Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people | Hacker News Reader

Launch HN: BlackOakTV (YC S21) – Netflix for black people

377 pointsUzo0312741 comments

Hi HN! We are Uzo and Iyanu, the founders of BlackOakTV (https://beta.blackoak.tv). BlackOakTV is a subscription video platform serving black audiences by making it easy for them to watch TV shows and movies that feature black stories and characters.

Nearly three-quarters of Black people want to watch more content that portrays their lives and experiences (Target Market News, 2018), but they can't find enough of it, and when they do find it, it usually hasn't gotten the budget or development resources that more mainstream content does.

When I grew up in the 90s, it seemed like black people had a relatively high number of TV shows to choose from like "Martin", "Living Single," and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". It felt good. I felt represented. Unfortunately, it turns out the 90s were an aberration, and over the next 2 decades, black content would become widely underrepresented in Hollywood. Having watched too much TV as a kid, I foolishly decided to get into media as an adult. I worked as a journalist, producer, media strategist and executive, loving to make content, but always being reminded that my culture wasn’t getting the representation it deserved, and always hoping to do something about that someday.

When I started at YouTube and Google, I thought I would finally be able to help change that; I thought the internet and the world's biggest video source would bring black people the same awesome experience they were creating for other viewers and creators. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Black millennial users of YouTube, despite using it more than any other millennial group, often expressed that the comments on YouTube could make it an uncomfortable place. And black creators often did not get the same chance at success that their mainstream counterparts did, leading to some black creators filing lawsuits against YouTube. Despite YouTube's good intentions, systemic biases in how non-black users treated black creators, as well as the economic realities of Black people only representing 10% of the U.S. audience, have led to YouTube never doing quite enough to address this.

So I left YouTube, and Iyanu and I decided to address this on our own. The creator economy is booming, with black influencers among the most creative, and black consumers often among the most energetic and prolific users. I knew that energy could be harvested into a platform that gave black viewers the content they want, and creators the chance to make it. So we started BlackOakTV with the goal of delivering the most, and the best, Black content possible.

We license content from indie creators and make it available in one place, so Black viewers have a one-stop shop for the content they want to see. We're also creating/commissioning original content, to raise the bar on quality. We're different from Netflix in that our focus on black content means we can identify new black voices earlier, make it easier to find black content on our platform (hint: it’s everywhere!), and better serve the diversity of black viewers rather than just treating Black people as one single niche. As for the other streaming services targeting black users, our main differentiator from them will eventually be our product. Iyanu is an amazing engineer, and with his prowess, our product will provide a unique viewing experience, full of the features black viewers want.

But Netflix’s business model is where we aim to be a lot like them. Because Netflix changed media not just because of how they made their content available, but because for the first time in TV history, the aggregator of the content owned a direct relationship with the end user--and that’s why streaming is so valuable. And it’s why we want to have a product that makes users want to view our content exclusively through our properties. Today, users can go to blackoak.tv or download one of our apps, and after subscribing to our 7-day free trial, they can watch all of our content, on-demand, simply by scrolling through our catalog of shows and films. And because we appreciate the HN community taking time to hear our story, for a short period of time, we’re making some of our original black TV shows available for free on our site and in our apps on iOS, Android, Roku and Amazon Firestick. You don’t even have to sign up, just find the "free section" on our homepage or click the following link: https://beta.blackoak.tv/categories/free-episodes.

With that, I welcome any feedback, ideas, or experiences similar to ours. It’s been very challenging trying to enter a quickly maturing business with a lot of competition from public companies, and while we think we have some of the answers, your suggestions, thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated!

View on HN

Everyone else has given you some good advice on your messaging, so I'll give you some business/technical advice as a former Netflix employee:

Try to negotiate your contracts with global streaming rights. It shouldn't cost too much more but will make your life a lot easier as you try to expand globally. That was one thing that slowed Netflix's global expansion -- a lot of the content was not globally licensed.

You will have to develop a very robust system for identifying a user's location based on IP address as well as advanced proxy detection. Maybe not at first, but as you move up into more "Hollywood" productions they will require you to show that you are protecting their content from theft. You will also have to show that you are encrypting everything with DRM, or they won't license content to you.

Don't try to stream your video from AWS. Netflix uses AWS as the control plane but built their own CDN, and some of how they build it is publicly available: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/appliances/. Before they built their own CDN, they used Akamai and Level 3.

Try to build your system for future white label resale. If you're successful, maybe some Asian or Hispanic filmmakers will be interested in a platform focused on their needs. If you build it for white labeling you could potentially resell it for them (this is how HBO started streaming, by buying what MLB had built).

Here are the Netflix black content categories that I know about, but there could be more:

https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/81299227

https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/81305957

Good luck! It's a hard space to compete in, and if Netflix starts to notice you I can see them trying to copy you, but hopefully you'll be big enough by then to fend them off!

Hey...this is really great stuff! Thank you so much for this. This...this is what I was hoping for!

If you'd rather use a service to help identify user's location && advanced proxy detection (plus more advanced user management stuff, I'd love to chat about it with you, let me know (email in profile!) This painful stuff is what we specialize in at https://clerk.dev .

Congrats on the launch!!

This is the quality content I'm here for from HN!

> this is how HBO started streaming, by buying what MLB had built

I think you might be referring to Disney/Disney+ and BAMTech → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Streaming_Services

(Super helpful answer by the way!!)

Nope I was referring to HBOGo. Bamtech’s first customer was HBOGo before Disney bought them.

Ah! Had no idea. Guess the point is true twice over then. What a quietly great company.

All: please don't turn a thread like this into a same-old flamewar about race. It's tedious, nasty, and never changes. HN is for curious conversation, and there's zero curiosity in that, obviously. If you want the sort of angry activation that comes from repeating the same thing over and over, please find some other place to do it.

These guys have identified a market opportunity and are going for it. There are a lot of interesting aspects to discuss. If you don't want to do that, there are other threads to read—you don't need to muck this one up.

As for "how is X for black people a thing" - come on you guys, BET was founded in 1980. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BET

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

Strategically, are you trying to be a brand, a studio, a platform, an marketplace, or maybe all the above? I think the question I have is what to try to build first.

As a brand, I see you trying to become a trusted provider of content for an underserved black-identifying audience with diverse tastes. To build brand first, I wonder if you don't want to put BlackOak-curated content out on existing media platforms. That could be #BlackOakRecommends on twitter.

As a studio, and one competing with other producers, how will you differentiate yourselves to content creators? I guess that starts with the ability to get one's content in front of subscribers, but is there something beyond audience (which you are building), and money (which you are growing), that you can offer creators? Maybe that is access to and information about audience.

As a platform, you are starting with UScreen.tv, and categorically the questions I have are how does your consumption experience road map and analytics & recommendations road map line up with theirs? How will you be able to deploy your own tech relative to theirs? Analytics might differentiate you. Netflix reportedly does not share much. How might you be able (through analytics) to inform creators about audience response through your platform? Can you use analytics uniquely to reinforce and maintain the trust of your audience - e.g., when the platform recommends a video or creator to a user, be able to answer the user's question "Why am I seeing this?"

As a market place, you are an intermediary between content consumers and content creators. How do they to find each other and be rewarded from that - how users browse and how you recommend would be central. Maybe you license curator channels on your site. Perhaps that is in part potentially how you are able to connect creators directly to audiences, i.e. like hosted artist's pages. Perhaps the "BlackOak artist's page" is the place that consolidates an artist's identity, catalog and channels - twitter, instagram, twitch, etc - vs the artist's own page, youtube channel, weebly, etc. So, that's MySpace, of yore, on BlackOak.

If there's a theme to all this, I would say it is how to make consumers, curators, and creators more visible in relation to a consumption experience. Ideas are cheap! good luck with everything.

Beautiful thoughts! Im taking note!

To your point, we are trying to be all of things... and I would add community to that list.

In terms of where we're starting, I'd say we've headed down the dual path of curator and studio. Five years ago, I think we could've been just a curator and come out earlier with a differentiated product. But today, with so many curated options out there, content differentiation was something we felt was key (and a part of our go to market).

With those paths, we offer creators at a certain point in their journeys they don't get elsewhere: investment. And at the same time, our viewers get to be among the first to discover new talent.

But like you said, we have lots to do to prove ourselves to many entities... so we know we have our work cut out for us!

For some supply chain inspiration - I recommend this podcast with Jeremy Cai from Italic.com:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jeremy-cai-manufacture...

It talks about how they could act like a software company by letting their suppliers take inventory risk. I feel like there could be a parallel here in BlackOakTV - perhaps by enabling independent studios to self-finance and have upside in the success of their content.

Maybe I just have enough black friends in Hollywood, but in the past few years, the following shows from black showrunners all made the cultural zeitgist on broadcast tv: Blackish, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and Bob and Abishola; and on on cable/streaming: Atlanta, Insecure, Power, Dear White People, Lovecraft Country, and I May Destroy You. (Note, I am friends with some of the writing staff and crew on several of these shows, so I am aware that I am not representative of the general public.)

And that doesn't even include anything on BET, or shows with black executive producers or showrunners but which were based on existing IP or were from non-black creators, like LA's Finest, All Rise, The Neighborhood, or the Shondaland shows.

And really, the big elephant in the room is BET. Which does everything you want to do, but it already has the connections to the black creators, and the black audience, and the black investors.

So it kind of seems like this is another SV startup that was created without a critical examination of what the market actually is beyond hoping to be potential acquisition target for an actual player (in this case, presumably BET).

Those may all be perfectly good shows. But there is space for them (BlackOakTV) if the market is really underserved.

I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in revenue is being left on the table due to the mismatch between the supply of black content and the demand for it by black viewers.

So yes, BET, and others, are going after this market. We looked at the landscape and decided there was something different we could do that wasn't just unique, but likely execute in a manner that the incumbents could not realistically pull off.

BET--to use your own example--is owned by Viacom, whose two biggest strategic revenue plays are growing Paramount+ and licensing their content/channels to other distributors. Thus, BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money--usually one of the two I just mentioned.

There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in, and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in.

Yet I understand your criticism...this idea is not new, has lots of competition, and is late to a game that has already started. But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works.

BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money

Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates.

There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in

This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios...

But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.)

and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in.

??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces).

But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay.

But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.

Not scientific but observationally their target market does seem relatively high use on social media - so probably an opportunity if they picked up traction - low budget could also be authentic and black ownership for example is differentiating.

That said the attacks on the existing options read a bit weak - will be fun to see what they come up with!

Obviously, you seem to think very highly of what you know, and very little of what I know. First and foremost, the idea that I just have a tech background is probably where you've really misread me. I'm a media person through and through who developed with the times and tech industry's takeover by technical developments.

Second, I 100% understand how BET is owned. I don't think anyone on Wall St. cares when a public company says we operate this subsidiary like an independent unit--it's pretty much never been true in the history of public companies, but it certainly isn't true in the case of BET. BET's biggest show of the year (the BET Awards) is aired on multiple Viacom channels. BET+'s subscriber numbers are folded into Viacom's overall numbers and separately disclosed. BET's cable carriage fees are negotiated in conjunction with Viacom's other cable channels. And at least (I haven't actually done a full count) 3 of BET's original shows are available separately on other Viacom SVOD services--something the "leader" of BET+ wouldn't do if they were 100% focused on growing their own subscriber base. Also, I'm pretty sure the head of BET (Scott Mills) reports to David Nevins and not the CEO of Viacom, which is the only way you could even begin to think it's an independent unit. So for you to say BET is run as an independent unit--well, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it wasn't run independently.

Third, when it comes to product, yes, BET spends more than us. We're a start-up. Our product is not what theirs is...yet. All I'm saying is that they aren't implementing the types of features we plan to add, and aren't investing in product development at a commiserate level with that of a tech company. And that's okay--I don't think they want to be a tech company--they want to be a media company (which I'll touch on later). In terms of our website being "inferior", you are right. We're not there yet. But to say it doesn't matter what's on our roadmap--well, I take it you don't really invest in seed companies. Because if all you can do is see what we're doing today and write us off, then you wouldn't invest in any company at the seed stage. You wouldn't even invest in Netflix before SVOD with that criteria. But I'll give it to you: we're not as good as the incumbents today.

Fourth, yes, I look at our competitors' decision to use Amazon Channels and Roku Channel as an opportunity for us. I think you don't quite understand the nuance there though. I'm not criticizing them for making their apps downloadable to Amazon or Roku--our apps are there as well. I'm saying that they disintermediate themselves by being apart of those platforms "Channels" offerings, which means Amazon and Roku actually own the customer relationship and can take a huge percentage of the revenue from each customer. By doing that, our competitors are simply replicating the old cable business model in digital form. But what Netflix should have taught us is that digital finally gives TV companies the chance to know and "own" their customers--and there's immense value in that. You bring up HBOMax, but they just went through a protracted negotiation with the platforms because they wanted to get HBO off of Amazon/Roku channels. In fact, just this week, HBOMax is no longer on Amazon Channels. This is good business. It's risky, but it's best for the long term. BET is not taking that route. They prefer to grow their audience at the sacrifice of ARPU and data, probably because they want to be a media/content company--or at least that's what's easiest for them to do given their strengths. And that's okay. That is one way to play it--and it's also probably the route you go if you don't want to invest a "ton" in tech and part of your parent company's mandate is to be a content "arms dealer".

Fifth, I think you've distilled our differentiated approach into something it very much isn't. I've written a few times about the few things we're trying to do. If you think our plan to get venture scale returns is to make "indie tv crap targeting black viewers", then you're not really here for the conversation but just to malign what we're doing. And I guess that's fine. I responded in hopes that others might be interested in an educated response to the misleading conclusions you reached.

First, my apologies for being unnecessarily mean in my critiques of your startup. My abrasiveness filter is set for Hollywood standards, not SV standards, and come off as unnecessarily harsh outside to those not in the entertainment industry.

But I stand by the substance of my comments about your startup, and please be aware that a number of them are simply me echoing the sanitized versions of comments I got from my Black friends in Hollywood after I sent them a link to your website. There comments were significantly harsher than what I passed along.

If you would like to talk to one of my friends in the Black Hollywood community, I can try to connect you with them. But please be advised that they will hold nothing back.

I'm late to this, but could you please stop being an asshole on HN? Your comments in this thread have at best straddled the line, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28076349 crossed it completely, and unfortunately your comment history is often that of a jerk: your posts frequently contain something abrasive, even as you also make interesting points.

Your interesting points are worth reading, but the meanness is destructive and not cool here. We're trying for conversation in which people treat each other well, in addition to making interesting points, because without that, the forum crumbles into internet default nastiness.

I'm sure you can make your substantive comments thoughtfully, so please do that instead. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

My apologies dang.

Within the LA startup and entertainment communities, we are less politic in our critiques; LA's funding system is quite different from SV's, and harsh truths are more valued here than polite nothings. A thick skin is required to survive in the film industry. (It is an aphorism here that a true friend is someone who will tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.)

My intention was not to be mean but to be straightforward, but I currently work in-house in entertainment so my abrasiveness filter is much less refined than it used to be. The comments I made were the sanitized versions of the critiques from people in the Black film industry who were initially interested in possibly working with BlackOakTV.

Unfortunately, there are now concerns about the role of non-Black investors in what is ostensibly a Black platform. Due to the politicized nature of the ongoing discussion, I will not go into further details on HN as that is likely to trigger a flame war over non-technical issues.

Thank you. I wasn't having any problem with the substance of your comments, just their abrasiveness. If you had posted your critique without that, it would have been great, and if you'd do that in the future, we'd greatly appreciate it.

From my perspective this isn't an LA or SV issue or anything to do with "funding systems", it's a (rather shallow) internet issue that has simply to do with the tendency of internet discussion to degenerate rapidly, which is what we're trying to avoid here. Comments that would make sense in a smaller, private context become completely different beasts on the public internet; the medium is the message, etc.

I appreciate that you meant to be helpful and there was interesting information in your comments, which I imagine everyone, including the founders, appreciated.

Whenever I see these kind of take downs on HN I always get reminded of the Coinbase and Dropbox take downs and countless others of eventual very successful companies. I actually think the poster makes some interesting points - if they could be framed as more of a question it might have been more helpful. I for one will be be signing up at some point - I circle through the various sites subscribing and unsubscribing regularly - disney, netflix, discovery, paramount, hulu, prime etc so this will get added to the list.

My key question is how are you going to bulk out the offering - I think there is value in a smaller set of curated content but to keep my subscription I'll need to be able to get several months of content?

Could you not just focus on originals and licence some old classics as well?

Just curious, but how do you have so many friends in Hollywood? (Feel free to email me directly if wanted)

I live in LA and met them through work and friends.

I posted your link in one of our group chats. If any of them reach out to you it means they're interested. However, I wouldn't get my hopes up, critiques from the chat thread so far:

-"so it's quibi for black people"

-trying to be BET "for indies" but without backing it up with the funding, marketing, audience, mentorship opportunities, or industry connections

-based on out NY, but the hearts of the black TV industry are Atlanta and LA (BET is hq'd in NY, so I think this one was about where the talent/crew are located rather than the execs)

-featured shows on front page: "First Dates" has promise if marketed properly. "Trifecta" tested poorly with all the women in the chat ("hell no"). Nobody could figure out what "The Retreat" was about and based on the trailer they weren't interested in finding out.

- the website is amateurish, the copy is basic and doesn't inspire interest, and "looks like a fly-by-night operation"

- "they need to hire a marketing team ASAP"

- "it's all stuff BET rejected" (this was from someone who works at BET)

Just for clarity, I don't think the commenter you were replying to there is affiliated with this startup. I was confused at first by what you meant by "your link".

Just for whatever this is worth to you, and I know you probably already know this, but networks rejected Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, South Park, Mad Men, and, I think most infamously, Stranger Things.

There's nothing wrong with that --- perhaps the networks involved should have rejected those shows! You pick one, you gotta turn down another one. But having more venues specialized in a specific type of show means that, for instance, when BET passes on your thing, it can still find a home somewhere else.

