The Netflix Controversy

Netflix is an internet entertainment service that offers movies and television series to subscribed members. It was founded in 1997 and has now around 150 million subscribers worldwide. Since the early 2010s, Netflix also took an increasingly important role as producer and distributer of films and TV series. The rise of this player bypassing traditional channels of distribution of audiovisual contents has generated several controversies.
 
Attacking theatrical release windows
 
For decades, the movie industry has relied on a system of release windows; movies were first released in movie theatres, for around 17 weeks, before being available for sales in VHS or DVD. As Netflix became progressively a major film producer and distributor, it has been at the forefront in attacking this system. Netflix movies have had limited theatrical releases in order to prioritize the subscribers of the platform. But this move has been met with some resistance in the movie industry. As a matter of fact, the organisation running the Academy Awards considered rendering films with less than 4 weeks of theatrical release ineligible to be nominated for Oscars. That said, in the 2019 91st Academy Awards, the film “Roma”, distributed by Netflix after only three weeks of exclusive theatrical release, received three Oscars. Netflix stated that its aim is to make movies accessible to those who cannot afford to go to a movie theatre or do not have one in their own town.
 
Avoiding corporate taxes
 
A second controversy has risen from the fact that in many of the countries where Netflix is operating, it manages to get away without paying corporate taxes. Despite generating hundreds of millions in revenue in various European countries – for example, 500 million Pounds in the UK and 315 million Euros in France were reported for 2017 – it declares only very little profit, and pays from little to no tax in these countries. Users who subscribe to the service have a contract with a branch of the firm based in the Netherlands. Through this system, the firm manages to avoid paying most of its corporate taxes. Such practices are widespread among large Internet firms. To respond to critics, Netflix stresses that in the countries where it generates revenue it invests in local movie production companies, bringing benefit to the local audio-visual productions.

- futurelearn.com, European University Institute (EUI)

Culture in the Digital Age

Philip Kern (KEA) discusses how different sectors of the creative economy have had to come up with new economic models in order to adjust to the digital era. In the following excerpts, he describes specifically the case of music:

The main impact is to actually facilitate the production. The cost of producing has been reduced definitely. It’s also enables people or artists to produce directly, to auto-produce, to self-produce to be directly in contact with a consumer through digital networks. So definitely the impact has been a reduction of cost of production, the availability of production tools at retail level, even to film, to do audio recordings and to make it available directly through distribution channels.

Of all Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), music has suffered the most from the digital revolution, being hit by digital piracy, the reduction of physical sales (away from highly profitable retail stores), the development of new distribution channels with different monetisation logics (Apple - iTunes setting the precedent by establishing prices of downloads independently of the industry). This industry disruption is driven by new powerful digital players, the development of new business models and new consumption patterns with the instant availability of music on mobile devices and, most specifically, the rise of music streaming. … 

Taken as a whole the revenue of the music industry has severely declined over the last 16 years, essentially due to the decline in sales of packaged music (recorded music in the form of CDs) - the turnover of the recorded music industry significantly dwindled since 2000 (from EUR 32 billion in 2001 to EUR 13 billion in 2014 – worldwide data). The recent 3.2% increase in recording revenues (in 2015) should, however, be noted. The boom of live music and digital sales has not yet compensated the lost sales: digital sales represented EUR 1.3 billion for EU markets in 2014. …

Artists have suffered from the industry’s painful restructuring and have been forced to adapt to a new landscape. They are playing a greater role in fighting for consumers’ attention by making use of new online tools, notably social media, to develop a fan base and attract the attention of concert venues, festivals, and music businesses. However, user-generated content has not replaced artist-generated content, since consumption of music remains talent driven. Artists are confronted, on the other hand, with the fact that the new generation of music fans are less loyal to given bands or music genres switching more easily than former generations. …

Nowadays artists have to make more efforts to emerge by developing a fan base, thus forcing extensive touring, which contributes to a thriving life music scene (concerts and festivals). Artists have to develop a fan base if they hope to achieve a record deal or to be able to feature in music festivals. Social media are important tools enabling artists to develop such a fan base. The direct monetisation with fans remains relatively limited and artists still have to rely on distribution specialists (the record companies) for most of their revenues.

- futurelearn.com, European University Institute (EUI)

The Jobs to Make You Feel Good

Throughout recorded history, rich and powerful men and women have tended to surround themselves with servants, clients, sycophants, and minions of one sort or another. Not all of these are actually employed in the grandee’s household, and many of those who are, are expected to do at least some actual work; but especially at the top of the pyramid, there is usually a certain portion whose job it is to basically just stand around and look impressive. You cannot be magnificent without an entourage. And for the truly magnificent, the very uselessness of the uniformed retainers hovering around you is the greatest testimony to your greatness. Well into the Victorian era, for instance, wealthy families in England still employed footmen: liveried servants whose entire purpose was to run alongside carriages checking for bumps in the road.

