Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Streaming Services Will Pay Writers More Under New Writers Guild Pact (deadline.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the writer-rights dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Deadline: Netflix, Amazon and Hulu will be paying a lot more in writers' residuals under the new WGA film and TV contract. New details, outlined by WGA West, reveal that high-budget shows they run will generate anywhere between $3,448-$34,637 more residuals per episode over the life of the three-year contract than they did under the old contract, depending on the platform and the length of the show. Essentially, it's the same deal the Director's Guild of America got in their negotiations last December. The WGA contract, which has been unanimously approved by the WGA West board and the WGA East council, now goes to the guilds' members for final ratification. Voting begins Friday and concludes May 24.
For every half-hour of a high-budget show, Netflix will be paying $19,058 more in residuals than it did under the old contract.

64 comments

  1. Re:Just off-shore it all by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Funny

    The problem with offshoring is that humor and drama are culture dependent.
    We think the British are funny, but that view is not reciprocated.
    Germany doesn't even have a concept of "humor".
    Hitler started out as a standup-comic, and had a gig in a Munich beer hall.
    But people took him seriously, so he went into politics instead.

    A better plan is to develop an AI that can generate scripts.
    It could have a few deep layers to apply cultural context.
    How hard can it be?

  2. If you want to kill streaming. by Truekaiser · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is how you kill streaming.. And they as a group stood to gain the most if streaming took off...

    1. Re:If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neh, they're all going to get screwed regardless. Might as well get paid while they still can.

      Personally, I'm not going to pay either way, would prefer to pirate and watch things when I want on the devices i want.

    2. Re:If you want to kill streaming. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Over the past 35+ years, the sale and rental of movies on video cassette has generated a couple hundred billion dollars in revenue, created more demand for movies and created an entirely new genre (movies that are released direct to video) all of which created a large number of jobs for actors/writers/directors/etc.

      None of that would have happened if the movie industry had been successful in their fight to outlaw the VCR..

      People are stupid and short-sighted.

    3. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Truekaiser · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, the world is a zero sum game. The laws of thermodynamics dictate this, same with the concept of time.

    4. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you've never heard of this thing called "the sun"?

    5. Re:If you want to kill streaming. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So YOU want to kill decent shows. No one will write them if they don't get paid. You are probably still waiting for the year of the Linux desktop and wondering why it doesn't happen, too.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    6. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I'm shocked you could cram so much delusional bullshit opinion into such a short post.

      Maybe you should like, I dunno, learn how logic works sweet cheeks.

    7. Re:If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... still waiting for the year of the Linux desktop ..."

      Well, on mobile... Linux powers the majority of devices.

      YOU are probably waiting for the year of Windows phone.

    8. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

      If the world is a zero-sum game, then economies would be completely incapable of growth without conquest, and when you kill a person in battle, instead of dying they just fight on your side.

      Besides, if thermodynamics implies zero-sum, then it should be possible to create a perpetual motion machine because you could simply recapture all of the spent energy instead of allowing it to dissipate.

    9. Re:If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually suspect they'll adjust just fine.

      They've already been reducing the amount of content, and they invest tons in making the content they have more relevant.

      They're outright buying shows as first run too, I don't think this will make much of an impact on that.

      What I suspect will happen is that they'll stagger their purchases of seasons. You won't have all 10 seasons of a show at once, instead maybe purchase 2 upfront, and then add one every six months.

      Maybe this kills the service, but I suspect at $10/month it'll still remain worth it for the majority of people, especially if they keep good quality premium content coming at the rate they have.

    10. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      So, the world is a closed system?

      You can't think of anything, anything at all, that may be adding to it constantly?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    11. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... Fairly simple physics tells me that the Sun is a zero sum game, as well. It contains no more than it is made from and, in time, will return to the matter from which it was made.

      Matter can not be created or destroyed. See also, thermodynamics. Energy isn't created, nor is it destroyed.

      The Sun is actually a pretty good example of zero sum. Of course, you could also say it is a fine example of relativity, in that it doesn't seem zero sum, from your relative viewpoint and time of reference. However, in totality, it is absolutely a zero sum. It has only the energy it has, from the matter it has, and it will be reduced to its constituent parts, eventually. Entropy, it's a bitch. Still, it is as zero sum as anything else.

      By the way, the Sun doesn't really produce energy. It does smash stuff together and is a bit of an element factory, but there is still the conservation of energy going on.

      Err... I am not a physicist. I'm a mathematician. Those guys could be lying, but their math, mostly, checks out. Mostly... They're pretty good at observing stuff, too. Mostly...