I don't know anything about these particular shows. But look at the first couple episodes of Broad City --- not the extremely successful TV show, but the low budget web series that started it all. I'm inclined not to dismiss things based solely on production quality relative to what's on FX.

The rest of these points are probably well taken!

Except for Stranger Things, the shows you listed were only turned down by a few networks before being picked up, which is actually pretty typical in Hollywood (hence the term "shopping around").

And while I agree that it is possible for a low budget web series to become a bigger show on cable/streaming...Broad City succeeded because it was available for free on the biggest video streaming platform in the world (aka Youtube) and had the benefit of the recommendation algorithms and all the visibility that Youtube leads to. A niche website with a monthly fee will not give the world the next Broad City.

For comparison: Quibi also had a monthly fee, higher production values, dozens of Emmy nominations...and those shows still went nowhere until they were picked up and made available for free on Roku this year. Contrast to Dust, a similarly niche (sci-fi) distribution house that has seen multiple projects get picked up for feature-length development, and numerous talent get offered studio gigs, because it made all of its content available for free (even before it started using Youtube to host its videos).

I would not be surprised if acquisition by BET is the exit strategy.

FWIW I don't gather that a lot of black people consume or respect BET how people may assume they do.

Please read this reddit thread, it highlights so many opportunities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/aag6aj/...

My summary of weak spots mentioned:

- Not black-owned

- Very heavy on commercials

- Missing lots of quality content

- Generally inauthentic

- Not creating opportunities for HBCU students

- Could have more focus on news and original reporting

All that is to say that the BET brand isn't super strong in the black community, and a rethought, streaming-native service could definitely have an opportunity to outshine a BET+ type offering.

Out of curiosity - you mention that in the 90's there were a number of TV shows featuring prominent black characters but there isn't anymore. Why did you decide the solution to that problem was to create a black-focused distribution platform, instead of production company focused on creating new shows of similar quality to those in the 90's - has something changed about the market that would prevent shows like those that were successful in the 1990's from being successful today?

I would imagine it's got a lot to do with domain knowledge. Setting up a streaming service is a very different proposition from setting up a production company. These are presumably tech people, not TV people. Besides, I bet setting up a production company is a few orders of magnitude more expensive than this.

This was my thought as well. I'm sure there is demand for this content, but is it a strong enough demand to pay for yet another streaming service?

Not OP, but yeah the market has clearly changed. Everything we consume today and media in general has been fractured, organized into subcategories, and is now delivered by algorithms.

I my opinion the problem isn't that there is no demand for black-focused media, its that its just become another subcategory of Netflix. And because it may not be as popular on Netflix it doesn't get as much production. Look at what Netflix is producing these days - its mostly lowest common denominator algorithm driven garbage.

But why would it not be as popular on netflix, amazon, hulu, ect?

Amazon actually produces the highest quality Black content consistently: Underground Railroad, One Night in Miami, Homecoming, Life, etc

> Look at what Netflix is producing these days - its mostly lowest common denominator algorithm driven garbage.

This, the best content on Netflix in the last two or three years for my taste are largely foreign productions

Much like Reddit which hits lowest common denominator in all the big subs you have to dig for the quality stuff. And hope it gives you similar stuff, but I’ve found that harder on both Netflix and Reddit the bigger they got. But it’s still possible.

Twitter on the other hand seems to do everything possible to push you away from your niches and selected content, even though the whole idea is to follow people.

Yeah, at various points I've seen promoted categories for black created/focused content pop up on Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime, etc. It's going to be tough for a new service to compete with the substantial existing libraries of those streaming services. They already have the content and the audience, and just have to tweak their recommender to promote it more effectively.

That's a great point. I think both things probably need to be done. We took the distribution route, because ultimately we believe it's the direct relationship with the consumer that will allow for this to work. As a production company, you're a step away from the end-user, so you're at the mercy of a distribution company that has more than just the black audience to worry about. But if a company is solely focused on a single niche, like so many tech companies out there, the economics for super-serving that niche are a lot better.

But it would take Netflix just one or two demo-specific properties to win that demo back. Unless the goal is to be acquired.

It’s a yc (VC backed) company. You know the goal.

Hmm, interesting comment: it could mean either of two opposite things, but that makes it self-contradictory!

Just for clarity, when YC funds a company, the goal is not to have it get acquired. It's to have it go public. Acquisition interrupts that, so it's a suboptimal outcome. That said, YC supports what founders want to do.

True. I was making a simple blanket statement that for most VC backed companies you can be sure the end goal is either acquisition or successful ipo.

How many YC companies ended up going public out of the total? And how large is that total? What is the expected timeframe from launch to IPO? How many companies still outside of that window? Those would be interesting stats to have.

Sorry, I don't know the answers—but few so far (fewer than 10 I think). More in the last couple years though. It takes a long time. I'll see if I can convince someone who knows more than I do to comment here.

Thank you!

It doesn’t have to be either-or, lots of people have multiple streaming services

I read the average American has four. Seems like more than one person could reasonably watch but maybe I'm just not devoted enough to television.

> We took the distribution route, because ultimately we believe it's the direct relationship with the consumer that will allow for this to work.

Be honest. It's less capital intensive, with much higher valuations.

Generally, your points about capital and valuations are true. Of course, I could argue Netflix is way more capital intensive than any production company. And then, with Hello Sunshine and others, we're seeing production companies get Venture scale exits. So while I hear your point, those honestly weren't factors for us. It was more so about owning the relationship with the end-user.

There had to be a friendlier way to make that comment.

Yeah what the heck lol

"Be honest" is the same as "you're a liar"

But what are you going to distribute if no one is making high-quality media for Black people?

I think what he's suggesting is that lack of distribution may be contributing to / causing the lack of quality black programming. By setting up a distribution company, they can now create a channel for quality work that exists but isn't currently being distributed.

Netflix was a distribution platform before it became a production company as well. If you have a revue stream from existing content then you have the money to make content. Also, if minorities have content that they want to be seen, they'll potentially have a better shot here because of the focus. So from this website's perspective, there might not be a shortage of content to licence right out of the gate, compared to what they could create themselves. Also, it sounds like they know how to make websites.

I can think of a few major factors that impacted the market in the 90s:

1. Fox/WB/UPN. These fledgling networks broadcast a lot of black-oriented content trying to grab a foothold in the market. This in turn spurred ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same to avoid losing market share.

2. Bill Cosby. The success of the Cosby show in the 80s/early 90s instigated a lot of attempts to grab a piece of that market. Cosby had further success with the spin-off show A Different World (which was notable also as being the only TV show at its time to focus on Gen X characters).

Subjectively-- many of the best "black" shows in the 90s were in the Traditional Sitcom category-- Fresh Prince, Martin, Family Matters, Steve Harvey show, etc.. Even though they touched on black issues, 80% of the shows' content was "typical American experience".

Perhaps the niche-ification of streamed content has resulted in Black shows that don't feel relevant to non-black people. And since the majority don't feel it's applicable to them, they lose the algorithm game.

Just a guess, I don't have any real evidence to back this up. But if that's the problem, it seems like it would be solved by this startup.

I really don’t think the middle class black peoples will love watching that kind of show but I might be wrong.

Some feedback:

1. What is your cost per episode? Can your subscription fee sustain realistically sustain that?

2. Your design needs improvement, at least on desktop. Haven't looked at the apps yet. If you expect "product" do be your differentiator, there's a LOT of work. Also, I'm not sure this is a sufficient competitive advantage. (a) its replicable (b) I've never seen this as a reason for people to pick one content provider over another: content is king.

3. Do you plan to incorporate content from existing content providers or remain purely indie?

4. A lot of the shows are short and production quality varies. Do you have any concern that people might consume all the "good" content of interest and now have anything else to watch?

5. You all have some filters that aren't meaningful like "Author". These authors are so niche, I have never heard of them, making the filter useless. There's also a draft filter showing up!

6. You need to make it easier for people to sample content before going through the friction of installing an app or registering. Maybe a trailer plus the first 5 minutes of an episode? Right now I don't feel compelled to watch anything else or sign up because the page is a little janky and I can't really tell what some of the shows are about from the trailers.

7. Netflix had the initial advantage of not focusing on content creation, and instead leveraged existing content. Why not solely focus on distribution instead of cutting checks to creators for original content?

These are tremendous questions! Ones we need to continue to think through, but I can share our early thoughts...

1. Content cost: Generally speaking, and assuming capital raises, we will only buy content that our subscription revenues can sustain. And over time, we do intend to raise our price as the service gets better.

2. Product: Yes, the product is far from perfect. We wanted to get in market with content, and iterate on product as we learn. We're largely leveraging third-parties to hold this thing up, but we will make improvements just as any product does. In terms of it being a differentiator, it's just that different, not necessarily defensible. But the way the market sits, we're the only ones interested in doing that. But I get your point, it's not like Netflix has a game-changing technology advantage over all the companies chasing them.

3. Content diversification: We hope to have the most, and best, black content on the planet.

4. Lack of content: Yes, we're very early, and I'm worried about not having enough content. But we will continue to add to it as we grow. We definitely do not plan to stay where we're at, but where we're at does work for our super-niche demo w/in the greater black community at this point.

5. UX/filtering/etc.: Thank you for calling those site issues out. We aim to fix those this weekend!

6. Content sampling: Agreed. We should, and will, make it easier to do that. However, the 7-day free trial mitigates that to some degree. Additionally, people generally don't just land on our site/homepage randomly. They usually have seen a trailer or come through a landing page that features (and describes) a specific show.

7. Just be a curator: Netflix also had the advantage of doing this 10+ years ago, so we can't change that. The truth is that with today's number of options, you have to have content that people can't get elsewhere. Plus, as I've alluded to in the comments, working directly with creators has been a big part of acquiring subscribers for us, and will likely continue to be so.

> it's not like Netflix has a game-changing technology advantage over all the companies chasing them.

You're kidding right? They have huge technological advantages in the areas of content production. Comments like this are why people are doubting this pitches ability to deliver. It doesn't really sound like you know your competitions strengths.

There is a reason it's the N in FAANG. They are a technology company first.

Just a thought on point number 2.

I fully agree with you that a good "product" and design is a reason for people to pick one content provider over another. It's almost exclusively about what content a provider has access to.

One particular example that I would call out is funimation. They offer a streaming service that has a very large library of english dubbed anime. Their platform sucks - missing features, constantly receive errors about needing a subscription (even when you're a pro member), sometimes specific episodes just won't player. Yet, they are still a huge player in the market because they offer content that people want.

Best of luck in your endeavor. I don’t personally have the guts to take on a space where it seems to me like Netflix could decide to squash you at any moment by outbidding for the catalog of work by other creators.

I wonder to what extent that was also true with BET, which is an obviously extremely successful outcome. (Maybe I’m just chicken.)

Again, best of luck; this seems like a really smart idea and has a team that’s got very relevant experience on at least the tech side of the house.

Yeah, the Netflix squashing us is certainly something we've thought through. We think there are 2 reasons we've got a good chance here though.

One, Netflix has to worry about competing with a lot of other major players, while also being profitable going forward, so they really can't over-spend on an audience that is likely underrepresented among their customer base relative to the global population.

And two, we think focus is big. Serving just one audience means we can do more things with content and product that Netflix couldn't do because black people are a small percentage of their base (not to mention the possible alienation as evidenced by this thread). Media is probably the industry where serving "niches" has proven the most worthwhile. We hope to follow in that trend!

I’m a brown guy and I have fond memories of watching the Cosby show with my parents as a kid. I was saddened and disappointed to learn of Cosby’s horrific behavior later on, and it sucks that the show is now going to be lost because of the main characters real life persona.

Really would love a modern day family show that is relatable and shows a successful family. Not too far fetched, but real like the set of Cosby show with the kitchen room and living room was relatable to me. Before moving to America my family with 5+ people lives in two rooms that were like 12x12. I’ve tried watching shows like Modern Family and they just don’t really carry the same weight IMO. Too rich or fake seeming.

Good luck

A lawyer and doctor having time to raise 5 kids spanning 20 years in age in a house in NYC seems ridiculous to me too.

Sure, and I'd argue modern family is even less relatable. For an immigrant family like mine, it was nice to see a successful family that still has to deal with issues and how they overcome them.

BET was a financial success for investors, but was it a success for the black community? Depends who you ask. I lean towards The Boondocks' take:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZchP89w2pJo

I never contemplated that before, just watched the clip, and saw this comment. I haven't watched BET in a few decades, I'm curious now what the recent material is like. You know any representative shows on that network that would correspond to folks dissatisfaction with the goods?

> Deshawn Brown 1 year ago If you think about.. Huey is actually right. Im black. And i think bet only breeds arrogance and ignorance.

Congrats on the launch, but you are attacking a difficult market, with a strong 'political' risk/factor as we can see in this thread. If I remember correctly there was a similar startup in YC S15 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9903229) that shutdown 2 years after (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15292534, https://techpoint.africa/2017/09/22/afrostream-shut-down/).

In streaming content is king and over priced this day due to the ongoing war between Netflix / Disney / Amazon / Hulu ... and if you read through Afrostream postmortem, the main issue is that new subscribers consume all the content relevant to them in three month (so you always have to acquire more content). I read that you plan to commission indie content, but how do you plan you be able to keep up? Will you focus more on content that is fast / cheap to product : live shows / reality TV, or do you have an other idea in mind?

An unsolicited advice : If I was in your shoes, I would look at how to use deepfake to transform some content to fit your platform. For example, by trying to change some old cartoons, where licensing cost can be reduce, to match your niche taste. This will put you in a good position for the future of content war, if it ever go the way of fully generated content.

Yes! We've talked with that founder, and he certainly let us know it's a hard business. I think the important thing for us to find an audience for the content we're starting with. We identified a niche within black audiences that we think is particularly underserved, and we're trying to meet their demand. If we can get them, it gets us to a pretty decent level, and with that MRR, we can move into another niche, and then another, and then another...

I had an idea this morning for a referral mechanism to help with building an audience- what if you gave subscribers the ability to share a specific show with a friend for free? The friend would have access to that whole show (or maybe just a season) beyond the 7 day free trial and would presumably be coming back repeatedly to the site to watch it, giving them the opportunity to see other content they're interested in and subscribe.

As a subscriber it's easier and more fun to tell people about the site because you can get your friends watching the same fun show with you without the barrier of them having to subscribe up front.

I guess it would be hard to stop people from using a feature like this to watch whatever they want without having to subscribe - but maybe a subscriber would only get a limited number of 'shares' that refresh when the sharee converts. That way someone who's sharing multiple shows with the same friend would have a limit but someone whose shares are bringing in new subscribers would be equipped to invite more and more people.

> you are attacking a difficult market ... there was a similar startup in YC S15 ... that shutdown 2 years after ...

That applies to almost every startup ever. I expect that every founder can report hearing similar feedback.

I did omit one factor that differentiates this startup, but every startup has extra risks particular to it.

Most content startups like Reddit or Youtube are extremely difficult because of the chicken/egg problem (content/website visitors). With user generated content it’s usually free or close to free to acquire - most producers are happy with an audience and will upload themselves.

This sort of startup has three problems: a constant stream of content wrapped and delivered in a pretty multi-platform product, middlemaning the production of content by building networks of producers and talent or buying existing IP and also paying them upfront or hoping they take a gamble on your platform and get a piece visitor counts, and then also finding users for the site.

Each of those require some specialization.

Deep faking art is extremely unlikely to work. There is a world of difference between "I can make this look like an original work" and "I can make this good art"

Just from an addressable market standpoint, it seems like you have work cut out for you given that you’ve essentially isolated your product to 13-14% or so of the US population. Not to mention those in that segment that already sub to Netflix , other streaming services etc.

Especially since Netflix has a lot of entertainment featuring black actors, producers etc. from the US. And a lot of Nigerian and South African productions too.

You just have to look for it.

Not everything has to scale to Netflix levels to succeed or be sustainable. Targeting a smaller market means you also won't face Netflix' bandwidth costs.

We certainly don't think this will be easy. That said, as you can probably imagine yourself, 13.5% of the U.S. population is a really big TAM on its own. That percentage of Netflix U.S. revenues would make us a very big company. That said, there is competition, and Netflix has black content too. So we will have to differentiate ourselves. As I mentioned in the post, product is one way to do that, and "super-serving" one audience can be a differentiator to when it comes to content, branding, and community. So yeah, we have our work cut out for us, but we're up for it!

I don't disagree. Can certainly build a great business capturing part of that 13.5% with great, focused content. The challenge, similar to Netflix's big challenge is discovering and securing the right content. Good Luck.

I can't understand why so many commenters here consider this launch to be divisive, or as you say "isolated"...

They're focusing on a particular cultural group to aggregate content and sponsor more... none of which excludes anyone else. Marketing niches are a core concept across the entire business world.

What makes this one niche less effective?

I never said it was divisive. All I said was from a practical standpoint the vast majority of their TAM is capped at capturing part of the 13.5% of the population.

Can they build a good business doing that? If they can discover and secure great content, then I think so.

The screenshots on the “Free episode” page give me the immediate impression the shows are low budget productions. It’s a combination of the locations/backgrounds, lighting, and the randomness of some of the frames…the out of focus hand in the first image.

For marketing, it might help to color grade the stills on the page similarly. The natural balance of the first still makes the green and magenta casts in others more obvious.

Good luck.

It's an interesting time to be doing something like this, because Youtube and TikTok have created a permission structure for idiosyncratically "indie" content to break through to mass audiences. When Youtube launched (I am old) I thought it was pretty silly, like "America's Funniest Home Videos" but without Bob Saget. But if you told me today that far more content is consumed on Youtube than on all the cable networks combined, I'd believe you.

The extent to which these things appear to people outside their audience as "low budget" might not matter, and if it doesn't, that seems like a big new thing, an idea you can play around with.

