What they mean is they want the selection of content to be done by the people specifically hired and empowered to select content, using the official channels created specifically for this selection process. What they don't want is mobs of workers lower on the totem pole trying to impose their will on management through walkouts/etc.
I broadly agree that some people, mostly on more extreme ends of the political spectrum, are trying to censor views they disagree with in a way that is potentially dangerous for a free society.
However, I strongly believe that every employee of a company (and every shareholder) carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company's actions. To purposefully choose an extreme example, would you be willing to help develop spyware for Russia to hack into phones and surreptitiously monitor communications, if your company asked you to do it?
One of the most fundamental problems in society right now is that we've decided corporations should be exempt from any kind of ethical standards. A corporation's responsibility is to make as much money as possible, we say. If it makes money, we can't expect them to do anything else.
Corporations, of course, are imaginary constructs which cannot truly be responsible for anything. Luckily, they are staffed by people, who should have just as much of a moral compass as any other human being. Your moral compass should not evaporate the moment you walk through the company door.
"every employee of a company (and every shareholder) carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company's actions"
At the same time, we shouldn't moralize about every disagreement or different perspective. Some things are morally neutral. Like a comedy special that doesn't advocate violence against anyone.
I agree with your points. Right or wrong, it seems plainly evident that the reputation of a company will rub off on the workers. It's logically in the interests of workers to protest against company decisions that will harm their own reputations. But it's also logically in the interest of management to maintain control over the direction of a company, so they're going to push back whenever workers try to have their way.
My point above is simply: This isn't a battle of censors vs anticensors; it's a power struggle between workers vs managers. Workers want power to guide content, but Netflix management wants to keep that power for themselves. Netflix management are not anticensors. The power to censor is being contested, not opposed.
Very well put. We each have some small effect on the world and we should stay mindful of it. Especially with the amount of power a corporation (read large group of people) can have on the world.
Getting censored because we think there is no demand is very different to getting censored because 1 person at the company doesn't like your work or opinions or something...
It's the difference between being the censor, and being the censored. Both sides in the dispute want to be the censor, neither wants to be the censored.
This is a funny take on it. Of course Netflix censors specific artists and voices by choosing to just not produce their content.