It kind of assumes that all black people will like these kinds of shows, like Nickelodeon assumed that all kids would like their shows. In a world where diversity is so celebrated, I find it odd to try to show black people only other black people. Kids like kids shows because the content is more suited for kids. I know the original poster said they felt good seeing the shows with black people in the 90s, but can't those shows be found on other platforms?

Maybe some black people like to see shows with diversity, too.

In some other post someone was commenting how their wife, who is a director of advertising, got complaints for using a white female hand for an advertisement. I proposed using profile information to show people advertisements of people that matched themselves, but that was met with disdain in HN. It was argued that we need more diversity, not pigeonholes for people to be isolated in their subcultures.

Honestly when I read the title, I immediately thought, "Drinking fountains for black people."

I'm a woman and I think most of the shows on WeTV are stupid but I'm not offended by someone trying to create a channel of content geared towards women. Lots of women do enjoy their programming, I just don't happen to be one of them. I suspect there are a lot of men and NB people who happen to like WeTV, too. And even though they might not be the demographic the channel aims to please, they're more than welcome.

This isn't the same as "drinking fountains for black people" because it's targeted programming but it's not exclusionary.

Horribly bad comparison, of course.

"Drikning fountains for black people" existed because "Black people using white drinking fountains" was prohibited. It wasn't a preference.

Nickelodeon's success isn't predicated on all kids liking that programming, just some substantial/critical mass of them. Same for the other examples, including BlackOakTV.

Presumably black people who like to see shows with [non-black] diversity are already having their needs met. Addressing a market whose needs are not being met has business (and social) value.

Couldn't have said it any better!

> Honestly when I read the title, I immediately thought, "Drinking fountains for black people."

Wow, that is egregious. We ban accounts that stoop to vile tropes like that. I doubt that you intended it that way but you did it anyhow—seriously not cool. If you want to keep commenting on HN, please don't do anything like that again.

The gratifying thing is that the commenters who replied to you were so entirely decent. That's the sort of thoughtfulness that you ought to be practicing, even when you encounter something that rubs you the wrong way on the internet. Or rather, especially then.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My only problem with marketing "X for black people" is that marketing "X for white people" isn't socially acceptable.

What does "X for white people" look like though? The only reason that "X for black people" exists is that black people are a minority group and aren't sufficiently catered to by X, which is already more or less "X for white people" by default, at least in the US and much of Europe. As such, any product that that markets itself explicitly to white people (again, only referencing the US and Europe here) is much more likely to have less socially acceptable intent behind it

"X for white people" makes more sense in a population where caucasians are the minority, for instance in China.

> What does "X for white people" look like though?

Totally hypothetical example... "NBA for white people" - basically majority-white professional basketball teams playing each other. I'm sure that would ignite a firestorm if someone tried to do that.

But what would the justification be for setting up such a league? "Netflix for black people" is a representation of cultural differences and seeing those differences reflected on screen. "NBA for white people" would just be... excluding non-white people. White and black basketball players aren't different physically (on average) nor do they typically have different playing styles. There isn't really a lot of justification in such a division, hence why it would result in a firestorm.

Fair point. How about "Rap for white people" - a record label that only features white rappers for people that want to hear more suburban white-America culture expressed through rap? Still might ignite a firestorm, all it takes is one media outlet framing it as racist.

It might ignite a firestorm but this might too on more right wing channels (e.g. Breitbart), it's just that those channels aren't as represented in "mainstream" media

You deny reality --"White and black basketball players aren't different physically" seriously? The only reason blacks dominate bball is bc they are different physically. The same for why we have women's sports that exclude men. The reason why blacks need to create X for blacks is often because they can't compete without it, which just means yes groups on avg are different. Whites can't compete with black bball players. Groups on average are different. So yes, I can see why there is a reason and market for a NBA for whites.

Except that "for white people" is the default. The minority representation in media is still generally token at best. And, while it may seem like a double standard, when you say something implying that there should be a "x for white people" it sounds like you're saying you're already seeing too much minority representation in media for your comfort or sense of place in society. And if that's the case, know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.

>The minority representation in media is still generally token at best.

Is this really true, today? I can definitely see that even 10 years ago, but just glancing through Netflix recommendations, I see characters from all over the place. I wonder if anyone has been able to quantify this progress.