My critique is on the terms of the project as presented here. I didn't choose a random link. I clicked on one that was presented.

The page aggregates visuals. Its design amplifies the visual effects of low budget.

Even straight to video movies get boxcover art.

But your comment prompted me to look at my Youtube app. There's a lot of effort in the home page river to create visual coherence to solve the same problem.

Some of it appears to be color grading. Some appears to be sequencing similar palettes adjacent. Some is breaking up palette transitions with ads using colors that help.

A big part of it is using a title screen with text over the image...after looking at the desktop browser page.

An avant garde art project can seek to create a new form of visual literacy. That's not what this is. There are visual conventions paving the happy paths.

People might watch a drama with purple lighting without caring. But if you ask them if they want to watch a drama with purple lighting, they will think it a strange question.

It seems like most of it is going to be indie content so... they are low budget. I suspect it will be hard to win with this approach. I'm not convinced mainstream black audiences value black-centric content more than they value production quality.

When I read "Black" on HN or Reddit, it usually refers to African-American blacks, do you also have (or are looking for) content outside that region, more specifically Africa?

A suggestion: have some description of your content somewhere. At least logged out, I can barely see more than the episode title, I have no idea what any of the shows are about.

In any way, I (white) think this sounds like a great idea, congrats on the launch and good luck.

We do want this to be a global company. Obviously, we have to start somewhere, so the U.S., where we are, is a logical first step, but we already have content from outside of our region, and hope to expand that greatly in the months and years to come!

And yes, our site needs a lot of work in terms of the meta data. We're working on getting that filled in across the site as much as possible. Hopefully, the free episodes we made available have their descriptions in place!

It seems like it will be extremely difficult to cater to the American Black market and assume those interests carryover to other populations.

I wouldn't think of anything that we're planning to do from an internationalization point as being any different from what Netflix has done spanning across the globe and cultures.

Netflix doesn't cater to a specific racial subset of America though. You could become a global player in the space somehow, but probably not while retaining this mission

A possibility would be catering to local minorities and their creators in various places around the world, but that sounds like a lot of work. And here in Australia for example you'd be situated against SBS/ABC which do a lot of ethnic and minority content.

I'd also be worried anything big with wide appeal would be snapped up by Netflix et al. Here in Australia Cosby, Family Matters, Fresh Prince etc were all very popular. But this was in a mainstream way, African-American issues and experiences were largely irrelevant to us as viewers.

Just a heads up, referring to a people as "blacks" can ne seen as a bit rude. Also, I don't even want to get started on the term "African American"...

> Just a heads up, referring to a people as "blacks" can ne seen as a bit rude.

And the alternative is?

> African American

It’s such a weird term, but as far as I know it’s the term people over there use?

I'm American. The term I and others use is Black people. "African American" is typically a term people use in some weird attempt at being politically correct.

Personally, I see it as a misnomer and a way to create an other. Note how you rarely if ever hear white Americans referred to as European American.

I also feel you missed my point. I'm not saying "Black" is rude, I'm saying the term "blacks" is rude.

> Personally, I see it as a misnomer and a way to create an other. Note how you rarely if ever hear white Americans referred to as European American.

It also creates the confusing situation of having white Americans from Africa ;)

> I also feel you missed my point. I'm not saying "Black" is rude, I'm saying the term "blacks" is rude.

Thanks, though at least Wikipedia uses the term very liberally, and there are several sources cited that use the term as well, including modern ones.

My netflix feed at least has been pretty full of shows and movies that feature black stories and characters. I think they have a specific channel for this. So have the other streaming networks from what I've seen.

My apple News+ has had a black experience and racial justice spotlight - you can't turn some of these off actually.

> I think they have a specific channel for this

Here is Netflix's Black Stories page: https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/81305957

People working for a mainstream service like Netflix are wrapped in maintaining their job and catering to white people. Having a separate streaming service with curators from the Black community means more opportunity to express unpopular ideas. This means less Harriet Tubman bios and more current culture/expression.

edit: I should add that having watched a few shows like Jack & Jill (which I had never heard of until now)...I am reminded that when you have white people choose the Black actors/actresses of a show (even if they have Black employees' advice) limits the range of beauty. I forget how many gorgeous people are overlooked because they don't fit the mainstream idea of what "we" are supposed to look like in order to be seen as attractive. It's a subtle thing that permeates our children and culture and really makes a difference in perspective.

Also, the portrayal of middle and upper class Blacks is soooooo limited. I am so tired of hearing about up-and-coming poor Blacks. What about privileged assholes like me who always had a great life with plenty of opportunities? We are out here and we have stories.

Thanks for your thoughts here! I'm definitely on the same page with you! Don't love labeling ourselves this way, but by having the "gatekeepers" of what goes on BlackOakTV look like the viewers we're targeting, it opens the door for a very differentiated content and platform experience.

I am wishing you all the best and just bought a subscription. If you need software developers I can help.

I am telling everyone I know about it as well. Getting the word out and early support is key!

yah I second that sentiment, that range of beauty palette on the launch page really struck me with its "novelty" if you will. A smorgasbord of eye candy with great variance we never get served with. I love it.

What is missing here is creative ownership. That content needs to be vetted by tastemakers and producers who are mostly white. What gets funded and not funded is sometimes determined by the target demographic and in America that is usually the white majority.

Netflix and Apple gets to turn on, off, buy, sell, and change this content on a whim. They get to select what is important about black culture. Today the black experience might matter to the audience, tomorrow who knows?

Ownership is the only thing that matters in America and for black creators to get there content out there they will need to own the means of production.

I don't understand why you got downvoted. This seems like a highly relevant issue (and one which, as a white guy, I typically forget about; thanks for reminding me).

Fair enough - I think you could lead with that. The claims that shows don't have black characters - not sure that is true in current release wave.

WorldStar / BET etc - have been some channels / platforms focused more heavily on the black experience?

Those channels existing doesn't mean there isn't a market need. The grocery store I go to has a big international foods section and I still shop at the Indian market because they have a much better selection.

Most streaming services have "horror" sections as well, but I would say the majority of them are pretty lacking in comparison to a service like Shudder, which focuses specifically on horror. I could imagine a lot of the black specific sections on services being lacking in the same way.

Congratulations on YC, pursuing your dreams, and taking on an idea that is obviously somewhat controversial. Based on YouTube, social media platforms, and the Internet in general, our worlds are becoming more polarized and segregated by default whether it's from politics or sports. The end result is a fight/flight mindset when it comes to culture and identity. It's important to fight for the right balance or else we may be left with a very White & western hegemony. This pendulum is very important to track and ensure extremism is not practiced.

In my opinion, we need to recognize the voices and stories of black communities and provide access to platforms where creators and actors can express themselves genuinely. As you recognize, there's a disparity between the 90s where this was more successful to where we are at today. You could argue the black film industry has evolved and adapted from the 60s and 70s to where it's at today, not getting worse or quieter but more niche.

Is the goal to create and perpetuate insular communities of color? Is it to equally provide opportunities of mixed cultures and ethnicities? Can black creators easily showcase stories of non-black stories? Each of us lives in very different worlds of integration and has different stories we want to share. A community and platform that can address everything with transparency and sustainability is going to win because imo that's the bigger opportunity.

> else we may be left with a very White & western hegemony.

I think it's a bit too late to worry about that.

Fresh Prince was my favorite TV show of its era, and I'm not black :) If you get a catalog of content of that calibre, I think you'll have a larger audience than just black people. Good luck to you!

This is a good idea; I had the same one, it seems like an underserved market. I too miss the era of '80s and '90s black American sitcoms.

I think some recognizable shows will be needed for this to take off though. "Original Content" is a hard sell; that's why Netflix started with a AAA show like "House of Cards" to establish credibility. It's only after that they started diluting the Netflix Originals brand by buying up every half baked show out there.

Here are some I thought of:

- Roc (rare sitcom where laugh track comedy is mixed with heavy drama)

- Everybody Hates Chris

- Martin

- Girlfriends (CW)

- My Wife & Kids

Great idea, man. This is awesome! This is exactly what people should be doing--using tech to make the world better. Hope you can look back 10 years from now and think so many interesting black stories might not have got told except for BlackOak! I definitely think segmenting away from the dominant studio model is the only way to break the crazily unrepresentative nature of most of the (still admittedly great) stories in the popular culture. Hopefully looking back your move will be obviously a good idea, but one maybe no one was brave enough to do it before you came along. Wishing you the best of success to do this mission! :)

I am generally curious, when does under represented move to represented or appropriately represented?

Maybe when someone and their customers don't feel drawn to create and consume something like this?

Well that remains to be seen, and best of luck to them.

It should be obvious but when the representation in media reflects the representation in society so your population demographics are reflected in the media, not the audience demographics reflected in the media. Then you have a mass media that accurately reflects the demographics of your society.

I really hope you are genuinely curious cuz whenever someone starts the thing with "to be honest but" or "honest question" or "I'm genuinely curious" I often feel kind of scared that they're just trying to troll and trap you in their own belief system where they've already decided the. As in like if someone really has a genuine question they shouldn't have to say they do to prove that it should be obvious when they say it kind of seems like compensating for some sort of deception. Not saying you're doing that just saying that's how I feel when I see that kind of stuff sometimes.

So next is Netflix for asian americans, Netflix for blonde women, and why not Netflix for ugly people who are sick of only watching beautiful people on screen?

The good thing business wise I guess is that the market possibilities are infinite, but I am not sure what world you want to create.

So you're opposed to the basic concept of marketing niches?

Not the person you're replying to, but thinking about this question, I think I am for distribution channels.

A society based on this is running in an inefficient way, people duplicating work, not because they are competing to be better, but just because. That's got to be bad.

A society segmenting what content is available you based on your demographic (even via self selection) seems bad. We should be encouraging cross-over between different groups, not erecting barriers, such as artificially grouping content into classes targeted at a niche and making you pay for an entire class at a time.

Pay per individual item, and pay for everything, both seem like models much more likely to create a healthy society.

I guess the problem with the former model is that people don't like it, and the latter model is that it creates a few gatekeepers who decide what gets funding. Charitably this sort of niche based company can be seen as a workaround to that gatekeeper problem, but I'm really not sold in this instance (of course I happen not to be the target market either, neither being much into TV nor black, edit: nor american, so I guess I don't need to be sold).

The internet spent two decades being super niche driven (ie every music genre had its own forums and news sites, each blog had their own site, each porn category had their own sites, etc etc). Then it sort of converged into central platforms like YouTube, Netflix, Reddit, the giant porn streaming sites etc.

It seems to make no sense the way they do it and he is pointing that out.

I am an Airbnb host and once rented to a black couple for a month.

After that I had a lot of "black" content (people) suggested on my youtube.

It's a difficult(AI), but especially solved problem that only big companies have and they are obviously doing (approaching - as a small startup) it wrong...

... which is kind of a surprise, because YC is such a renowned VC/incubator.

Looking at the other startups they support lately it is sad to see what they have become: Supporting minoritie's interests for the sake of it (statistics).

"Looking at the other startups they support lately it is sad to see what they have become: Supporting minoritie's interests for the sake of it (statistics)."

They're investing for the most part in startups that have opportunities for significant growth, besides a small number of charitable ventures. Here, streaming is a big deal and starting in the US but pushing into Africa is a potential opportunity. Other recent startups have been financial plays in India or South America or similar - proven plans in new, broadly populated areas. Are they supposed to wait on PayPal or whoever to tailor their service to suit a particular country?

Do you personally read your local newspaper waiting for them to add tech commentary or do you visit and post on Hacker News?

If YC are wrong and there's little interest, they've thrown away a tiny amount of money. On the whole, they've been right, however. It doesn't cost you or I anything.

I'd rather see them try this than all of us support a streaming monoculture.

As an indigenous guy getting into film and trying to get indigenous stories made, I really love this. Hope it comes together.

Is the licensing you do for content that's already been made? I guess I was curious how the "original" stuff works for you, like if you produce it more directly or if it's more about buying the distribution rights.

Also super curious how you feel you fit into the existing ecosystems – festivals, production companies, etc. Do you have/want connections in specific parts of the film and content world that would help?

"And black creators often did not get the same chance at success that their mainstream counterparts did, leading to some black creators filing lawsuits against YouTube. Despite YouTube's good intentions, systemic biases in how non-black users treated black creators, as well as the economic realities of Black people only representing 10% of the U.S. audience, have led to YouTube never doing quite enough to address this."

Could you tell more about it? Not American here.

Non-black viewers are less likely to watch videos with black people in them.

Is that because they are black though? Without asking those people why they watched something else you are just making the assumption it was to do with their skin colour and not anything to do with the content itself.

e.g. I don't watch a lot of content with women on Youtube. Not because I have anything against women. It because the subjects I am interested in, isn't covered typically by women.

> Is that because they are black though?

Bluntly, yes. A lot of people in the U.S. are implicitly or explicitly racist. You can see this in statistics, such as 'black-sounding' resumes consistently getting less callbacks than 'white-sounding' resumes [1].

[1]: http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening%20MS%...

Not sure why this was voted down (not entirely surprised though).

Perhaps an uncomfortable truth? That said, it would have been useful, if you provided a few (of the numerous) citations supporting your statement.

Trying to avoid being flagged here, genuine curiosity…

I don’t get why black people would be interested in black on content. Would asians? Would women sign up to a platform that had only females? I’m not black but it feels insulting to black people. On the other hand, I’m aware that maybe I just don’t get it.

I mean, damn I had to come back to this. Can you imagine launching WhitePineTV - white only content and production?

I guess something to ask is if black content creators are among the most creative, and black consumers are among the most energetic and prolific users, are you only attributing their lack of success(?) on youtube because of algorithms?

If it's just a question of likes/subscriptions/shares, then the statement that they are the most energetic and prolific users seems incorrect.

If it's something else, can we identify what the problem is with some other algorithm that is not likes/subscribes/shares?

I hope your plans for blackoak is successful, but I'm not sure it solves the problem you're describing. The biggest issue is places like netflix and youtube have a huge market share, and if you are just hosting/moving content off those platforms, you risk your content creators having less recognition unless you can gain enough traction. On top of that, if you're competing in the paid streaming market, like netflix/hulu/prime/disney/etc., now you're telling your market to pay for another service on top of the things they already subscribe to.

So again, best of luck, hopefully you have plans to solve or mitigate what I just described.

In my experience, questioning the logic behind marketing-speak just gets you more marketing-speak. This seems like a well-intentioned idea, but I doubt it'll actually go anywhere. "x for y group" rarely works, "x without z problem" seems to work a lot better.

I will say that there are verticals where "x for y" group do very well - media and content and dating apps come to mind as one. It seems to work better where there's an aspect of cultural or group identity that comes along with the "Y", and I think this project would qualify as that.

> are you only attributing their lack of success(?) on youtube because of algorithms

They attribute it also to the comments. Nobody wants to deal with racists attacks every time they post something.

What's the advantage of a new service targeting black people as opposed to targeted content from Netflix? Netflix already infers what type of content you like and has a far greater content budget (or percentage of a content budget they can devote to this) than you can raise.

It's not like BET, where there is a clear advantage to having a channel with black oriented content. It feels more like a different cable provider.

If you were trying to make a YouTube competitor, I would understand that. User-generated content doesn't seem as solved as top-down development.

Are you suggesting white people won’t be interested in your content or that black people disproportionately subscribe to Netflix? Just curious. What if you inadvertently end up with a bunch of white subscribers? Would you continue to make mission driven decisions even if the best business route might be to diversify content?

Do you have data supporting the assertion that black content languished after the 90s? I feel like I anecdotally agree with your experience but I’m also curious if the data reflects as much.

>Hello Sunshine was founded by Witherspoon in 2016 to create content focused on female voices. ... "Kevin and Tom and our partners at Blackstone see what we see – women’s stories matter, and we have economic power as consumers, creators and business leaders. Their commitment enables us to double-down on our mission and our ambitious growth agenda,” Harden said in a release.

Reese Witherspoon’s Hello Sunshine to be sold to Blackstone-backed media company for $900 million: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/02/reese-witherspoons-hello-sun...

Yes, it’s very interesting that “X for Women” seems non-controversial to most people, but “X for [underserved group]” brings out the trolls en masse.

Perhaps if you tried to approach people with different views from you with an open mind and genuinely listened instead of calling them "trolls" you'd learn more interesting things.

If you study the history of the world, "tribalism" in some sense is a common theme throughout all cultures, many wars and many injustices. It might have been "Protestant vs Catholic" or "Sunni vs Shiite" or "Serb vs Croat" or whichever tribal, ethnic, religious or language grouping was relevant to the area.

In every single case, if the groups remained separated and saw one another as "othered" the problems spanned years and generations and the societies remained fractured and insecure. Only in the societies where people dropped the labels that separated them and merged into one identity did they thrive and improve conditions for all people. In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

> In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

And you think the source of this power and significance is...media streaming companies?

My point was more a question/observation as to why this is contentious, but "X for Women" is not seen as contentious.

While I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I agree with you that "tribalism" is generally problematic. However, you'll also find that "tribalism" has also been essential throughout history for the persistence of marginalized people and their cultures. There is an inherent tension in many places and times throughout history between identity and assimilation.

> but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

The issue is not the power of the identifier, but the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines.

Which brings me back to my original point, why do we not see the same ire when talking about resources directly aimed at specific underserved needs of women?

Being black, but not a woman, it's difficult for me to validate the premise that people aren't as much in arms about "women's issues" as they are about "racial issues."

However, while tribalism is definitely a thing, women are generally seen as being included in the tribe. Perhaps that's why you see it as being less contentious.

I'll also point out that this "the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines" is exactly what results from the power of the identifier.

> why this is contentious, but "X for Women" is not seen as contentious.

“X for Women” is seen as contentious. In fact, “X for Women" articles on HN often have all the same arguments, with gender in place of race, as this thread, with very slight changes, with focus on serving the unmet needs of women with regard to X painted as sexist and equivalent to external regulation based on gender role stereotypes just as this is compared to state-mandated segregated services.