Servants of this sort are normally given some minor task to justify their existence, but this is really just a pretext: in reality, the whole point is to employ handsome young men in flashy uniforms ready to stand by the door looking regal while you hold court, or to stride gravely in front of you when you enter the room. Often retainers are given military-style costumes and paraphernalia to create the impression that the rich person who employs them has something resembling a palace guard. Such roles tend to multiply in economies based on rent extraction and the subsequent redistribution of the loot.

Just as a thought experiment: imagine you are a feudal class extracting 50 percent of every peasant household’s product. If so, you are in possession of an awful lot of food. Enough, in fact, to support a population exactly as large as that of peasant food producers. You have to do something with it—and there are only so many people any given feudal lord can keep around as chefs, wine stewards, scullery maids, harem eunuchs, musicians, jewelers, and the like. Even after you’ve taken care to ensure you have enough men trained in the use of weapons to suppress any potential rebellion, there’s likely to be a great deal left over. 

As a result, indigents, runaways, orphans, criminals, women in desperate situations, and other dislocated people will inevitably begin to accumulate around your mansion (because, after all, that’s where all the food is). You can drive them away, but then they’re likely to form a dangerous vagabond class that might become a political threat. The obvious thing to do is to slap a uniform on them and assign them some minor or unnecessary task. It makes you look good, and at least that way, you can keep an eye on them.

- David Graeber, Bullshit Jobs: A Theory

5 Categories of Bullshit Jobs

I have found it most useful to break down the types of bullshit job into five categories. I will call these: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters.

Let us consider each in turn.

 

1. what flunkies do

Flunky jobs are those that exist only or primarily to make someone else look or feel important.

i.e. uniformed elevator operators whose entire job is to push the button for you.

 

2. what goons do

The use of this term is, of course, metaphorical: I’m not using it to mean actual gangsters or other forms of hired muscle. Rather, I’m referring to people whose jobs have an aggressive element, but, crucially, who exist only because other people employ them.

 

The most obvious example of this are national armed forces. Countries need armies only because other countries have armies. If no one had an army, armies would not be needed. But the same can be said of most lobbyists, PR specialists, telemarketers, and corporate lawyers. Also, like literal goons, they have a largely negative impact on society. I think almost anyone would concur that, were all telemarketers to disappear, the world would be a better place. But I think most would also agree that if all corporate lawyers, bank lobbyists, or marketing gurus were to similarly vanish in a puff of smoke, the world would be at least a little bit more bearable.

 

3. what duct tapers do

Duct tapers are employees whose jobs exist only because of a glitch or fault in the organization; who are there to solve a problem that ought not to exist.

 

The most obvious examples of duct tapers are underlings whose jobs are to undo the damage done by sloppy or incompetent superiors…… There will always be a certain gap between blueprints, schemas, and plans and their real-world implementation; therefore, there will always be people charged with making the necessary adjustments. What makes such a role bullshit is when the plan obviously can’t work and any competent architect should have known it; when the system is so stupidly designed that it will fail in completely predictable ways, but rather than fix the problem, the organization prefers to hire full-time employees whose main or entire job is to deal with the damage.

 

4. what box tickers do

I am using the term “box tickers” to refer to employees who exist only or primarily to allow an organization to be able to claim it is doing something that, in fact, it is not doing.

 

5. what taskmasters do

Taskmasters fall into two subcategories. Type 1 contains those whose role consists entirely of assigning work to others. This job can be considered bullshit if the taskmaster herself believes that there is no need for her intervention, and that if she were not there, underlings would be perfectly capable of carrying on by themselves. Type 1 taskmasters can thus be considered the opposite of flunkies: unnecessary superiors rather than unnecessary subordinates.

 

Whereas the first variety of taskmaster is merely useless, the second variety does actual harm. These are taskmasters whose primary role is to create bullshit tasks for others to do, to supervise bullshit, or even to create entirely new bullshit jobs. One might also refer to them as bullshit generators. Type 2 taskmasters may also have real duties in addition to their role as taskmaster, but if all or most of what they do is create bullshit tasks for others, then their own jobs can be classified as bullshit too.

- David Graeber, Bullshit Jobs: A Theory

学习动机与学习效率

好的学习动机应该是：具体化、长短结合，并且与自身需求相结合的。
 
具体化之后最大的好处是：你非常明白自己学习是为了什么，你应该做什么事情，以及这些事情你进展到什么阶段了。“长时间高效学习”是个没有终点的“无限”过程，具体化动机相当于给这个过程设定方向，设下路标，让我们不会迷路，能够坚持走下去。
 
与自身需求结合，是说学习动机最好与你最想要的、最需要的东西结合起来。
 “每个月阅读一本书”是一个动机，同样也是不够的，改成“每个月阅读一本书，然后发书评到豆瓣和朋友圈去接受敬仰的目光”就与需求结合了。
 
 事实上，“让自己更好”是总的目标，或者说结果。只是“让自己更好”是个无止境的过程，它大部分时候看起来太过遥远。而对普通人而言，让自己坚持下去更需要的是近在眼前的东西。其实两者并不矛盾。可能你就是为了钱去学习的，但学习之后也并不妨碍你同时变得更好。
 