      Anyhow, the Sun is as zero sum as you get. On that scale, the whole universe is. This is why it will become more diffuse, as it expands. If it weren't zero sum, we'd not have the heat death to concern ourselves. Then again, if it weren't zero sum, it probably wouldn't exist. There's simply no other way for it to exist.

      Though, I guess, that is also a philosophical question that the scientific method can't really answer.

    12. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As mentioned above, I am a mathematician. I am not a physicist, nor am I an economist.

      At an absolute point, and this is largely just a guess, the economy is zero sum. Hear me out, if you will.

      The thing is, we haven't reached the totality. So, the economy still grows. Surely, at some point, there is an absolute point where the economy can simply grow no further. At least, in theory there should be. At some point, with all resources being accounted for, with all wealth being owned, and with all capital in motion, we'd have reached a point where the economy can simply grow no further.

      At that point, consumption would match the production, right? Now, this is assuming a whole lot of spherical cows, more political and social than anything else.

      But, if the economy is at its absolute peak, and it can grow no more - though it could be further concentrated, then consumption would be equal to production. If those two are equal, and if it is also true that there is no more wealth to be extracted, it'd be a zero sum economy.

      Well, I am pretty sure it would be. I am not an economist and I am kind of confusing myself as I think about the variables. Still, in theory, I bet the economy could be truly zero sum. This should not, of course, be read to say that I am claiming that it is currently zero sum. That'd just be a stupid claim to make. I'm pretty stupid, but I am not quite that stupid.

      Hell, as mentioned above, on a grand scale, everything is zero sum. It's a good thing, too. Otherwise, we'd have more matter than we could hold and that's just mess up a whole mess of observed rules. I'm not even sure it could work, if it were any different.

    13. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define world? If you mean our one planet, then you're only correct on a small scale. Eventually, that thing we orbit, the Sun, is gonna get really fat and try to eat us. In fact, it's going to eat us. So, what it gives us now, it is going to take it away.

      Otherwise, we'd just keep getting bigger and bigger, possibly until we popped. So, Mr. Sun is mostly only loaning us the extra matter. It's gonna take it back, at some point. Then, sure enough, that matter is gonna get even more diffuse. It's called entropy, or disorder. It's the fucking law. It's what happens in an ever-expanding universe, a universe where matter likes to dance and wiggle.

      So, I'm not sure what world you speak of, or if you actually understand the claims you make. Again, I am not a physicist. I'm a mathematician. However, I'm pretty sure that I have the basic concepts pretty well understood and this is a pretty basic concept.

      Matter is not created, nor is it destroyed. The conservation of energy seems pretty fucking absolute, even at some pretty small scales. Some smart fella named Maxwell even did up some pretty fancy maths, you can check them for yourself.

      Ol' Mr. Sun is gonna eat us up. Even if he didn't, our bits of matter are gonna keep dancing until the party gets so wild that some of those bits take off, in wild abandon, and dance with smaller and smaller groups of partners. Matter likes dancing, by the way. All those atoms are just wigglin' little buggers, and we've even figured out some of their dance moves and the music that they prefer. Thus, we are pretty sure that, even if the Sun didn't eat us, all our tiny bits of matter are going to dance their way into the night.

      They'll dance so wildly that they bounce off each other. In enough time, they'll have danced so much that they'll be too far away to find new dance partners. They won't even be close enough to transfer energy. They won't even be close enough to see a dance partner. Still, they'll keep wiggling until they are so far apart that even time no longer exists. There will probably be energy remaining, absolute zero won't be reached, because those bits of matter are gonna wiggle, even without a dance partner. Still, without a partner, there will be no more energy transfer and even time will come to a stop.

      We're not quite sure what's gonna happen after that. Perhaps nothing? Perhaps it will rip the fabric of space-time? Perhaps it will collapse, and begin anew? We don't really know, and anyone who says they do is a dirty rotten liar. What we do know is that matter loves to wiggle.

    14. Re: If you want to kill streaming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... I don't normally post this much in a single thread. I'd like to point out that this is not my domain of knowledge and that this is speculation. I do math, not soft sciences.

      Anyhow...

      There is a logic bus. I'm following it, albeit on a short bus and probably while locking the windows. I'd suspect that they would, if needed, offer tiered content.

      For X, you get Y.
      For X+n, you get Y+n.

      Where X is money, Y is content. At one level, you'll get some content. Note, this doesn't get into delivery method and quality, which can add more variables. In effect, you'd have something like Netflix Basic, Netflix Basic Plus, Netflix Basic Plus and Originals, etc...

      I'd not be surprised to see that as an outcome. In fact, it seems likely. It'd be similar, I think, to cable packages.