This argument for a "colorblind" world view has been criticized extensively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(racial_classi...

I think it’s because gender plays an important roll in society whereas race ~~does~~ should not. Society doesn't benefit from segregating and victimizing. Society does benefit, generally, from a strong female population.

Race plays an incredibly powerful role in society. Every aspect of your lived experience is shaped by it, in fact.

From what resources you are likely to have available to you in childhood; how you are treated by the justice system; what jobs are available to you; your ability to get a mortgage despite having good credit.

I mean ideally, in a western liberal society of humans, race shouldn't matter in comparison to sex which has biological meaning and social function. Culture matters, but culture isn't race (at least not in a western liberal society).

> Culture matters, but culture isn't race (at least not in a western liberal society).

“Race” is, in origin, a mythology drawn around culture; it is either an actual ethnicity that is an in-group or an imaginary one ascribed on the basis of external appearance as an out-group. And the mere act of creating that distinction by an in-power group can create a shared experience reifying the ascribed ethnicity into a real one over time.

But, no, race is not apart from culture, but a product and aspect of it.

Sure, I agree. So why do we need a Netflix for black people? How does that help? Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it? Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?

It "helps" by satisfying a market need for a space for Black creators to tell Black stories without shouldering a burden to translate, soften, or attenuate that culture for other audiences, as would be the expectation on a mass media cable channel. It's not complicated; venues like this serve all sorts of ethnicities.

I think like many have pointed out, there's a messaging issue. I want to feel like I'm welcome, even though I'm not culturally black, to consume content created by black creators on a platform that helps promote that content. I like k-pop, I like Bollywood, I like Sister Deborah, I generally enjoy experiencing other culture. I don't need attenuation. One of the strengths of America is the capacity for cultural exchange. "Netflix for black people" does not achieve that. It makes me feel unwelcome on the platform and triggers angst related to my opposition to the idea of asserting ownership over and further segregating sub-cultures being part of the solution space. If BlackOak is truly trying to promote black cultural exchange, then don't use exclusive language. I really have no problem with a production company like BET geared at being a space to promote a given subculture. Personally, If I was the founder, I'd welcome this type of feedback even if it feels tired because the appropriate messaging may be integral to the success of the venture.

Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people". If that were happening I'd immediately be on the side of any effort to stop censoring it because I believe in freedom of expression.

They're not trying to promote Black cultural exchange. That's not the point. Rather, argumentative message board nerds are telling them that's what they need to be doing, rather than serving the customers they really need to love them. They would do well not to take that advice, not least because it is not, in the main, well-intentioned.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting about my intentions or those of people giving honest feedback here. If BlackOak is only interested in black viewers, then good luck. They simply won't be getting my money or attention, then, since I don't identify as culturally black. Personally I don't see why their (or any) platform needs to be exclusive to further their mission. If I made a "Neflix for white people", what do you think the response would be?

I don't know anything about your intentions, but this whole thread is a good illustration of, again, something YC tells people all the time: start by making something that a few people love, rather than something that everyone will like a little bit, or, worse, just not object to.

Well I don't disagree there. Maybe I've just spoken sloppily. I wish BlackOak success in their mission. And I hope at some point I can be part of their vision for audience. Everything else I've said can simply be considered feedback, which I think the founder solicited in the OP.

You easily can be part of their envisioned audience. You just have to be interested in video content that is unapologetically centered in Black culture, and that isn't burning any of its narrative fuel trying to make that cultural background feel familiar or especially palatable to other cultures. I think that sounds pretty neat, if they can pull it off with good content.

> You just have to be interested in video content that is unapologetically centered in Black culture, and that isn't burning any of its narrative fuel trying to make that cultural background feel familiar or especially palatable to other cultures.

Yes, I am. I’m not asking for content that caters to me. You don’t have to white wash your content in order to be inclusive. You don’t have to burn any narrative fuel on fragile whites. That would be awful.

I’m asking to be invited to participate. Not on my terms.. on theirs. For me it’s a subtle but significant and important difference.

They should ignore you for now. They're not going to build a business on getting fussy message board nerds to watch Black content. No part of their message should have anything to do with making you feel more welcome, or really feel anything at all.

Then we shall see if they find success. We clearly have different hypotheses in how they should approach their messaging. That’s fine.

Take a look at https://allblk.tv/. Inclusively, yet unapologetically, black. It’s not that hard and really we’re not just talking about appeasing message board nerds here. If that was the case they really shouldn't listen to anybody on this forum, now should they?

> I think like many have pointed out, there’s a messaging issue. I want to feel like I’m welcome, even though I’m not culturally black, to consume content created by black creators on a platform that helps promote that content.

I don’t see a messaging problem. I see you positing a different unmet need than the one that firm here has identified and is addressing. Which is fine, but “Netflix for people who want Black-created content but get icky feeling about products marketed to Black audiences” is, I suspect, a much narrower niche, and certainly a different niche, than BlackOakTV seems interested in serving, whose existence (to the extent it exists) does nothing to invalidate the niche BlackOakTV is trying to address or their efforts to do so.

> Edit: Want to also point out that in practice we don't seem to attenuate messaging in black pop culture. It's some of the most explicit sexual and sometimes violent content in existence and it appears all over radio, TV, and the internet. I'm not saying it's exclusively that, but it doesn't seem to suffer from expectation that it be attenuated "for white people".

Why do you think that this messaging is what you associate most with black pop culture? Attenuated messaging does not have to be universal. Imagine if white pop culture was almost exclusively promoted as Britney Spears et al., Dumb and Dumber, and slasher flicks. Is that an accurate portrayal, or a curated subset that projects a certain image?

I didn’t say those examples are exclusive. I simply said there exists non-attenuated content.

I didn’t either. Your phrasing suggest that it’s mostly violent and sexual.

I don’t think I was suggesting that.

Thank you for stating this. I was just about to write what you said.

The fact that what he/she associates with "black" culture is so negative - and doesn't seem to stop to critically analyse that - but accepts it as "normal".

At the same time, he/she doesn't understand why people from that community might want to create something for themselves - where (for once), they are the gate keepers of their own content (aka "writing their own narratives").

> So why do we need a Netflix for black people?

Someone perceives an unmet need, and seeks to meet it.

> Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it?

They could. Someone with sufficient motivation and resources to launch a business thinks they aren't. That's...kind of true of most startups—an incumbent could meet the need they are marketing too, but they think the incumbents aren't.

> Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?

The proposed offering is neither exclusive nor segregated; no one is excluding people from subscribing or segregating them.

My point is not that I think they're wrong for trying to address a market. Everybody is welcome to do that. My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people" and it's not designed in an exclusive way such that it aims to only serve a white audience. I'm probably not conveying my sentiment well: please read it more as "I'm excited about this effort and want include myself as an audience member to help promote the content they are promoting." If you tell me your service is for black people then I am excluded. My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people" since that seems racially motivated (which we agree is an expression of tribalism) and I don't find our tribal desires to assert subculture dominance to be productive in society. I view western liberalism as an effort to transcend tribalism where we treat all participate as equals rather than continue to divide into subcultures.

> My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people" and it's not designed in an exclusive way such that it aims to only serve a white audience.

Well, sure, because that's not their target market, but also because there isn't really a single predominant 'White culture' in the U.S., distinct from mainstream culture in general, in the same way that 'Black culture' was united by centuries of slavery and cultural destruction.

But you can certainly find media out there specifically targeted at people of Irish descent, Spanish descent, British descent, etc. It's just less of a mass-market thing because those groups don't have as much in the way of a distinct culture from the 'mainstream'.

There are plenty of outlets for distinctively and unapologetically ethnic content that serve other ethnicities; we don't know about them not because there isn't much of it, but because we're not the intended audience. I'm not watching any Polish-language dramas because I don't speak Polish, but they certainly exist, as do Korean soap operas and Japanese game shows. We hear about some of these things when they break into the mainstream, but most of it doesn't.

We don't even get all the English-language culture there is around the world. Easy example: most of us are totally unfamiliar with popular Christian media.

Really, the appeal being made by people objecting to this site is that Black people shouldn't have sites that nurture that kind of content, because it somehow squicks white people out. That is a weird argument to make, and not one these founders should take seriously.

> Really, the appeal being made by people objecting to this site is that Black people shouldn't have sites that nurture that kind of content, because it somehow squicks white people out.

At least some people are arguing that it should exist, but should not be marketed to the demographic it is designed to appeal to, because it squicks white people out not that black content exists, but that people marketing it acknowledge that it is designed to appeal to the unmet needs of black consumers, because white people want to buy it but not if the marketing says it was designed to meet black interests.

> My point is that we don't call Netflix "Netflix for white people"

Well, no, because Netflix is the example that defines the segment; that dominant incumbents tend to be focussed on the preferences of the dominant socioeconomic cultural segment, which is predominantly White in the United States, is...not a novel observation.

For many people, IOW, the “for White people” is implied.

> My initial comment that stared this sub-thread is that I see a social utility to having content "for women" since it's motivated by biology

Content “for women” is often not “motivated by biology”, but, more to the point...

> but I don't see a social utility to having content "for black people"

Who cares? It’s not seeking government subsidy, or proposing the existence of a social (externalized) good, its proposing meeting an unmet private need.

"Race shouldn't matter" is a fine thing to say, but is a really unhelpful principle for those people for whom it can't not matter.

Or to put it another way, with an example: I'm sure there are plenty of non-religiously-observant American Jews who would be happy to treat race as a non-entity, but that's not much of an option for them when anti-Jewish slander and violence is an ongoing part of society.

So if all subgroups are subject to slander directed at their subgroup, then why is the answer to further segregate subgroups and create segregated services that only cater to certain subgroups?

> and create segregated services that only cater to certain subgroups

I fail to see the "segregated" and "only" parts. Marketing to a particular demographic and reflecting the life experiences of that demographic doesn't mean that other demographics aren't allowed, nor does it mean that nobody else is going to be interested.

I dunno I feel like half this thread would never have even happened if they lead with e.g.

> BlackOakTV - A streaming service promoting content by black creators focused on black culture

instead of:

> BlackOakTV - Netflix for Black people

OP asked for feedback. They can do what they want with it (including ignore it).

Alas, we don't live in an ideal world - in fact, I'll go as far as saying that we live in a very *unideal* world.

It is easy to overlook this unpleasant fact though.

Huh?

> Society doesn't benefit from segregating ...

You might want to reevaluate what you wrote. The last 500 years or so (of American especially, but also most Western European - Spain, France, UK etc.) history wouldn't exist if your statement was remotely true.

X for women is controversial on HN too.

I'm just here to say that more people should check out Living Single, which gets a mention here. Particularly if you liked friends, Living Single was the original. :)

This seems like a great idea to me. Crunchyroll proved that niche streaming services can be successful, and there's already plenty of examples of companies that have succeeded like this for black people. BET, for example. Good luck!

Not all black Americans are fans of BET, or its effect on black society and culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZchP89w2pJo

Seems like there's a lot of controversy in the comments. But controversy aside:

Did any of your investors ask you why Netflix can't just add a section like what you're doing? How do you respond to that from a business standpoint?

I'd like to see the response to this question, because it was the first question that popped into my mind.

If you manage to talk to Tyler Perry I have a pitch for a new movie idea.

"Tyler Perry's Madea's Gillian's Island".

Basically, Madea wins some sort of lottery and wins a free vacation all expenses paid to a resort in Mexico with her and the gang (and tyler + his daughter, and her new boyfriend) but the plane goes down over the bermuda triangle and they end up shored up on an unknown island.

Throughout the film tyler's daughters boyfriend (who tyler thinks is a loser, gangster) has to work along with tyler to help the family survive. Madea does her usual thing, and mostly tans on the beach, complains and yells at people.

The heartwarming message of uniting in the face of disaster, combined the usual Madea hijinks are sure to make this a non-stop blast of a film.

plot twist: madea had a cell phone that works the whole time, but refused to use it in order to make the family bond.

Please get this to the higher ups as I really want to see this film made.

So; Gilligan's Island for black people

I can't find the quote from Tyler Perry, but Madea is definitely not just for Black people. All of his stories are like this: they trick you into watching because it's funny, and easy to watch - but at the same time every story also had hard to talk about problems related to things like family life, drugs, intramarital issues, and prostitution. I listened to an interview with Tyler and he called it a bait-and-switch.

Tyler Perry has already played into film tropes with Boo! and Boo! 2, where Madea gets into some ghoulish hijinks - so Madea's Gilligan's Island would be along those lines.

I love tropes, or playing with tropes more like. it's an inversion of science fiction - where sci-fi relies on changing the parameters of the world (What if we had robots? what if we had telepathy? Predict t he future? How would human life change? What would happen?), a play on tropes allows you to explore how a character you already know might deal with a situation that has been played out manifold times.

Yes, Madea is made for black people, but I'm not black, and I absolutely adore Madea films. I wish more films were made like this - it's an underrepresented category in film. It's been tried by some christian film makers, but they usually come of hard on the nose and aren't enjoyable. Or you have just straight comedies, okay fine. How about we mingle the two and use the story to convey a clear message everyone can grasp? I love it - through all of Madea's characters personal faults, and through the other characters faults, trials and tribulations, there's redemption.

Tyler perry, please make this movie.

I can enjoy TP films, for the record. I agree with those statements. Why don't you write the teleplay and try to shop it around? You seem invested in the idea!

while writing this over lunch I was thinking... wait how hard is it to write this? Turns out it's hard, and I'd have to re-read all the madea scripts to understand how the interactions work, plus I don't feel like I have a perfect handle on throwing Madea into the abyss and seeing what happens. In short, it would be fan-fic rather than genuine.

What I want is Tyler Perry & Co to write this movie.

Tyler, I don't want any money, I don't want anything more than having this film made! (you could give me a little cameo though, I'll be a busboy or something)

I have never watched a Medea flick in my life, but now I want to, you made such a strong case. The thought of a lighthearted movie with unexpected soul and a strong, positive message is so appealing.

Congrats on your launch here on HN. This does seem like a nice niche market to tackle. I think you're positioned well in the market for multiple reasons.

I'd be worried about Netflix if they saw you're growing fast, but until then I doubt they'd be a threat. If they were courageous enough to do this they would have already, so most likely they're waiting for a player like you to prove that there is a large enough market for this before they pull the trigger. And I think by that time you should be large enough that it'd be just easier for them to acquire you instead.

Second, if you build out your platform in a way that can be generalized it could be worth even more. The platform should be content agnostic so that it can be used for other underserved populations down the road.

Sweet idea and good luck!

Congratulations on your launch. It's really exciting that you are taking on content creation.

There is so much curation of content before it shows up on somewhere like Amazon, Netflix (probably even BET?) that any minority-driven content you end up with is a polarized caricature of the actual experience.

I see you guys as providing agency to different communities of black creators, to actually share their UNFILTERED perspectives.

Even platforms like TikTok do not offer this agency - evidenced by the number of videos by black creators that start off, "If you're black, keep scrolling."

I hope that creators recognize this agency and rally around BlackOakTV. Good luck to you, my friends.

Try and showcase some African content - there is big film industry in places like Nigeria/Uganda and Ghana.

There's also some fascinating stuff going on with ultra-low-budget filmmaking in Uganda (for example, entire films done for under $100, including choreographed action scenes and basic special effects). It's like a fast-forward recreation of the early days of Hollywood.

"Nollywood" (Nigeria) film industry produces ~2,500 films per year.

Both Netflix and Amazon already have a "Black Stories" category - not sure how this could have a chance against that kind of competition.

How do you solve the problem of discovery? You have a decent sized catalog for just having graduated from an accelerator. But, say, for someone who doesn't know any of these shows, but could potentially be looking for black-focused content, how do they go about finding something they like? Are any of the shows you host known independently outside the platform?

This project is a great showcase of what whitelabel streaming providers can do. Back when Youtube and Netflix started streaming, it was a huge deal technically (codecs, infrastructure, cdn). Now companies like uscreen offer this at a flat rate, and they themselves use 3rd-parties (Akamai/Cloudflare) for video storage and distribution.

I can't help but feel like everyone commenting here read the headline, brushed straight past the lengthy explanation and went directly to outrage in the comment box.

This is a streaming service set up to elevate content by black creators, to make up for the fact that the mainstream media under-represents those people. I'm struggling to see the outrage on a cultural level and on a startup level I can absolutely imagine there is a market for this.

I'm going to guess that "Netflix for black people" is not going to be the tagline the business will advertise itself on, it was chosen by an early-stage startup to catch your eye and make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people.

100% agree. How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project. We already have BET so this is just a similar offering in a different format. "Netflix for black people" might not be a good choice as a tagline, though.

> How is it racist to offer something as a business, it's not like it's a government or other public project

I've seen people suggest that censorship is only censorship if the government does it, but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first.

You might want to parse out my sentence again. There's tons of racism perpetuated by businesses but I don't think this is one of them

> but suggesting that racism is only racism when the government does it too is a first.

I think you've misunderstood this post. This is less like a "white's only" restaurant, and more like an Italian food restaurant. It's supporting a cultural niche, not excluding another.

Now I’m European, so maybe I’m not in the right cultural mindset for this, but your comparison really highlights what is problematic for me: based on someone’s skin colour you are determining their culture/heritage. What does a Nigerian have in common with a Jamaican, apart from the melatonin in their skin? Why would they have similar tastes in media?

If they're a few generations removed from their Nigerian or Jamaican ancestors, they probably don't have strong ties to their home countries' cultures. This seems true of most Americans whose families emigrated 3+ generations ago.

"The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s, which is still in living memory, so I don't think it's that surprising that there would still be measurable differences in culture and media interests.

Think about how much your parents' lives and the stories they told you are reflected in your present-day values and interests.