提高学习效率的实用方法
 
“区间学习”的意思是——我们要为自己的学习划分时间区间。因为人不是机器，每个人能够保持专注和足够效率的时间是有一定量的。一般来说，这个区间大概在20分钟到1个小时，即便有些人天赋异禀，也很难保证连续两个小时的高效率学习。
  
不管我们学习什么知识，一定要记笔记。记笔记的作用有很多，比较主要的两点是：第一，记笔记是我们对学习内容的消化和总结过程。笔记并不是把学习内容原封不动地记录下来那么简单，而是要融入自己的思考。
  
学习一定要设定目标，不能为了学习而学习。目标最好是具体的、输出性的、成果性的。要想学习写作，你可以把目标设定为出版一本自己的书；要想学习编程，你可以把目标设定为做一个自己的网站或者软件。设定合理的目标，会让我们学起来更加有动力，更容易坚持下去，也更了解自己的学习进度和学习效果。
别再试着让自己成为全才型的庸人
 
我们一生都在不断地学习和成长，这些努力，相当于在加长我们不同撑杆的长度。但因为我们的时间是有限的，这就涉及一个选择问题：我们到底应该如何分配自己的时间和精力，以获得最优化的结果？

- 阿何，《别再用勤奋掩饰你的懒惰》，2016.

鲇鱼效应(Catfish Effect)

很久以前，以捕鱼为生的挪威人，在深海区发现了大量的沙丁鱼。他们非常高兴，因为沙丁鱼一直都能卖个好价钱。可是，他们却碰到了一个难题，就是沙丁鱼还没等运回到岸上，就口吐白沫、肚皮朝天了。渔民们绞尽脑汁，但仍无计可施。有一天，一个渔民无意中在放沙丁鱼的槽中放了几条鲇鱼，结果，沙丁鱼都活着上岸了。原来，鲇鱼是沙丁鱼的天敌，当在装沙丁鱼的鱼槽里放入鲇鱼后，鲇鱼就会不断地追逐沙丁鱼。在鲇鱼的威胁下，沙丁鱼拼命游动，激发了活力，从而活了下来。

无独有偶，日本也有一个类似的故事，我们权且就叫它鳗鱼的故事吧。它在日本流传很广，据说，还是日本孩子懂事后父母讲给他们听的第一个故事呢。

古时候，日本渔民出海捕鳗鱼，因为船小，回到岸边时鳗鱼几乎都死光了。但是，有一个渔民却非常幸运，他捕捞到的鳗鱼都能够活着到岸。人们都感到纳闷，他的船、船上的装备以及装鱼的船舱也没什么不同啊，为什么他的鳗鱼能一直活蹦乱跳呢？自然，他的鱼就能卖上高价，而别人也只能干瞪眼看着。

这种状态一直持续着，那个渔夫都成百万富翁了，人们还是百思不得其解。直到几年以后，这个渔民身染重病不能出海捕鱼了，他才把秘密告诉了他的儿子。原来，他在盛鳗鱼的船舱里，放进了一些狗鱼。鳗鱼和狗鱼天生就是死对头，为了对付狗鱼，鳗鱼就要竭力反击。敌对双方都处于紧张的状态中，自然生的本能就被充分调动起来了。

聪明的渔民还通过这种现象悟出了人生的道理：要勇于接受挑战，只有在挑战中，生命才会充满生机和希望。

两个故事其实蕴含的是一个道理：引入竞争可以激活组织或集体的内部活力。后来人们还把这个哲理命名为“鲇鱼效应”（“狗鱼效应”），并且广泛地应用到日常生活中。

但是，人们也并没有忘记探究这样一个问题：为什么一个集体或个人在没有外来刺激的时候会丧失活力呢？社会学家、心理学家、生理学家都在这方面做了努力。他们通过观察研究发现，使集体或个体丧失活力的根本原因有两个，一个是懒惰的恶习，另一个是安逸的环境。

--- 翟文明，《世界上最神奇的60个经典定律》，2011

帕金森定律(Parkinson's Law)

能力低下的领导者，随着年龄的增加，就会有力不从心的感觉。按道理，他就应该选择光荣“退伍”，可是他不愿意，他怎么能甘心放弃手中的权力以及相应的好处呢？所以他就要有所考虑，他要找人来给自己帮忙以缓解自己的压力。这时候他的自私心理就开始作怪了，如果找一个能力比自己强的人做下手，无疑是引狼入室，会对自己手中的权力产生威胁。很显然，只能找能力比自己还低的人了。并且还不能只找一人，那样势必不能保证这个人日后没有夺权之心，所以就要找两个人，以便两人之间形成互相制约的关系。这样自己就成了掌控全局的人，无形当中还抬高了自己的地位。同样，这两个人随着年龄的增长，在他们身上也会出现身心疲惫、力不从心的现象，他们就会依样画葫芦地分别给自己找两个下属。

一生二，二生四，四生八，八生十六，机构就这样变得越来越庞大了。

用这种方式提升起来的领导，其能力可想而知，根本就是一茬不如一茬。领导注定了是无能的领导，无能领导必然要提拔无能的接班人，所以，帕金森定律的存在也就成了必然。

--- 翟文明，《世界上最神奇的60个经典定律》，2011