      Again, this is not my domain, but I see this as the most probable outcome, with the information that is available to me. I'd expect tiered pricing, and content, to be a logical future step taken by Netflix. I don't speak to the morality of this, nor do I suggest it is the right thing for them to do. I suggest only that it is the logical outcome. I'd speculate that it is a sound financial choice for them to do, but I am not privy to enough information to make that claim.

    15. Re:If you want to kill streaming. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      So you are saying you don't do anything all that useful. People who actually do work still use laptops and PCs. Have fun playing with your phone.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  3. Unions by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Informative
    I would like to think the writers of our movies are well compensated, as I find writing to be at least as important to the movie's quality as acting.

    I do, however, find it funny (funny strange, not funny ha-ha) that the oddest bunch of employment fields remain union shops.

    Baseball players, automakers, the entertainment industry; but not coal miners or their daughters.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Baseball players, automakers, the entertainment industry; but not coal miners or their daughters.

      All ripe for automation. Including the daughters.

    2. Re:Unions by pthisis · · Score: 2

      I do, however, find it funny (funny strange, not funny ha-ha) that the oddest bunch of employment fields remain union shops.

      Baseball players, automakers, the entertainment industry; but not coal miners or their daughters.

      Coal miners have unions, and have since the mid-1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    3. Re: Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be nice to have a union. Sure wish we did in the software industry.

    4. Re: Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just assert that coal miners aren't unionized? There are very, very few non-union mines in the US. The number of non-union coal mines, I specific, is vanishingly small. Mining, specifically for coal, is one of the jobs which really, really gave unions their start - in the US. Yes, some existed beforehand, but they were pretty rare.

      Hell, they had pitched battles, with automatic weapons in military grade, over unionizing. For once, the people won those battles and were able to unionize. Though it isn't necessarily as important now, they tend to remain in those unions - nearly 100 years later.

      Finding a non-union coal mine is possible, but fairly rare. There are some pretty good documentaries about this. You might find some in Netflix. I'd try a search for Harlan County, I think was the name of the a good place to start, and see if Netflix has some content for you. It's pretty interesting, actually. Shit, they have whole styles of music that are closely linked to this. It's a bit of a mix of bluegrass and folk music. It is well worth looking into,mecen just for entertainment and not as a scholastic pursuit. My exposures are due entirely to entertainment and are, in no way, academic.

    5. Re:Unions by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Yes, and they earned them. The Ludlow massacre was barely a hundred years ago, which is quite eye-opening for Americans who perceive governments attacking their own citizens to be something done in other places.

      Baseball players and the entertainment industry owe their respectively successful unions to the sacrifices made by much lower profile employees, many of whom now suffer job loss and income shrinkage. US automotive worker job losses are well documented, as US automakers lost their world dominance in part because of the high salaries and overhead created by the unions.

      People often argue whether or not we still need the unions today, and it may be careless to conclude that we do not based on the snapshot of the present.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a moron.

    7. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, baseball played by robots would neither add nor take anything away.

  4. Re:Just off-shore it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How hard can it be?

    That sounds like something a bot would say

  5. Re:Just off-shore it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany doesn't even have a concept of "humor".

    Robin Williams was once interviewed on a German television show and asked "Why are there so few German comedians?"

    His answer was "Maybe it's because you killed them all."

  6. Re:Writers' guilds and net neutrality are communis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey there, you are an mvp for team tiny hands... why not go back to reddit where you belong.

  7. Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump's a whinny little bitch, just like his supporters. He's an incompetent low information voter, just like his supporters. Richard Nixon exhibited more honesty and integrity. His supporters are obsessed with terms like "cuck". That says quite a bit about their own sexuality. When was the last straight Republican sex scandal?

    1. Re: Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Grab them by the pussy."

      Although, technically, it was uttered by a democrat (at the time) to another democrat on democrat-affiliated grounds.

    2. Re: Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the whiny ones, while you're the one posting off-topic complaints. Okay... That makes sense.

      As distasteful as I find Trump, I can actually stomach his supporters better than I can tolerate the people who feel as if they represent the American left. I'd rather be associated with them, than to be associated with you. Fortunately, I don't have to be associated with either. I get to retain my moral superiority, even though I am stuck with the results of your stupidity.

      I know this is hard for you, but think about how bad Trump is. Go ahead and be hyperbolic. Think about how bad his supporters are, again you can be as hyperbolic as you want. Call them racists, bigots, idiots, inbred, etc... Think about how terrible they are.