> "The melatonin in their skin" explicitly shaped many aspects of law, society, and culture in the US up until the 60s

I see it regularly today, as African-Americans and many other people commonly say. We can recall that overt racism is practiced in certain political groups which have expanded in popularity. Research shows that racist attacks have greatly increased over the last few years. Regarding the law, many of the laws that existed before the Voting Rights Act have been recently reinstated since the Supreme Court invalidated key parts of the Act and banned federal courts from addressing many state voting issues.

It's also not rare anymore in my personal experience, as it was before 2016. In the last month a white person told me that people with black skin were 'biologically different', which accounted for economic inequality. Over the weekend another told me, highly ironically, that 'minorities' were more prone to disinformation than white people, and that was the cause of problem of disinformation on the Internet. (For the record, I disagreed with both as effectively as I could - you can't tacitly approve.)

A significant cause of discrimination is that its impact and presence is overlooked by people who aren't affected by it. Racism doesn't affect me (directly), so it's not hard to say it's minimal.

I wasn't trying to imply racism ended in the 60s, to be clear!

I intentionally avoided discussing modern politics in order to make a stronger (albeit more limited) argument, by emphasizing explicit legal discrimination. Even if someone doesn't believe in systemic racism, it's not a point of debate that black people alive today were explicitly persecuted under the law based on the color of their skin.

Ah, that makes more sense.

I understand what you are doing now and that used to be my approach. Now, I feel that it just allows the denialist rhetoric to perpetuate. I'm not even going to call it a myth because it's such obvious nonsense, I believe even to the people that say it - it's just push-back, a tactic.

> What does a Nigerian have in common with a Jamaican, apart from the melatonin in their skin? Why would they have similar tastes in media?

They don't necessarily. Not speaking for the BlackOakTV folks here but I don't think this is trying to target all black people. The US is somewhat unique in having a large population that was ripped from their respective home countries and forced to create their own shared culture under the thumb of slavery. Someone that immigrated from Nigeria in the last decade doesn't have that same experience.

> The US is somewhat unique in having a large population that was ripped from their respective home countries and forced to create their own shared culture under the thumb of slavery.

Unique?

"Between 1502 and 1866, of the 11.2 million Africans taken, only 388,000 arrived in North America, while the rest went to Brazil, the European colonies in the Caribbean and Spanish territories in Central and South America, in that order"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Latin_America

Ths.In Cuba, for example, most people form a Cuban culture for all races.

> based on someone’s skin colour you are determining their culture/heritage.

People can have more than one cultural background, and American "black culture" is the common cultural heritage around the experience of being black in America, which has a lot of broad commonalities regardless of where in the country you are, and also locale-specific subcultures (e.g. west coast vs east coast vs deep south).

Like the whole point of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air was that Will Smith and his uncle's family had very different subcultural contexts (although their divide was less "Nigeria vs Jamaica" and more a class divide), but also shared the broader experience of being black in America.

In the US, the vast majority of black people have descended from the enslaved Americans who have been in the US for hundreds of years. When people say "black culture" that's what they are referring to. Not that recent immigrants from Jamaica and Nigeria are from the same culture.

There's the further concept that due to systemic racism, Jamaican and Nigerian culture will blend into the larger black culture than the larger US culture. And the Nigerian and the Jamaican will experience a similar American experience, very different from what an Irish or German white person would.

Ok I think I get it. Maybe more “African American” than “Black”

When an American says "black", they often mean "African American". The reasons why one would use one word over the other is usually more about social conventions between synonyms and less about trying to describe different ideas.

It's really self-centered when we use "black" to mean "African American". It's strange when it goes the other way. You'll hear some Americans call Idris Elba an African-American.

When I say "Black", I mean "Black". If I want to single out Americans, I say "Black Americans."

I'm all for dropping the term African American, unless it's referring to a recent immigrant. It's a misnomer from the past, that for some reason people consider PC.

> based on someone’s skin colour you are determining their culture/heritage. What does a Nigerian have in common with a Jamaican, apart from the melatonin in their skin?

Based on their skin color, they are treated the same way by much of society. They are often compelled, for safety and for just day-to-day peace from racism, to live in the same neighborhoods, go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, visit the same websites (where they don't have to read racist comments), play the same online games (ditto), etc. - heck, you can't even watch porn without encountering endless racist portrayals based on skin color. So people with 'black' skin have many common experiences.

Also, market segments don't have to be perfectly defined. We can always find flaws - no two people are alike; no one person is exactly alike from one day to the next.

I can help you with that:

Both are referred to as "black" (or worse), anywhere they go in the world, and both suffer the effects, prejudice and discrimination of racism - anywhere they go in the world.

Another fan fact - your hypothetical Jamaican and Nigerian, are the most likely to type "How does country X treat black people" before deciding whether to visit a country on holiday - something very few other people (if any) do - so there is a lot that binds the Jamaican and Nigerian together - the nonsensical (but very problematic) notion of "race".

HTH

Actually the courts think that a similar business, "cakes for straight people", is in fact discriminatory and also illegal.

LMAO, you're really reaching for those grapes. The courts ruled that "cakes for straight people" meant cannot be sold to non-straight people, which is in fact discriminatory and also illegal. I don't think BlackOakTV is requiring photo identification as proof of Blackness to sign-up. Stop it.

Edit: For clarity, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the homophobic cake shop in Colorado strictly on freedom of religion grounds, however religion is clearly not the factor here. And for your argument to be effective, you'd have to agree that a homophobic cake shop can't get away with discrimination simpliciter.

SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of Masterpiece on freedom of religion grounds, they ruled that the Colorado commission didn't exercise religious neutrality. It was an extremely narrow ruling and essentially kicked the problem back to Colorado to fix their commission. This is an important distinction as it results in vastly different outcomes.

Not that this discussion is pivotal to my point but the court wrote that:

>“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”[0]

Not only is that utterly unclear, it doesn't even make a distinction between "they said something that offended Phillips' religion" and "you can't make/apply laws that are hostile to Phillips' religious viewpoint". I don't think there's a queer person in America that would perceive "vastly different outcomes" from a ruling like that.

[0]https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...

> Actually the courts think that a similar business, "cakes for straight people", is in fact discriminatory and also illegal.

Remind me again which side won Masterpiece Cakeshop at the Supreme Court.

Also, there is a huge difference between denying service on a particular basis and designing a service to appeal to a particular community while leaving it open to all.

Interestingly your (mis) phrasing makes what is probably the distinctive difference.

It was actually "cakes for anyone except gay people."

It's the exclusion that gets you in hot water, not the targeting.

My favorite part of it is that insofar as the objectors identify themselves, they're (of course) white. From the OPs description, although they don't say so explicitly, it's clear that they're Black. Long history¹ in this country of white folks telling Black folks what's appropriate for Black folks to say or do.

1. And let's not fool ourselves thinking that because I've used the word "history" that it's not still very much the case.

I'm not sure you can get much more "middlebrow dismissive" than assuming that people objecting are white and the people they are objecting to are black and therefore it must be for similar reasons to why white people objected to black people in the past for bad reasons, so you can just ignore them.

Importantly, even if you're right in a lot of the instances, it doesn't actually move the discussion forward in a useful way because it paints with too broad a brush and encourages others to do the same.

> I can't help but feel like everyone commenting here read the headline, brushed straight past the lengthy explanation and went directly to outrage in the comment box.

This is most comments on HN.

Some people look for any excuse to be outraged. But I think people are more curious than outraged. I don't have any opinion about the existence this company but it did make me think. For example:

> When I grew up in the 90s, it seemed like black people had a relatively high number of TV shows to choose from like "Martin", "Living Single," and "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". It felt good. I felt represented. Unfortunately, it turns out the 90s were an aberration

I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all.

Something I've already wondered is, what if that aspect of the 90s wasn't an aberration, but a feature from a time when there were fewer channels and diversity was concentrated in the fewer places everyone watched, due to how content was structured?

And is it unfortunate that relegating "black" content to its own service gives it a "niche" status that it doesn't deserve? Am I missing out on good content because signing up for any new streaming service is a high bar and something I don't do?

Will the bigger streaming services drop the content offered by this one, so that the largest audiences lose the opportunity to see this content?

Was having fewer channels actually in a way anti-monoculture?

>I also grew up watching shows like these, and being a white person watching a black family didn't feel strange or incongruous at all.

What was weird for me was as I got older, all of these shows became just samey Horsein Around type crap on top of that I do remember at a certain point noticing a stark difference between shows that were on UPN, WB, BET ect and ones that were on say like FX, Fox, ABC NBC I'd say starting around the early 00s.

This difference became so stark, but when I was younger there seemed to be far less of a difference. Almost like we started off with the here are ethnic families, they are similar to you but slightly different. Then ended up with, here is this completely different culture that you don't understand so it no longer is going to appeal to you. You being me and me being clearly at the end not the target demographic.

In retrospect maybe the beginning was a fantasy that was never really true. My point is overall, I think I'm pretty burnt out on content that is meant to be hyper focused on identity. I hope more people get burnt out on it and realize that centering your life around aspects that you have no agency over is a waste of time.

>I do remember at a certain point noticing a stark difference between shows that were on UPN, WB, BET ect and ones that were on say like FX, Fox, ABC NBC I'd say starting around the early 00s.

I remember this fork in the road quite clearly. First noticed it when I saw ads for "The Parkers" on UPN during ad breaks for "Star Trek: Voyager." Prior to that point I'd watch hours upon hours of Cosby Show, Fresh Prince, Sanford and Son, etc. without the slightest feeling of otherness. I am also white.

Would someone explain what changed for the rest of us?

The headline does not say "black creators", though. Which is regrettable in a way; it's throwing away the biggest and most interesting differentiator about what they're actually trying to do, and replacing it with a source of gratuitous controversy. "Black creators don't get a fair chance for success in media and entertainment, and we can help address this" is a great insight, the stuff a YC launch can be made of; "Black people should consume different content that's only marketed to them", not so much and will obviously create controversy.

I get your point. We're here for black creators too, but our customers are black viewers, so we'll always put them first. But of course, there is no demand without supply, and black creators are at the heart of what we do, too. Fortunately, we can serve both entities!

I think you need to "soften" your messaging - in order to calm all the "pearl clutchers" out there.

Remember the first law of the 48 laws of power - you are still a minnow playing in the huge pool, and you have to appeal to ALL (if not MOST) of the current gatekeepers - who would not be as passionate about this as you are.

If you have any "fangs", this is not the time to "bare" them.

My advice is to be less explicit in the beginning, and use careful "dog whistles" in your messaging to target your audience - have you not learnt anything from history?

What's good for the goose, is surely good for the gander too.

BTW, I support what you're doing, and wish you all the success, you've just got to be more subtle with your messaging - as all the bleating in here suggests.

>This is a streaming service set up to elevate content by black creators, to make up for the fact that the mainstream media under-represents those people. I'm struggling to see the outrage on a cultural level and on a startup level I can absolutely imagine there is a market for this.

If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it. There's a reason for MotorTrend to shift into cable and on-demand, Disney, etc. The market can get slice 'n diced in a million ways from the Left Handed Channel to TrannyTV (for transmission specialists naturally).

>make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people.

Heck, it (Netflix) doesn't serve me, and I ain't black. It's a pity that they can't run out and buy rights to a jillion older movies, but I guess everyone is still loathe to license them (or too expensive).

> If you find any niche that makes sense, go for it

Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity?

Just because it is branded “black” doesn’t mean it won’t perpetuate harmful racial stereotypes, such as “being black is the most important thing about you as a person”. In fact, it would have every reason to amplify that message to keep and grow their “segment”, regardless of its psycho-social consequences.

>Even if it meant objectifying people into a market segment just to make money, under the branding of empathy and identity?

Not to be rude, but what do you think a 'market segment' is? What is there besides market segments? For that matter, what is there besides money? at least in terms of the entertainment biz.

> Not to be rude

On the contrary, you’re making my point.

I feel it's necessary to identify myself as black to provide some context...

The objectification already exists. This won't change that. It will, however, hopefully result in more content existing for a market that's hungry for it.

OP also identifies as black, so I trust that they understand that branding their product as "for blacks only" will only hurt them, even within their market segment.

> ... and make you think about the ways in which Netflix does not serve black people.

Or also just get you to talk about it, because controversial.

Can any French, Belgians, or Dutchies with significant Black African sub-culture comment? I am curious: If there was a French-language or Flemish-/Dutch-language "Netflix for black people" in your country, what would be the reaction?

French people of African descent are not culturally the same as American Black people. Black culture is unique in that it was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing.

But, of course, there are TV stations for all sorts of ethnicities all over the world, so the answer to your question is just "nobody would care except message board trolls".

"Black culture is unique in that it was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture."

That certainly isn't unique.

I don't think my point is "no other group of people has endured what Black people have". At any rate: I don't think I have much more to say about this that would be relevant to Uzo and Iyanu's startup, which is neat and deserves the attention.

I interpreted it as the culture was unique, not the way it evolved, but re-reading it, I can see how you interpreted it that way, too,

> Black African sub-culture comment

Africa is both one of the largest and one of the most populated continent on earth. There is no Black African subculture in France. There are African immigrants from many different places in Africa each with their own cultures and many descendants of immigrants with a mix of sensibilities towards the culture of their parents places of origin.

As a French, the idea that you could have a "Netflix for black people" in France slightly insulting but our culture is extremely different from the American one. We used to have a channel dedicated to the cultures of French oversea territories but it was stopped as it wasn't doing very well.

You may find further comments here :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9903503 ("Afrostream (YC S15) Is Netflix for African and African-American Movies")

In France blacks don't really have a different culture, except when they carry their own from their country of origin, sometimes passed into french-born blacks. It's not like in the US where (it seems) there's a clear black-american culture with visible boundaries.

Blacks of different origin also have different cultures.

I mean, if one tried to start up a netflix for blacks in an european context, with the same leiv motiv as this one (political) it would be very difficult as different blacks come from different backgrounds.

They surely share stuff, to a same degree one would say white europeans share stuff too.

Also, I haven't discussed this issue with black people, but my gut feel given their reaction to other stuff is that the suggestion that they have a "different culture" to the country they live in may even be offensive to them.

Since the american worldview is always trying to get influence through media and the internet, this may be changing with newer generations.

The US is a somewhat unique case because of (of course) slavery, and in particular how long it lasted and how difficult it was to eradicate the last vestiges of explicit or implicit slavery. (People were still being treated as de facto slaves into the 1960s, for example: https://www.livescience.com/61886-modern-slavery-united-stat...)

In most other countries, including other countries that practiced slavery, either more of the original cultural of Black residents remains intact, or there's been more time post-slavery for a united-by-slavery monoculture to more visibly break up into smaller subcultures, or both.

There has to be more, because in Europe, and particularly in southern europe there has been slavery for thousends of years. Everyone has been slave to everyone, like a free for all.

Yet there's no one making claims based on that, and I'm not aware that such claims existed in the past neither. People just accepted as a fact of life and moved on.

If you look at how all the relations played out between southern europe, the Ottoman empire and northen africa in general, you'll see this isn't from so distant past.

A lot of black people arrived in Europe comparatively recently, the last ~60 years or so, and often from a specific country rather than the vague concept of "my ancestors several hundred years ago came from somewhere in Africa, but who knows where exactly?"

Besides, not all forms of slavery are equal; what made American slavery fairly unique is that you were born in to it, was for life, based on skin colour, and was an important part of society/the economy.

While the general concept of slavery goes back to before history, this particular combination is actually fairly rare as far as I know. In modern Europe slavery was never part of society in the same way (i.e. you didn't have a slaves in England or Belgium, just the colonies), and in more ancient times slavery was a lot more "flexible" (detail differ greatly) compared to US slavery, in some cases being a temporary thing as punishment or crimes etc.

There has only been one time in human history where slavery was "racialised". The whole concept of "race" was invented to support this kind of slavery.

The descendants of people who bear the same skin hue of the formerly enslaved still have to live with the stigma caused by slavery.

This (and in many other ways as pointed out by the last commenter), is what makes the effects of the Translantic slavery still reverberate today - because people are still judged by skin colour because of that precedent that was set back then.

I don't know why this has to be continually explained to supposedly intelligent people - wilful ignorance?

> I don't know why this has to be continually explained to supposedly intelligent people - wilful ignorance?

Not everyone is from the United States; reasonably sure the person I was replying to isn't (I'm not either).

In America, I'd expect "Black African sub-culture" to mean the culture of recently-arrived immigrants from Africa. That's a very different thing from black American culture, which evolved under an entirely different set of conditions over the last few centuries. Significant differences exist between native-born black Americans and recent African immigrants in terms of median income, educational attainment, family structure, and mainstream cultural assimilation. CNN wrote an account of these differences in 2009 which I couldn't imagine them publishing today:

https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/14/africans.in.america/index....

>Ezeamuzie recalled finding himself more confused by his experience with some African-Americans: Why were they so cliquish? Why did they mock students for being intelligent? Why were they homophobic and bent on using the n-word? Why did every conversation seem to involve drugs, girls or materialism?

Are you aware there is a significant cultural divide between African Americans (many generations) and one or two-generation immigrants from the Carribean of Black African origin? When I lived in New York City, I was surprised to learn about this significant cultural divide. Most Black Carribean people who immigrated to the United States are much high class and education than African Americans.

There is also a significant divide between Brazillians that immigrate to the United States. If you are five generations removed from Germany, but born in Brazil (essentially 100% Caucasian / white), there is a huge social gap with mixed and Black African origin Brazillians. I was also surprised by that in New York City.

Really interesting and radical idea. Having content specifically for a black audience seems so controversial at first but could be a great way to include black people more in pop culture. I think there is definitely demand for this: both from producers and viewers. If such a service existed it may even help cross-cultural knowledge sharing.

I read a good comment here from a netflix employee about the technical challenges. DRM seems like its going to be a bitch. Would be a cool startup to work for though

Can you also get those 90s shows back in your platform? Martin, Fresh Prince, Roc, etc. Uncle Phil the pool shark. Also, In Living Color. Have classics and new content too.

