- cannot afford to make our purchasing choices with a philosophy"
We're talking about an optional entertainment medium that costs most people less than $10/month and has numerous competing services. If that's the hill you want to die on concerning major political issues, I'd point you to something more important.
"I'm, incidentally, not a Netflix customer."
Then, your action either way is irrelevant, unless you do opt to become one in the future. However, if people do feel the way you do and opt to remain a customer despite having major issues with the way they operate, my message to them will be the same as to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in Saudia arabia .
So the customers in saudia arabia would lose acess to 1000, of shows and films .
Everyday youtube takes down video,s from so called
content owners that is not owned by the person
who issue,s the strikes or dmca notice,s .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patriot Act. On MBS. Sounds like an ep worth torrenting.
...And I seed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]