      Now, realize that many of us would rather be associated with them, than be associated with you. We're the third party voters and those who abstained. You're that horrible. Go look in the mirror. As tempting as it may be to deny this, try some introspection. Your side lost, to fucking Trump. That's despicable. That you won't look inwards, to see why, is actually a fine example of why your side lost and continues to lose.

      In totality, for all the State and Federal elections, you lost something close to 1000 seats. You did this, all across the country. And, instead of looking inward to find the problem, you lash out at others instead of learning and adapting. I represent the true American left. I don't court you to my side, because I don't want you on my side. I'd rather no representation at all, than to be represented by you.

      This is why your party is on its deathbed. This is why your party is failing. You. You are the problem. You exemplify the problem. You continue to be the problem. Fortunately, you'll die off, along with the tired racists, and we need only be patient.

      Sweet dreams and enjoy your fall from relevancy. As those final shards of your political party collapse, I want you to repeat this, quietly and politely, "This is my fault. I had the power to stop this. I didn't, because I am a fucking retard. I deserve this, because I didn't listen to the many warnings. I am too stupid to be allowed access to speak in public. I am a failure, as is my political party."

      Seriously, you lost to Trump. That's like losing A game of chess to a monkey. How inept do you have to be, to lose to Trump? Democrat. You have to be Democrat inept.

      Sweet dreams.

    3. Re: Breaking News by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Grabbing pussy was fine when the lech was a Democrat.

      _...as were a large number of other things.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  8. Re:Just off-shore it all by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Ha ha! - Nelson Muntz

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Please post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More stories about how Hollywood douchebags divide up their money.

    1. Re: Please post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hookers 10%
      Coke 15%
      Agents 15%
      Managers 10%
      Hookers 10%
      Ex-wives 25%
      Parties 15%

  10. Re: Just off-shore it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butt hurt, twinkle toes?

  11. Re: Writers' guilds and net neutrality are communi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop whining about Obama ass clown. He's no longer President. Further every bill signed into law since 2011 was passed by the Republican controlled House and Senate before Obama signed it. Why are you such a low information voter?

  12. Down With The Guild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scrap the union and get rid of the regulations. Let the free market start over and make great deals for everyone. Make Hollywood great again!

  13. Right... by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "For every half-hour of a high-budget show, Netflix will be paying $19,058 more in residuals than it did under the old contract."

    That is like an average person having to pay a few dollars more for lunch.

    1. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      not even that. more like they had to pay an extra penny for the napkin they used.

      netflix is a near-10 BILLION dollar (gross annual revenues) company... considering THEIR TOTAL CUMULATIVE original output, this increase had it applied to all of it, would "only" about $70 million *total* (not per annum) over the history of their company.

    2. Re:Right... by AvitarX · · Score: 3

      So, if I say I make 50,000k (basically average) one penny is 1 5 millionth of my income.

      netflix makes 10 billion. divide by 5 million I get $2,000 being a penny to them.

      This is actually closer to 2 million for a network show (5 seasons * 20 episodes/season * 20k/episode).

      It's more like paying $10 for those napkins (or I'm orders of magnitude off).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re: Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pithy, and probably inaccurate. First, no vacuums exist, like that. Even if they did, the average, meaning median in this case, person would suffer significantly from paying a few dollars more for one of their daily meals.

      That is over $1000/year and nearly $5000/year for a family of four. That is nearly 10% of the median income, for a family of four, in the United States. That is assuming that ONLY one meal has been increased by $3/day. That is entirely unlikely, as surely other things would be more expensive.

      But, even still, that is a significant increase in expenses. It is even worse, if you assume they were already paying as much as they could reasonably afford to pay.

      Do you really want to argue that? I'd not recommend it. Just a few dollars more, for lunch, is probably enough additional expense to ensure that people have no choice but to go without eating that meal, at all.

      This, of course, has no bearing on Netflix and I hold no opinion about the costs of their shows or what they pay the writers. I just wanted to point out that you might be more suited to an audience at Reddit. In fact, I suggest you visit them. I'm pretty sure they'll laud you as a genius and worship at your feet. I bet you'd like it there. You should give them a try.

  14. I dont think hollywood understands... by svendsen · · Score: 0

    They don't produce anything of real important value. Entertainment has low barriers of entry and there are so many options (books, audio books, music, video games, youtube, etc.) that if movies stopped being produced no one would care.

    If netflix has to raise their price a lot to cover this we will simply cancel netflix in a heartbeat.