I'm curious about the visual design - if you're catering exclusively to black people how does that influence your design decisions?

Black Entertainment Television[0] exists, I don't know about US TV, but UK TV has lots of other Black-oriented channels.

How do they fail to meet the standards you've set for yourself?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BET

When it comes to tech, look around for Netflix as a service providers out there so you can just focus on content. One of the bigger ones I know is https://www.accedo.tv but I am sure the commenters will help you find more.

I would suggest increasing the contrast on your text and button colors. Also maybe adding a transparent-to-black gradient on the hero video? The copy above it is hard to read while it is loading. Best of luck with this enterprise!

Late reply. Sorry.

Have you considered integrating meta data?

I'm always switching back to imdb.com while watching shows. Keeping that inquisitive traffic on your own site might help with engagement, building communities, etc.

PS- imdb.com sucks. You can do better.

I'd be very interested to know how many paying users you guys have already.

Right now it feels very amateurish. The landing page is not that bad, but only once the video actually starts playing. Before that when your logo is just frozen. It looks very bad. The copy can also be better.

The Initial Dashboard UI looks really bad. I'm very confused why you guys have such a thick menu bar at the top with a cyan like background color...

On top of that you guys have very few shows, and all the shows seem like web series I'd watch on youtube for free...

Also please fix your categories, right now it's showing the shows name...

I think you guys should really consider just making your platform free for a while until you get some traction.

Seems like an interesting idea but executed very poorly so far... Hopefully that changes in the future :D

I'm not in the target market for this product, but the hostile reaction it's engendered would kind of seem to be its own advertisement for its utility.

A great discussion, now lets support this new enterprise.

This really strikes me as multi-level genius. Kudos to you and your team getting to launch. I look forward to your service!

It feels like people (early on in this thread) are more offended because of the chosen phrasing in the title? Are those same people offended by BET?

With the accompanying explanation by Uzo0312, how is this racist?

"For black people" does not mean "Not for any other people". I want to watch great content and if Blackoak produces it, I'll watch it like I would with any other provider.

The fact that they'll encourage and fund more black creators seems like a great thing. I'm sure there are funds out there for women directors, are those sexist?

Netflix for Women focusing on stories with female leads or with female directors doesn't sound offensive to me either.

Good luck with Blackoak, it seems like there is a great market for it and it will elevate black creators.

My issue with "for black people" isn't that it's exclusionary against other races, but that it implies all black people are a culturally homogenous group. Just changing the description to "Netflix for black creators" would be more descriptive of the actual service, and doesn't imply "if you're a black person, these are the shows you should like".

I agree that there are better possible taglines for the service.

Right or Latin Americana television stations? Or St. Paddys day?

Celebrating a culture is not racist.

Not even Spain is homogeneous (each Iberian region is highly prominent), just imagine all the Hispanic subcultures all over the Atlantic.

I'm not at all offended by BET or BlackOak.

But, be honest: would you be offended by a "The White Network - A Network for White People", with a mission/focus on white, traditional European culture? Would you similarly interpret this statement to "not mean 'Not for any other people'"?

For many, the divisiveness isn't from the existence of such channels and networks -- it's from the double standard.

Best of luck with your endeavour!

Are you going to cater to other minorities? Asians, LatinX, American Indians?

I love the look of your site. Very slick. Hope you crush it.

This is a great idea! Looking forward to checking it out!

ITT: People who don't understand American history getting all mad about something that has existed forever (Black entertainment) because everything must be a culture war battle to them.

when does a headline imply a derogatory connotation? would another racial url be as inflammatory? http://beta.rican.tv

would a religious or political headline carry the same explosive implications? http://beta.christiancrusader.tv http://beta.jew.tv

Congratulations on re-inventing UPN

UPN went through many phases, and I enjoyed them all!

Missed opportunity: Blackflix.

Here are a few thoughts:

Content saturation is a slow moving train and higher quality content just has a slower race to "free" than other content. To combat free, you need to control the content. Netflix had to aggressively reinvest into its own exclusive high quality content to avoid someone outcompeting them on the same content at a lower price (which the owners of the licensed content could do). The more effective they are at growth, the better control they have over maintaining the licensing advantage which allows them to stay relevant as a cultural hub.

There is so much high quality culturally important content now that almost nobody can afford to pay for it all, which makes cost a concerning gatekeeper for culture. Additionally, television's linear nature and technological inferiority meant it was doing a poor job of providing the kind of access to content that people were becoming used to.

Now there are several services providing access to large collections of free movies and TV shows, but there are still plenty of classics missing in their libraries which feels like leaving history behind. You aren't the only one that noticed the TV of yesteryear has become harder to find and it's far from being only black content.

Unfortunately for premium content the situation may be even worse, as the competition is causing fragmentation and I think this fragmentation has an outsized negative impact on already under-represented niches that become even more thinned out as a result. In this case the fragmentation is more problematic, because black households have lower average incomes, yet the higher fragmentation increases monetary pressures involved in accessing the content across paid services. Look up people's favorite old shows, then see which streaming services have them and there are splits between Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Sling, etc.

There's already a lot of black content, but user friendly discovery and access are very real problems. The licensing of some existing content below a threshold might also be less valuable for the smaller audiences when you're facing stiff competition. The upside of this is that companies can compete by funding new projects (which they are doing), but of course those new projects are then exclusive which doesn't help unless they're exclusive to the service that everyone's already subscribed to.

_____________

So with those things said, where does BlackOak fit in this picture? It doesn't have control over its underlying technical infrastructure since it's based on a middleware service. The free originals I've seen on the site so far are relatively low budget and while some of it is interesting, there is clearly inexperience around the areas of production, acting, scriptwriting, editing and so on.

There's more effort put into them than typical YouTube videos, but the entertainment value is not that dense yet and I'd put the perception of it as very inconsistent even drooping to awkward improv sketch quality. Simply being original content doesn't feel like enough when YouTube has so much original content that has less than 1000 views and BlackOak still exists as part of the internet which keeps it in competition with other content on the internet. There are definitely some actors in there that I'd be interested in watching more of if the whole thing was snapped together well, though.

I think if that quality trajectory is maintained, it would be difficult to keep viewers around through advertisement interruptions if you transition to free. The subscription cost is low, but my guess is if you hide the content behind a sizzle reel then people might pay for a month just to check it out and then not return.

If you can't invest more funding into those types of projects, perhaps you would be better off funding projects that already have lower budgets so you can increase the quality. When the content comes across as inauthentic in scenarios where the actors can't pull it off, then reality TV type approaches, interviews and other formats might have better success where people can play more loose. Unfortunately, unless you get really lucky, you're going to need some decent funding to hit a critical mass with whatever content you make or license and if you can't build that kind of confidence in investors then you may be better off pivoting to something you can create demand for.

_____________

Not a fan of the name, logo, domain, messaging, confrontational activist vibe or site design, but those aren't a big deal until you have content that draws in viewers unless potential future investors are also seeing it as their first impression of you.

_____________

Personally suspect blackness alone isn't enough for black audiences to dive into an upstart platform as the market isn't completely devoid of black content, I think it's just that there's a feeling of there not being enough of it in the public places that are deemed most visible which make some feel less culturally relevant. This same issue can apply to anyone, regardless of the characteristics they're measured by. YouTube's algorithmic sleight of hand can make people feel culturally relevant by drawing people to content that's relevant to their interests and letting you see a lot of other people engaged in it. Race is clearly not irrelevant and stronger racial culture can make it more relevant, but the relevance of it is probably greater in some contexts than others.

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Pluto, Sling, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, advertising companies and so on are in a better position to address that I think. If you can maintain the funding to be relentless and create a critical mass of content then you might eventually be able to flip that prediction to become an observable public place. My guess is that African descent purchasing power will continue to increase over time around the globe and companies will find a way to capture those dollars as they always do. If you can navigate the insights to be one of those companies, then give it a go! There are a lot of classic shows with black actors that aren't on any streaming service anywhere, so opportunity does exist.

Competition is good. Good luck!

Netflix is already Netflix for black people.

Sort of.

Wait until they find out about Nollywood movies or TV shows which is also available on Netflix.

I find that the Nollywood producers seem to be having a good time exporting their culture and making themselves relevant as far as possible with the success of several Nollywood actors that have become memes themselves with a huge following.

That's what the viewers want to see, not more stories of some recent fraudulent political movements.

I feel like this encourages a divide.

You do know that conventional TV has had this for ages? Ever heard of BET? Why shouldn’t different cultures have different media that highlights stories that resonate with them?

HN makes me realize why so many black people find the tech world hostile and stay away.

How does it "encourage" a divide rather than just represent a divide that exists?

Edit: This feels a bit like the idea that showing children stories about gay people would somehow "turn them gay".

By creating thought bubbles exactly like social media

That implies people who subscribed to this service would entirely stop watching other content. But you don't think that, do you?

Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit have all succeeded in creating social/thought bubbles and they aren’t even targeted at one niche. I don’t see how niche distribution sites adds to it either.

I just have some skepticism about juggling so many different pieces in order to get this to work.

There is no inherent divide. If this was marketed as only for Black people, other races are not welcome to watch, sure. If this company was vocally against Netflix and demanding Black people watch this instead, sure. As far as I can see neither of these are true - this is a service aimed at delivering a certain type of content.

Does the existence of ESPN encourage a divide between those who like sports and those that don't? Do Spanish-language channels encourage a divide between people who speak Spanish and those that don't?

If they plan on engaging in bidding wars with Netflix for exclusive content (as all streaming services tend to do), won't they tend to deprive Netflix and other streaming services of content featuring black people? Since this service is inherently more niche than Netflix, it seems like that's going to result in black stories being harder to access for your average person. And given subscription fatigue levels, "just subscribe to this service for X content" is a hard sell these days.

That is an interesting point I hadn't considered.

It seems to me that, unless this new service will be in the business of directly funding or creating their own content, it would be morally wrong for them to engage in exclusive content agreements.

Considering there IS a divide, that there is a distinct American Black culture, that has gotten suppressed by way too many of us...

This is a great way to encourage representation and sponsor more content within the culture, for everyone to enjoy as they see fit.

E.g. - Do you feel like the existence of ESPN forces a bigger divide between people who like sports and those who don't?

If not, what's the difference? Each is a cultural group - one just has a history of being violently attacked and suppressed...

Offtopic, but not being from the USA I have real trouble understanding the concept of "blackness" in that country. What does it mean, exactly, to be black? Is it a genetic, a phenotypic or a cultural thing? How is it determined whether mixed-race people are black? And what about trans-racially adopted children? Does a black kid adopted by a white family become white? Does a white kid adopted by a black family become black? If two mixed-race siblings have different tone of skin, can one of them be black and the other white? I cannot manage to answer all these questions simultaneously without blatant contradictions, unless I assume (apparently, wrongly) that "being black or not" is not a partition of the set of all people.

In my country, in europe, it would seem that being black is not an identity but merely a physical characteristic like being blonde. I have never raised the issue explicitly, but I guess my black colleagues at work would not appreciate being classified as a different identity just for their skin color.

How does your country fare with its perception of Romani "Gypsies"

It's definitely a 100% cultural thing. I know a "mixed" couple and they have chosen to raise the kids as "non-roma", much to the chagrin of a few elders on the roma side of the family. It could have been the other way round. It also helps that the skin color is not different, and pretty much anybody around here can "pass" as roma or non-roma just by adopting a few mannerisms.

I think people who are being downvoted in this thread have valid points, and they’re not really critiquing the company, rather the problem seems to be your messaging.

You shouldn’t say “Netflix for black people” because Netflix is for black people already. Moreover if I start selling boxed water called “water for black people” with black stories on the carton, I’m unnecessarily limiting my audience (even alienating some) just via my poor choice of name.

Ironically, some of those alienated are going to be black people themselves - such naming will certainly stir memories of the segregation era, don’t you think?

This is an easy fix. Make it “Netflix by Black People” or “Netflix by Black Creators.”

by, not for

I don't know. I think "by" implies creation/ownership of the company in that case, but the important part is what it provides, not who owns it. Just like the GP, does "Water by Black (Whatever)" really have a draw? Some people may want to support people they identify with, but I think most just want a good product, so the trick is making sure that product is easily identified for those that are interested in it.

Maybe trying to call to associations with BET is enough, and something like Black Streaming Entertainment (BSE, to avoid possible problems with BES) would be enough? Although if it's free, to my eyes BlackStream seems like it would be ideal.

My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t.

Restaurant for Italians. Suggests that non-Italians don’t belong here.

Restaurant by Italians. Suggests that Italians make the food here and that it’s not for a particular group.

> My point is more that for somewhat implies exclusion, while by doesn’t.

I'm not disagreeing with that specific point. Just making a corollary that by doesn't necessarily identify what it is in all contexts, as it's more ambiguous depending on where it's used. For a restaurant, it's fairly obvious because we have prior assumptions about the service. It it was laundry, the assumption might just be it was advertising itself as a black owned business. For a streaming service? Probably more on the side of how a restaurant is seen, but why even court that confusion? Most restaurants would avoid it as well, and call themselves Soul Food or some other moniker that clearly communicates what it serves as opposed to who runs it.

"Restaurant by Black People" might communicate something about the restaurant enough to most people, but it's also just a poor choice of description all around. Netflix by Black People is similarly a poor description, IMO.

Maybe they could call it "For Us By Us"

You make it sound like segregation end... the last few years, and especially the state voting laws passed in the past year, show that while it may not be explicit law anymore, it is still certainly what a lot of people are fighting to do in any way possible.

I (as a middle age white male) WANT people to be thinking about because it's still happening 24/7, and people who aren't bigoted should be aware and pushing back every minute, in every way they can.

Saying "X for black people" is a cultural focus, on the same level as "Finnish music" or "Flamenco dance" or "Swahili language".

It's not though is it? "black people" are not a cultural group are they?

American black sorta kinda is, and I think Americanized thought leaders on all this stuff are muddying the waters immensely.

> sorta kinda

I think the muddying consists of the fact that conflating physical traits with cultural identity means that any criticism of the given culture can be and is frequently labeled as racism.

They are; not one group but many (still distinct from "non-black").

I don't think it's possible or reasonable, particularly in the US, to assume or associate cultural identity with physical traits.

They very, very much are.

try getting a recent kid book focused on black culture but that isn’t also racist and try to portray white peoples as evil. I have not been able to find any.

Strangely Telemundo/Univision's American arms don't have to deal with this type of criticism. The "for" is clearly indicating a target audience, not that you can't sign-up if you're not Black with photo identification, which is the courts' criteria for illegal discrimination and segregation.

Spanish-speaking is not a physical trait is it?

Majority of Black Americans are a distinct shared cultural group, like Hispanic folk, who come in many different pigments, also like Hispanic folk, who also tend to have an identifiable manner of speaking and protocol, also like Hispanic folk.

The problem is that while "hispanic" indicates a linguistic origin, "black" (like "white") indicates a physical trait - having skin pigment past an arbitrary threshold of darkness/lightness. You can be black and hispanic, or white and hispanic. You can't be a white black american, even if that accurately describes your skin and culture respectively.

Also, you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category. The African immigrants I know want nothing to do with "american black culture" and resent being associated with it.

Finally, in order to be able to discuss these issues clearly, it's important to have distinct terms. If someone wants to criticize "american black culture", they cannot do so without being labelled as racist, despite that fact that criticism of cultural practices is generally accepted.

Basically we have two concepts:

1) Being "black" - being of african descent and/or being above a certain threshold of darkness in skin pigment. We should not tolerate discrimination for being black. It's also worth noting that this sort of categorization of people into black/white is not very scientific.

2) Belonging to American slave-descended culture. You can belong to this cultural group regardless of your skin color. We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices.

These two concepts need different names. I'm aware "slave-descended" isn't an ideal (if accurate) name, so open to suggestions here.

No, Black culture is not simply about skin tone.

That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.

It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?

>That was... my point? My point is that "black person" is a problematic and overloaded descriptor. It can imply a cultural group ("american black culture") to which a light-skinned person can belong (can't they?) and which it should be tolerable to criticize.

I literally wrote "Majority of Black Americans...who come in many different pigments"

> It can also imply a simple physical descriptor of traits belonging to African-descended people. Is an ethnic Nigerian born and raised there black? Do they belong to "American black culture"? So are they black and not-black at the same time? Do you see the problem(s) here?

This is why I wrote "Majority" but you should also consult a Nigerian-American

Let's try it this way:

"A lot of hispanic countries have problems with drug cartels, crime and corruption"

vs.

"A lot of black communities have problems with drugs, violence and poor educational outcomes"

It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?

Because Black communities aren't countries.

OK, replace "countries" with "communities" - my point stands.

No, it doesn't; if you replace countries with communities, the other statement becomes immediately and obviously problematic.

Really? Would you care to elaborate as to why? Why are larger groups (countries) criticizable and smaller groups are not?

Maybe, if we keep parsing for the rest of the day, we can solve all of racism on a message board thread. But because it's unlikely to happen, and because this isn't the purpose of this thread, I decline to try.

> It's pretty easy to accuse the latter statement of being racist isn't it? Not so much the former though huh? Why do you think that is?

I'm not sure that it's easy; it depends on the context. As we know well, many racists use conceivably non-racist criticism to find ways to denigrate African-Americans, so it's important to be careful and sensitive to that.

But the big difference is the vulnerability of the groups. If I post on HN 'software developers are morons' or 'SV billionaires are morons', it really doesn't matter. Devs and billionaires aren't in danger of losing their jobs, being subject to hatred, etc. But if I post that '(vulnerable minority) are morons', that's a very different matter - they are in danger.

> As we know well, many racists use conceivably non-racist criticism to find ways to denigrate African-Americans, so it's important to be careful and sensitive to that.