>know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.

Wait, what?

So you'd say Netflix is mostly for white people?

Asking seriously, I'm European.

You say this like the Hallmark channel or Lifetime don't exist.

Certainly those channels have never been marketed as "a channel for white people" as an explicit statement. Just because they are channels for white people and white American culture doesn't change that.

I am not familiar with those channels since I'm not american, but I am fairly certain that they are not marketed as "for white people".

They are not, but their programming makes it quite obvious who their target audience is. And I don't think this is a bad thing, at all. For example, Hallmark has a large number of programs where characters are very overt in talking about and praising their faith and religion, which is much less common on other networks.

To echo what others have said, though, if you are not a member of a minority, it can be difficult to understand how affirming and wonderful it can feel to experience, just for a brief moment and even if by fantasy, to exist as if you were the majority. For example, I am gay, and here are some common thought processes that go through my head that are basically completely foreign to straight people:

1. When I walk down the street with my partner of 20 years, deciding to hold hands is not something I can just do spontaneously. It is essentially a political act when I do it, and so my first thoughts always go to (a) am I safe and (b) do I feel like making a political statement right now.

2. When I travel, the first thing I think about is whether I am going to a place that is accepting of gays. I'm just too old to want to deal with anti-gay attitudes when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself on vacation.

3. When I introduce myself to new people, I do a mental calculation as to whether I feel like mentioning my partner and thus outing myself in that situation. Again, it's always a conscious calculation, where it almost never is for straight people.

So the first time I visited the Castro (a well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco), it was kind of magical to me, to just walk down the street and have people assume I was gay before assuming I was straight, and it was really the first time I could completely relax and feel like what it was like to be a member of the majority.

So that's what things like BET, LogoTV, Telemundo, etc. are really about, it's about actually feeling like you are the focus of attention for a short time.

They're well known for being the most reductive, base, inoffensive content possible.

In the sense that shows and movies seem like the result of endless series of meetings, where anything that anyone might object to is censored and removed.

What are you saying about non-white people who enjoy those channels?

That they are like white people listening to Hip Hop. You're allowed to like it, but you should never expect them to cater to your demographic.

I'm sure non-black people are welcome to this too.

That they're boring? (But then, that's true of white people who enjoy those channels too)

how about changing the marketing from "netflix for a black audience" to "netfix about black people"

that means, this channel intends to highlight stories from or about black people, but it doesn't suggest who should watch it.

saying "it's for black people" is patronizing because it is claiming that it is not for me, whereas, if it is "about black people" then i feel welcome to watch it, because i happen to be interested in that.

Sure, I get the immediate reaction. But this all has to do with what "blackness" and "whiteness" means; "Whiteness" effectively means here, "most everybody who didn't have to be enslaved because of their skin color."

No problem with e.g. "X for German-Americans" or the like, if the niche is there.

Well, it's kind of the default majority, and with the history here in the US particularly, not only is it unnecessary to say, it almost automatically invokes the history of racism we're still dealing with. So yes, not acceptable given the loaded context.

Ouch "Uber for white people" certainly isn't (apartheid)

The reason for that, in the US at least, is that "for white people" is implied by default. Everything is always for white people. So when you go and spell it out explicitly, "X for white people" ends up having a connotation of "X for white people only."

Does "X for kids" imply only for kids?

What poeron is getting at is there can be two meanings of "X for Y". While "X for kids" doesn't imply adults can't watch, "X for adults" implies kids can't watch.

What sort of product do you have in mind that would be for white people?

I mean, there already are sunscreen products that don't look flattering on non-white skin. However, they aren't explicitly marketed as "for white people" - that's implicit

What's a black story ?

A story involving Black people centered on Black culture and/or Black experiences, the same way Moone Boy is an "Irish" story.

I guess what confuses me is that one says a film is French because it has been produced by a French producer for a French audience. French is both a culture and a location.

Whereas in the case of Black products culture and location are not the distinct.

Edit : what I am writing is really confusing and I should have stopped 2 seconds before commenting.

Because that's called society. If you make X for white people in the current context, it's basically Fox News.

Yet "nightclubs for white people" is incredibly offensive.

I think you are assuming an offense that isn't stated. More likely the prior comment reflected a curiosity around an experience not present in their own localized culture.