    1. Re:I dont think hollywood understands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you talking about, conflating political liberalism with Hollywood business practices. Studios still shoot on set in Hollywood when it makes sense to do so. But they also shoot on location. Which means they're shooting anywhere it makes sense for the story. But it's also true there are production companies around the world who compete, often with cheaper labor and logistics (permitting, construction regulations, insurance, etc)

      'Liberalism' is a boogeyman caricature for small minds in need of a scapegoat.

    2. Re: I dont think hollywood understands... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and GP are so out of touch that I worry for your sanity. Like it or not, Hollywood is doing fantastic. They are rolling in money and producing more content than ever.

      They are not nearly dead. They aren't even dying. They are financially healthy and continue to produce content that is vociferously compnsumed by the teeming masses.

      Note: I made no moral value judgments. I offer no opinion about the quality of what they produce. I simply point out that you're undeserving of your username. I'd also like to tell you about a great site called Reddit. You should post there and develop your reputation there. I'm absolutely certain that you will love it, and that they will love, and respect, you. Seriously, I want you to be happy. Go visit Reddit. You'll love it. You'll fit right in. You'll probably even be smarter than the average community member.

  15. Re: Writers' guilds and net neutrality are commun by pagedout · · Score: 1

    Impressive you are so stupid you actually got me to log in on my phone to hand you your sign (too bad you didn't log in you partisan hack). Well, here it is you embodiment of the low information voter.

    First, Obama didn't sign anything for this. His boy at the FCC got ISPs reclassified as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

    Second, while not a huge trump fan he has been in office about 2% of the time Obama was. After the first year blaming Obama will get old.

    I am sure there is some other drivel I should respond to but the /. Interface sucks so bad I can't even reference your post.

  16. Not Sure If This Will Help Netflix by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    On the surface, this could be good: writers not having to worry about eating and paying rent can concentrate on better writing. But then again, maybe not. For example, I don't think it will help Netflix as they don't seem to hire very good writers very often, and/or don't buy very good shows. Netflix is rapidly falling into the same level of quality as channels that show nothing but shitty 'reality tv'. Worst shows out there, with some rare exceptions, which I'll admit are very good (Stranger Things, Narcos, etc.). But by and large Netflix shows are rapidly going down the toilet. Amazon on the other hand, has quite a few very high quality shows. Not as many as Netflix, but maybe Netflix should follow that model: make fewer, but make them higher quality. And release them consistently.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Not Sure If This Will Help Netflix by Solandri · · Score: 2

      On the surface, this could be good: writers not having to worry about eating and paying rent can concentrate on better writing.

      That's not how it works.

      The current bad writers who are willing to work for the current pay have to first be fired. Then new better writers who were unwilling to work for the old amount of pay, but are willing to work for the new higher pay have to be hired to replace all the bad writers you just fired.

  17. Re: new attack going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha lol u funny man hear de usa we gotta bigga probemz 2 deal wit u kno like beauhd the IDIOT MILLENIAL

  18. TV Animation on the Other Hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're (Netflix, in my case) paying us writers less than the Animation Guild minimums, and we don't get healthcare or pension payments. Also, just so you know, unless you work on a prime time show (WGA, not TAG), you don't get residuals.

    1. Re:TV Animation on the Other Hand... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Healthcare? But Obamacare was supposed to enable you to buy your own on the open market like you could in civilized non-blue states before.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:TV Animation on the Other Hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With respect, I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment on Netflix. My point was that while they may be paying WGA members more in residuals, etc., they're treating their animation artists and writers like crap by going non-union meaning no health insurance or pension payments.

  19. Re: Just off-shore it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why, faggot?

  20. Re:Just off-shore it all by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    Manatees work equally well.

  21. Re:N!gger Rules Of Dining Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the shills are out in full force to try and get Slashdot to impose censorshit to adhere to a SJW agenda.

    It wont work, mate.

  22. Re: Writers' guilds and net neutrality are commun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama still signed those laws, even though this isn't due to legislation that he signed. I don't agree with the poster, and I am not a Republican nor am I a Trump fan/voter.

    Still, my point is that you don't get to blame Republicans for something Obama signed. You do get to blame them for authoring, proposing, and passing it. However, Obama is responsible for the legislation he signed. The buck stops there.

    Sheesh...

    I'm not even remotely certain as to how this ties into the thread's subject. Still, I see this idiocy a lot. No, Obama signed all the things he signed. He is to blame, and to credit, for his deeds. If you hand me a bad apple and I kick a nun in the cunt only to shove the apple down her throat, I am still at fault for kicking the nun, even though you gave me a bad apple.

    I'm pretty sure that's my best analogy, ever.

  23. Short Lived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the current administration hell-bent on killing the internet; Netflix won't be able to survive as ISP's act quickly to block it from subscribers.