This, of course, deeply depends on your definition of racist/racism. If I criticize some behavior that happens to be more prevalent among black americans than other americans, to some people that simple fact makes that critique, and thus me, a racist. That's the problem with the modern definition of racism. It's an ex-post-facto evaluation and it's way too easy to slap that on to pretty much whatever you want.

> But if I post that '(vulnerable minority) are morons', that's a very different matter - they are in danger.

No, they're not. I don't know a single reasonable human that would read that comment and go immediately fire '(vulnerable minority)'. Come on..

> If I criticize some behavior that happens to be more prevalent among black americans than other americans, to some people that simple fact makes that critique, and thus me, a racist.

You'll have to talk to those people, whoever they are. What I'm saying is that actual racist behavior often uses arguably non-racist arguments to attack African-Americans. It's an obvious and well-used tactic.

> No, they're not.

Hate speech spreads and promotes hate, of course, and that is dangerous to vulnerable minorities. And yes, people lose their jobs because they are minorities.

You think some boss reads a forum comment and then goes and fires their minority workers the next day because “hate speech”? I’d say that bigoted boss is the problem. Seems like a stretch to me..

It's a stretch that people are fired (or not hired) because of their race, and that racism is not spread through speech? How else do ideas and influence spread, if not through speech?

Here, it clearly denotes American Black culture.

I'm not sure "Netflix for Black People" clearly denotes anything at all.

You didn't have to guess; you could have just read the detailed post instead of jumping to comment after partially metabolizing the title.

I'd say the very fact that you have to read into the detailed post to understand which "black" is indicated in the title supports my claim that the term is problematically overloaded.

You are expected to read the posts on HN before commenting. It's one of the norms of the site. This isn't a newspaper article; it's a post they wrote specifically for us, in our norms. You should not feel good about trying to litigate this at their expense.

I did read the post. It doesn't however detract from my claim that the term is overloaded.

We're here to talk about the startup they're launching, not about this. Again, I don't think you should feel good about trying to score points like this.

Yes indeed, and discussion of the title of the startup, and how it fits into the wider social landscape is very much relevant here, don't you think?

Also if you are under the impression I'm writing to score some "points" I can assure you you're mistaken.

> you're problematically lumping all sorts of people who happen to have dark skin into a single category

United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone for over 400 years; the GP didn't invent it today on HN. It's already been done and well-ingrained. If your skin is black, many people will treat you differently, to the extent that you may be subject to violence, many won't hire you, loans are more difficult to obtain, you'll experience stereotypes and racism regularly. In the end, rather than deal with danger and abuse every day, you end up living in the same neighborhoods, socializing with the same people, going to the same schools and restaurants, visiting the same websites ... to make your daily life peaceful and safe. As I mentioned in another thread, you can't even watch porn without encountering endless racist stereotypes.

As a result, while you may not think so and there are always exceptions, Americans with black skin share a lot with each other.

> slave-descended culture

What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)?

> We should be tolerant of criticism of this culture's ideology and practices.

Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical. More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not. It's obviously easy, and often done, to say things that are arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism.

Also, criticizing groups seems inherently stereotypical. An at-will club, such as the Libertarian Party or local Linux User Group, is different. But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible or at fault for some stereotype which may have nothing to do with you (and usually are false and often racist anyway). Let's look at people as individuals, responsible for their own actions.

Finally, there's a lot of effort to create space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?

> United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone

Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?

> What evidence do you have that this defines a cultural group (whatever that is)?

From tptacek in another post:

"Black culture ... was created artificially by kidnapping millions of people from the African content and stripping them of their cultures, family ties, and names, prompting those people to construct a new culture (while uniting them for another 100 years in the experience of apartheid and the civil rights movement). It's its own powerful, interesting thing."

I have a hard time disagreeing - it seems to be a distinct cultural group.

> Few people share your distinctions, so it's impractical

I disagree. I would say many people are able to make the distinction, and the lack of appropriate terminology to discuss it is universally frustrating.

> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.

It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue, not the inherent traits of the people, unless of course we can prove some genetic predisposition to cannibalism.

> arguably non-racist but critical in order to encourage and spread racism

Yes doublespeak is a thing, but that doesn't mean frank discussion should be off the table.

> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible

I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?

> space for criticizing black people. Why is that important? How about we focus on the overwhelming problem, racism?

Because these are intrinsically related. As long as we can't disentangle the criticism and solutionizing of very real problems with black culture and ideology from racist bigotry against black people we'll never solve the problem. As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.

>> United States society has been problematically lumping people together based on skin tone

> Wouldn't the best solution to this problem represent a rejection of such categorization? Wouldn't that necessarily exclude "X for Black People" in the same way it excludes "X for White People"? I'd like to live in a society where skin tone is no more important than hair color. Surely the best way to get there is to de-emphasize skin tone and therefore "blackness" and "whiteness"?

That would be ideal and I want to live in that world too. I also want to live in a world without war, but for now I support having a military because war is still a thing. Today, tomorrow, and likely for years to come, African-Americans do and will suffer from racism and are stereotyped into a class by much of society. Also, they should do whatever they want; who are you and I to tell them what to do? Why do they need your approval?

> As long as black people are in a special class that's protected from serious criticism they can never be equal to the rest of us.

That's not at all what puts African-Americans into a different class and makes them be seen as unequal by racists. The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause; the discrimination and classes is already there; the question is, how do we provide 'liberty and justice for all' to the people in that class, as best we can, while it persists?

>> More importantly, it's impossible to distinguish criticism that is racist from that which is not.

> It's quite easy. If you criticize a practice of cannibalizing visitors then it's reasonably clear the culture/practices are at issue

Again, it's not; you call it double-speak.

>> But being born in a neighborhood to a culture doesn't make you responsible

> I would say that it exactly does. Who else can be responsible for a culture's practices than the people who maintain and perpetuate that culture?

How do you know if that individual 'maintains and perpetuates' the culture - culture being an undefinable, changing thing, defined by you? And if they do, what about you and I therefore maintaining and perpetuating widespread racism, which is common among white people, and which is probably the worst evil of American history?

Why is it so important to you to criticize other people's business? How about we focus on our own 'culture', conduct and its consequences?

> Why do they need your approval?

They clearly don't. I'm just pointing out that "X for Black People" seems to perpetuate and deepen racial tension and division, rather than helping alleviate them. It's moving the needle in the wrong direction, much like a nuclear arms race would.

> The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause

This is not at all clear, and is hideously complicated (see below). To what degree are cultural practices prevalent in (some) black neighborhoods responsible for outcomes?

[1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_anal...

[2] https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv19.pdf

[3] https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/116/32/15877.full.pdf

> Again, it's not; you call it double-speak.

Yes but as I said, its existence shouldn't take frank discussion of the table.

> How do you know if that individual 'maintains and perpetuates' the culture

I'm no cultural anthropologist, but if an individual engages in a cultural practice that they learned from the cultural group they are a member of, then they can be seen to be perpetuating that practice.

> And if they do, what about you and I therefore maintaining and perpetuating widespread racism, which is common among white people

It's quite simple: I don't engage in the practice of racial discrimination or bigotry, in spite of the fact that it was a common practice among my family and community. I have therefore identified a cultural practice which I consider wrong (or just plain dumb), and consciously chosen not to engage in the practice and not perpetuate it. I am thus an active participant in the evolution and stewardship of my culture. I expect the same from everyone else.

> Why is it so important to you to criticize other people's business? How about we focus on our own conduct and its consequences?

These are not mutually exclusive. I'm not aware of any issues with my conduct. However given this topic's overall popularity, polarization and the aforementioned problematically overloaded terminology, I find it extremely beneficial that these conversations be had in whatever forums can support them. To me, this is what depolarization looks like.

>> The racists and systematic racism are the overwhelming cause

> This is not at all clear

This crosses the line into absurdity. Have a great day!

A bit strange you're not even willing to entertain other causes, or elaborate a even little as to why this is absurd, no? This stuff isn't exactly universally agreed on, academically speaking.

Just for context those channels are more culturally specific than “Spanish-speakers” it’s basically Mexican which isn’t interchangeable with Spain or Bolivia for example.

Telemundo was founded by Puerto Ricans/Boricuas in Miami FYI, and both expressly target the Hispanic public in America with content of various origins.

> people who aren't bigoted should be aware and pushing back every minute, in every way they can.

Nah man, I think just being not-bigoted and intolerant of directly witnessed bigotry is good enough.

It's hard to tell how serious you are, based on the first couple of words, but that tactic seems to have failed. Racism is widespread and, according to some data and personal experience, has broadened and deepened in the last few years.

If we want something to change, we'll have to act. African-Americans are only ~1/7th of the US population - not enough to make changes themselves.

Oh really? Black americans are totally disempowered to make any changes at all? I couldn't disagree more, and object to your denial of agency to these people.

If I'd said that, I'd agree with your response. Have a great day!

"African-Americans are only ~1/7th of the US population - not enough to make changes themselves"

- wolverine876

I'm saying it is enough. It's always enough.

>You shouldn’t say “Netflix for black people” because Netflix is for black people already.

Judging from the Netflix recommended videos and casting for Netflix originated shows, I'd say that goal has been achieved at this point.

You do have to wonder how overlooked Spanish speakers must feel. That's probably where the real money is in 'Netflix for xxx people'.

I think any 'foreign' demographic would be a rather big hit. I know plenty of folks who watch just one or two foreign language stations, because that's all that really cater to or interest them.

There's definitely been more movement in the space, but it's still really lacking. I can't imagine it would cost a ton to license most foreign content for the US, which they currently have 0 percent market share of.

I feel like I have read about a similar YC startup before. Search brings up afrostream.tv - how did they fare, and what is different? https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/afrostream

Not that there can't be more than one.

For non-blacks, what would be recommended shows to watch to get a feel for black culture (or your vision of black culture, I guess)?

Edit: it seem Afrostream shut down in 2017 https://techpoint.africa/2017/09/22/afrostream-shut-down/

The solution to this problem is very complex and occurs once you scale. The companies facing this problem are big and have the resources to solve it. The solution is non-trivial and requires a lot of smart engineers and AI. All the huge companies have actually solved this problem in reasonable ways. It's what "the AI revolution" is all about. It's kind of a solved problem + heavily in the making. To try and approach this problem as a startup is just the wrong approach from a "sequence of events" and also "logical" perspective: You have to build something else successful first and then adjust/expand into multiple markets. Silicon Valley is not about targeting niche markets. It's about capturing one, ideally big market (typically "the us market") first and then expanding into others (typically all the countries in the world). The market for black people content (~12% of the us population) is "one of those" "subsequent" markets.

This just makes me sad. We seem to be returning to a segregated society with separate services for every ethnic group. It’s not the “melting pot” idea of America that I was raised with, where everyone contributes their own unique culture to a unified American whole. That was the brilliance of American identity, which is now fracturing at an accelerated rate.

It was never a melting point. It was always a mixed salad.

The concept of “white” is a consequence of the melting pot idea. I had hoped that eventually we could expand from White/European American to just American, a broad identity not based on race at all. This would have solved the injustices of the past and built a more cohesive American identity.

Instead we seem to be going backwards. 2050 New York City might look more like 1900 than 2000.

The concept of "white" is not a consequence of the melting pot idea. The concept of "white" was explicitly born as a way to justify enslaving and treating a group of people as property for generations.

If one wants to solve the injustices of the past, its important to actually acknowledge the reality of those injustices and how they feed into modern day. The "melting pot" theory I suspect was always a form of injustice in of itself, because it expected people to simply forget what happened to them and accept that they'll never get an apology have amends made for them.

Most “white” people in America today were not considered so 100-150 years ago. Irish, Slavs, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Jews, Levantine Arabs, and pretty much everyone other than English, Germans and French.

My point is that this identity was expanded to be inclusive in order to build social cohesion. That was a good thing, but now let’s rename it to just “American” and include all ethnic groups, instead of going backwards.

French-Canadian were too considered like most other catholics as different and undesirable : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_in_Maine

Yep, White used to be more or less synonymous with WASP. White Anglo Saxon Protestant.

Most "white" people in America today were never treated like property the way black people have been in america for generations. Most "white" people in America have never dealt with the degree of dehumanization that occurred to black people in America. The degree of what has happened to black people in America is overwhelmingly moreso than any other race save for Native Americans.

It's extremely important to acknowledge that the barriers to social cohesion for certain races are significantly higher than others. We are in living memory where black children had to be accompanied by the military for their protection because they dared attend the same school as white people.

I didn’t say it would be as easy for everyone. Just that this is a better route (melting pot) than a return to separatism.

I’m struggling to see how your comment relates to what I’m saying.

The word ‘white’ means a lot of different things. Those groups may not have been considered white socially but they were always legally white for the purposes of immigration, not being enslaved, not being subjected to Jim Crow.

As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Greeks and Eastern European Jews, as well as Poles and other Slavs.[1][3][4] According to the US Department of State's Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Of course they didn’t have it as bad as black Americans, but that isn’t the topic of this discussion.

> "[white] identity was expanded to be inclusive in order to build social cohesion. That was a good thing.."

Social cohesion largely as a means of sharpening anti-Blackness and of labor control, particularly during and after the defeat of Reconstruction and due to growing relevance of the industrial organized labor movement. Du Bois did an immense amount of work critiquing pretty much exactly this.

The entire history of cultures becoming Americanized was not purely an anti-black project. The history of Jews in America is a good example and they were subject to Ivy League quotas well after WW2.

FYI in 1900 it was illegal for Black folk to occupy the same commercial spaces as European Americans, and were relegated to designated areas in many public spaces, and that wasn't because Black folk wanted to, or imposed that law.

Your "melting pot" interpretation concretely just means "they should not be different or receive different things than me".

Your "melting pot" interpretation concretely just means "they should not be different or receive different things than me"

No, it doesn’t, and that makes no sense. The melting pot idea means that everyone works toward a cohesive national identity and recognizes contributions from everyone. It doesn’t mean that every group should be separate and excluded from each other.

Separate and excluded? Bruh, they're not requiring photo identification on sign-up as proof of Blackness, LMAO, lotta people in this thread are reaching for them grapes. I hope you sign-up, maybe you'll like some of the content.

Lemme ask you another question since we're asking silly questions: should Telemundo and Univision be illegal to broadcast in the US because its not in English (cohesive national identity, right?)? Cause that's what you sound like.

Who said anything about it being illegal?

You are being sarcastic and not engaging in good faith.

> Who said anything about it being illegal?

Sure, lets deescalate: are their broadcasting in America and commensurate content choices discriminatory or working against a cohesive national identity?

> You are being sarcastic and not engaging in good faith.

But I find the last bit ironic

This is HN, not Reddit. Snarky one liners aren’t welcome here.

In response to your question, yes I would hope that as Latinos continue to become a larger portion of the population, they join the overall “American” culture and influence it. Not remain as a separate group with a separate language and separate media.

If you look at the statistics, this already happens. Second and third generation Latinos identify more as American than as Latino.

Can you provide a definition for the 'melting pot' idea that you were raised with?

The first paragraph defines it well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot

Thanks for the link. It seems like the melting pot idea is old enough that it's defined in the same narrow way that "all men are created equal" was in the Constitution.

American multiculturalism up until WW2 was English, Scottish, Irish, French, Italian, Jewish and Greek. Strictly European, yet still featured plenty of discrimination within those tiers. The discrimination didn't end because people magically became more enlightened, it ended (or at least was greatly reduced) when the marginalized groups assimilated into a more homogenous "American" identity, which defaults to 'white'.

It's not clear where non-Europeans fall into this melting pot concept, because most are not racially ambiguous and cannot claim to be white. Most scripts will not have a protagonist of a specific race. But in casting, it will simply be assumed that the character in question is white. Because melting pot or not, that's what everybody's default is.

> It’s not the “melting pot” idea of America that I was raised with, where everyone contributes their own unique culture to a unified American whole.

Then I don't understand why your response to someone trying to create a platform to express their culture strikes you as "Fracturing."

Because it’s encouraging separatism. I would much rather have a startup that promotes black creators to the broader culture than one exclusionary by design.

Looking at top musicians, artists, and other cultural figures, it seems to me like this is already largely the case. Hip hop sales come in large part from white people. I want more of this cultural sharing, not isolationism.

I didn't really see anything in the design I saw as exclusionary!

> because we appreciate the HN community taking time to hear our story, for a short period of time, we’re making some of our original black TV shows available for free on our site

Like thousands of business before them they're marketing to an audience but it seems like they're more than happy to build a broader audience.

It's not cultural sharing now, it's appropriation. See also the endless monologues about dreadlocks.

Remember that twitter isn't real life. For every college freshmen tweeting about the sushi counter being cultural appropriation, 98% of people disagree.

Just because someone is loud and inflammatory does not mean their views are widely held.

Unfortunately, it isn't confined to Twitter. Now a family friend is giving her kid crap over wanting dreads.

You seem to think there is a monolithic "culture" that needs to be augmented. This has never been the case. There are always a dominant culture that is not necessarily named and multiple subcultures per minority group. Why are folks more sensitive to black sub-culture manifestations in the US vs other minority groups?

America does have a relatively monolithic culture and this translates into its businesses, government, and everything else. This is easy to observe if you live outside of America.

Are you being serious when you say America has a relatively monolithic culture? Relative to whom?

Yes, by and large Americans have the same basic values and interests. The most popular entertainment figures, sports, musicians, and other cultural elements come from a very wide range of backgrounds. Values like individual freedom or the importance of voting are fairly universal among Americans.

As I said, this is easy to observe from abroad, where there is no space to differentiate between black Americans and white Americans. They’re all just Americans and they mostly act the same way.

While I agree with "not wanting separatism," I find it infuriating that the burden of analyzing and debating "separatism" (or etc) always gets foisted on the minority or marginalized populations create a space for themselves. And relatively never the mainstream, dominant culture and institutions that have left out, pushed out, or outright exploited them in the first place.

Having a separate platform per “culture” (although what culture is “black”? That’s a skin colour) definitely sounds like a fracture to me

Separate but equal

The lie you’ve been fed is that America was ever integrated.

The melting pot is a goal and a living idea, not an idealized time in the past.

And yes, groups of white Americans that were hostile to each other a century ago are now so integrated that it’s not even thought about. An Italian Catholic marrying a German Protestant was a huge deal in 1900. Today it is nothing.

Your example of European immigrants is noted but isn’t really relevant to the racial tensions between Blacks and Whites.

interesting, so by analogy just as as those disparate groups got subsumed into a larger one in some rough identity integration thing so too we would hope to further widen that group to join with other groups to subsume everything under the sun where group divisions are no longer even perceived. The whole "just one race" sort of thing I'm imagining.

I think that is probably the best outcome for the US, if it wants to remain as a unified state for a long time. If not, then separatism eventually leads to a divorce. It’s happened before in world history, it can certainly happen again.

Black people mostly aren’t immigrants and it’s not fair to demand that they assimilate if they don’t want to. America forcibly enslaved black people for hundreds of years, then excluded them from our society and political process for a few generations, it’s not surprising that they developed their own culture.

Assimilation implies giving up your culture for a new one. That isn’t the melting pot idea, which is about giving and taking.

Otherwise I don’t really get the solution. Don’t try to integrate different cultures, thereby continuing to exclude them?

To be honest America is still pretty segregated and always has been.

Neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, literature, theaters, and religious institutions are segregated. Black people are still being harassed or worse for being in the "wrong place" at the wrong time. I assure you whatever racist events you hear in the media is just the tip of the iceberg.

I grew up in one of the most racially and culturally diverse places in the US "a true melting pot" and the neighborhoods were still segregated by race and ethnicity.

The cultural contributions you are talking about are mostly selections made by white tastemakers who vet who and what is fashionable for the time. Sometimes to improve marketability they will replace minorities to make the material palatable.

The only thing that matters in America is equity (ownership not fairness). In order for black people to have equity they need to own it.

> It’s not the “melting pot” idea of America that I was raised with

I remember that song from Schoolhouse Rock too. But if as an adult you sincerely believe the US has actually been a "melting pot" at any point in history, you are deeply misinformed. What about Native American genocide, slavery, the Chinese Exclusion Act, Jim Crow, internment of Japanese-Americans, redlining, or mass incarceration sounds like a "melting pot" to you?

I am not American but the overwhelming majority of the media I consume is American. Given the near hegemony of American popular culture, that is likely true for millions of non-Americans. All these people consume American content because they find it enjoyable and at some level relatable despite living in very different countries and not speaking English as their first language. At the end of the day, the human condition is universal in spite of the cultural frameworks in which it is experienced. I find it absolutely mind-boggling that Americans feel unrepresented by their own media because of the colour of their skin.

its not too hard to find people explaining that they do, and why they do (just google "representation matters" and im sure you'll find a lot). sounds like youre not open to learning about other peoples experience, or you simply dismiss it as whiny

I think its clear by your statement that you have no idea about America.

Please don't be an asshole on HN. If you know more than someone else, that's great, but then please share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. If you can't or don't want to, no problem—but then please don't post poisonous putdowns. They just make everything worse.

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

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

This is a bit reductionistic and over-sells American media. People in other countries may watch American-made media in addition to their own country's media, unless it simply doesn't have any. Foreign media, is also just that: foreign media. It's an entirely different context when watching, say, dramas made and set in Taiwan or Korea.

The fact of the matter is that in American media, most of the actors, writers, and producers are from one group in terms of looks. How is it "mind boggling" to think about how it feels to rarely see someone who looks like you in popular media (and almost never for leads in films)? Or when someone like you is depicted, it's usually a tired trope or racial stereotype?

America is extremely diverse and yet our media disproportionately represents one type of person, and only very recently has begun to correct itself. It's easy to say "hey, we're all Americans", when most people in media look like us. Would you say the same thing if most tv shows and nearly all lead roles in films were solely of Asian-Americans? The answer is clearly no.

Unless you live on a huge country (china, india, russia, etc), for an ordinary person, they will consume more media from the country that influences them, than their own country.

Big productions are in a huge % american media, national media for some ~40million population country, limits itself to talkshows, entertainment world, sports and so.. not movies, series or sitcoms

General Motors got strong armed by a black media group made up of billionaire media owners for not spending enough advertising dollars on TV companies owned by blacks. Make no mistake this kind of stuff is usually about the dollar bill more so than "representation".

Even if that were true, the racial disparities in income and especially wealth remain large. It doesn't seem untoward to advocate improvement there.

I think a certain geographical segment of America (coastal areas mainly covering NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, Miami, and a few others) is frequently portrayed in the media, but this segment of America is not actually representative, and over-represents itself.

The context you're missing here is that "Black culture" in the U.S. really means "a blend of many African cultures of only poorly-known detail, plus a dose of some parts of western European culture, as heavily mediated by slavery and discrimination". It's associated with skin color most predominantly because that's the connecting factor for most people who were stripped of their original cultures and forced into slavery.

“X for black people” sounds so bizarre to me(non-American). The cultural divide between the people must be insane.

I feel like the cultural divide may be encouraged by certain groups. There's money to be made in market differentiation.

Completely agree, especially since it would be pretty easy to reword things to focus on the diversity of the content as opposed to the intended audience, thereby removing the divisiveness inherent in the title.

"divisiveness inherent in the title" seems wildly overblown to me. Isn't identifying an underserved audience and marketing to them like a cornerstone of business? Do you feel that hair products marketed toward Black people are divisive? Subscription boxes for millennials? Shoes for moms?

This was my first thought as well, an I'm American. Word to OP, this is a catchy title but I would be really careful going out of the gate with that kind of slogan.

> This was my first thought as well, an I'm American.

However, X for white people is often the default case and is left unsaid. As an American you should be well versed in this. No one is saying that non-black people cannot watch the content, the implication is that the content it is tailored for black people.

I'm just being honest right now, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, but this is brilliant right now in this moment.

These are entrepreneurs. Their job is not to teach everyone melting pot kumbayah culture. Their job is to make money for themselves and their investors. After about 35 years of travel and living I'm intimately familiar with Africa and Asia. There are changes in Africa right now. Changes that feel much different than any changes I've lived through previously, and this product strikes a brilliantly resonant chord with those changes. People, particularly the 18-35 demographic in Africa, will eat this up. They get some black american and african celebrities along with someone like Wode Maya on this thing, and having blackoak would become a status symbol in Africa. At least among the young.

Sure, not great for global society, but awesome for business. Only people who don't realize how quickly Africa is growing would think otherwise.

It's more understandable when you think about the Irish Troubles. The Black-White issue is really an interethnic conflict.

"Neflix for Protestants" and "Netflix for Catholics" would be considered similarly unhelpful.

Both will be VC-financed and need to increase viewership. So Popeflix starts a series about the heroic exploits of a Provo brigade bombing British garrisons. Prodflix responds with a series about a crack Specials unit that hunts down the coward bombers mercilessly because the nationalism works.

In another timeline this has already happened. We merely have Governors Abbott and DeSantis and Delta Covid.

"for Black stories" would be a positive way to phrase this.

Calling a it a "Netflix for Black People" works for a informal elevator spiel; it shows that they squarely target black American viewers. "Black stories" is used by Netflix and Hulu.

I wouldn't call it a cultural divide (despite what our media wants), I would call America more a collection of cultures and I love being exposed to multiple different cultures just outside my proverbial front door.

That said, this is a great idea and I wish this company the best. I'd love to see something similar for the Hispanic community, as well.

>I'd love to see something similar for the Hispanic community, as well.

24/7 Caso Cerrado, let's goooo

"Netflix for black people" implies that the color of someone's skin determines so much about their personality that they need their own separate streaming service to watch shows on. I don't see how this is any improvement over the existing streaming services that already include a ton of indie content from a lot of different cultures.

They explictly say that they're trying to break out of homogenous black programming. Obviously being black doesn't correlate to a consistent personality, but it does in many ways lead to a shared experience that someone who is not black has not had.

I can certainly see where saying "for black people" doesn't sit well with a lot of people. However, that's exactly who we're targeting with the content. That doesn't mean it has to be exclusive. Most of the lyrics in rap songs are generally by black people and intended for black audiences, but it doesn't mean other people don't love it, can't appreciate it, or shouldn't listen. It just means the artist wanted to reach a certain demographic, a demo that was also likely wanting to hear an artist that spoke to how they see and live in the world.

> Most of the lyrics in rap songs are generally by black people and intended for black audiences, but it doesn't mean other people don't love it, can't appreciate it, or shouldn't listen.

We tried "rap music for white people" and we decided we preferred the rap music for black people :D

do you really mean rap for black people or rap from black people?

It was a joke my friend :)

BET wasn’t offensive me. Telemundo wasn’t offensive to me. Nickelodeon wasn’t offensive to me. Food Network wasn’t offensive to me.

Serving targeted programming to an identifiable minority audience seems like a perfectly reasonable business (and social) proposition.

I don’t know that “Netflix for Black People” will test well, but it seems perfectly fine to me. [white middle-aged male if context matters].

Edit to add: It seems like Fubu* is another extraordinarily successful story that used a similar Black solidarity message and targeting to positive effect.

* "For Us, By Us"

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

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

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'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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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!

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.

> 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

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.

Yet "nightclubs for white people" is incredibly offensive.

I don't know what country you're from but if you don't think there are subcultures in your country under-represented by the dominant media I'd assert you're almost definitely wrong. Perhaps it feels a little strange from the outside that such a subculture is definitively "black" but yeah, that's basically how things are in the US. The country has a deep history of racism and black people being literal slaves, in that context it isn't surprising that a distinct culture developed.

But I don't think the divide is anywhere near as insane as you're imagining. People don't just belong to one culture and ignore any external infulence. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. people all watch the NBA, NFL, watch Marvel superhero movies, so on and so forth. It's just that everyone also has additional niches.

I used to believe that media representation didn't matter. After all, fictional characters are fiction, why should I expect them to look like me?

Then someone pointed out to me that my favourite super-hero was Spider-Man because Peter Parker is a 20-something loser, just like me.

Miles Morales is one of the most successful new Marvel characters too.

But there's something authentic about Miles when other characters feel like pandering.

----

Nick Fury Junior is technically a newer character. (The original Nick Fury Senior is white). They just handwaved the difference by sticking a junior in the name without elaboration though.

------

Black Panther from the 70s is definitely pandering lol. But the writers were good at it. (Blatant pandering isn't necessarily a bad thing in the right context)

Yeah people used to say video games and violence on TV had no effect on people -that is was just made up worlds and allowed people to role play, etc… now they are admitting there is influence and it does affect people…

How does it influence real life?

And as time has passed they've found more and more that they were wrong -- where on earth is this comment coming from. Seen so many sources contradicting this over the years.

As a teen in the early 90s, I distinctly remember significant campaigns against violence represented in TV, movies, video games, and music. There were several congressional hearings demonizing Mortal Kombat, rap music, Doom, etc.

Now as a parent with a tween and younger kids, my understanding of the current state of the science is that there still is no overwhelming consensus on increased violence related to media, however it seems to be agreed that aggression is linked. 30 years later Mortal Kombat is the number one fighting game franchise of all time, and murder rates are lower and violent crime are relatively unchanged.

> 30 years later Mortal Kombat is the number one fighting game franchise of all time

Smash Bros and Street Fighter are probably more popular actually.

Mortal Kombat really, really sucked between 3 and 7. MK started to get good again around 8, but really it was "Injustice" (which used Mortal Kombat's engine) that made people start taking MK seriously again.

MK9 is a modern, competitive fighter. But its not as well respected as other games: Street Fighter, Tekken, Smash Bros even. Japan has a real arcade scene (or at least, it did before COVID19 struck), so the games that have proven themselves in the public arcades are more fundamentally competitive than American games like MK9 or Killer Instinct.

I dunno how Smash Bros became so popular though.

----------

Honestly, the extreme violence of Mortal Kombat is a big turnoff to the competitive crowd IMO (much like the extreme "sexiness" of Dead or Alive is also a turnoff). Its good for carving out a niche, but... I don't think people actually like seeing the characters they attach themselves to die.

-----------

There was a study I saw: its not that violent video games cause violence. Its that violent individuals choose violent video games.

In a mainstream setting, you'll just gross people out with a lot of the Mortal Kombat stuff. I think kids like it (because they like seeing their parents get grossed out). Otherwise, when adults get together to play fighting games... "Injustice" seems to be more popular than Mortal Kombat, despite Mortal Kombat being the mainline game and Injustice the DC-superhero "skin".

---------

Now that I'm an adult, here's my viewpoint on the whole thing. Children like breaking taboos. Adults don't like it when Children break taboos (children should listen to Adults). I feel like Adults sometimes make up stories for why children should listen to them, but this only encourages more taboo-breaking behavior from kids. That's why Mortal Kombat is such a draw for me when I was younger (I knew my parents didn't like it, but that was part of the charm).

Similarly, I see my sister freak out about her daughter playing Mortal Kombat (despite me and my sister playing MK back when we were her age) and turn off the game. My sister claims that the improved graphics make it different... but my eyes see the same thing. Her daughter likes breaking taboos and sometimes not listening to her mom, and playing MK is an avenue to do so.

> I dunno how Smash Bros became so popular though.

It's accessible (no crazy button combos), fun (at a party or whatever), and not really "violent" in the same way that Mortal Kombat is bloody as hell. Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.

When you really think about it though, Smash Bros history is just filled with anti-competitive changes.

> It's accessible (no crazy button combos)

Melee is not. You need to consistently wavedash into double-shine combos while foxtrotting to remain competitive. Every landing must be L-canceled (especially during combos). Its a horribly inaccessible game, and was all we had for many years.

Following Melee was Brawl: where "tripping" was invented to randomize the game and piss off competitive players. The most popular "Brawl" was the version people __hacked__ to rebalance the game (taking advantage of the Epona glitch from Twilight Princess to install the Homebrew channel: you can remove tripping and arbitrarily rebalance the Brawl game entirely). It wasn't until Smash4 (WiiU, 2014) that players got an actually competitive game.

Smash Ultimate is finally a very, very good game. But it makes no sense to me why the Smash community stuck with it through the Melee and Brawl years.

> Cartoon violence, not realistic simulated violence. I think that's a major driver.

I think that's a good point. The Smash series (and Marvel vs Capcom series) was timid on violence and sexiness... focusing mostly at the "cartoon" level that was mainstream and acceptable.

The other fighting games leaned into violence (Mortal Kombat) and/or sexiness (Soul Calibur's Ivy, Street Fighter's Cammy, KOF Mai) to try to get some appeal, but I think that lowered the chances of the wide mainstream acceptance.

Smash was always a "Kids" game, and therefore safe for kids to play. No reasonable adult would turn off the game or otherwise be worried that their kids were playing that game. Marvel vs Capcom was at a similar level.

https://www.denofgeek.com/games/mortal-kombat-best-selling-f...

Edit: Mortal Kombat’s major advantage over Smash is that it’s available on every platform. I think Street Fighter’s problem is that Capcom doesn’t bump the version, so it’s non obvious how Super Street Fighter V Arcade Edition is different from Street Fighter V (which also had a bungled release).

Of the three SF would be my preferred franchise, but sales suggest WB is doing something right.

Hmmm.

Not that I doubt your stats. But Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken and so forth were largely arcade games.

MK2 was an arcade game for sure, but later MK games dropped out of the arcade scene.

Smash never was an arcade game.

I have to imagine that a lot of players paid one quarter at a time to get their Street Fighter skills. But MK players (especially recent ones) are console games. So I'm not sure if copies sold is the best metric.

90% of American men feel like losers. Nothing special about that. Life is boring and hard.

You wrote: <<<I don't know what country you're from but if you don't think there are subcultures in your country under-represented by the dominant media I'd assert you're almost definitely wrong.>>>

Agree. I could imagine Netflix-for-Turks streaming in Europe for overseas Turks!

Or a Netflix for Gypsys. I've always found it amazing how many Europeans will berate Americans for their discrimination and then turn around and talk about how to best get rid of Gypsys that show up.

Or literally sterilize them.

So just like the US against Latin people until very recently. Or Canada. But not under a fascism regime like Franco, but under a self-called democracy, which is far worse.

Everyone feels for the plight of the Gypsies, right up until they move caravans onto the park behind your house.

Or Gypsy women themselves fed up of their own backwards machoist culture.

Most well educated gypsies are being frowned down by their own relatives as if they became "non-Gypsy traitors" and they often run away from their own ghettos to never, ever come back.

That never happened in the US with Black people, even in the worst racist laws in the 50's. They even tried to live with the same rights as the White people.

Gypsy people in Europe, at least the tribalistic ones want to secede from the society, as a reverse MLK and live by their own rules, having those priority over state laws.

I heard it is better to say Roma people now, instead of Gypsys. What do you think? (My old co-worker was from Romania and explained it to me. And I have see positive propaganda adverts in Italy explaining the same.)

Turks in Europe tend to watch Turkish TV and prefer Turkish language, so there's not really a market for Netflix-But-Every-Actor-Is-Turkish in $europeanLanguage.

I suspect you were aiming for sarcasm, but such a service would succeed in Germany, for sure.

No, I was not being sarcastic. I was trying to think of a parallel example in Europe.

It depends on where parent is from. There are a lot of relatively monolithic countries from an ethnic perspective.

To the broader point, I think what Uzo is talking about is "representation."

Which doesn't just mean "some type of person on the screen." It means the full diversity of experiences and aspirations of that type of person... on the screen.

Living Single isn't Friends with African Americans.

It's African Americans put in the situation of Friends, and then living their own similar-but-unique story in that situation, informed by cultural differences. (IMHO, it's also a helluva lot better of a show)

The 90s had a lot of shows about middle class, successful African American families.

That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.

And the lack of aspirational and affirmational media that speaks to every person is absolutely a problem.

I couldn't agree more! You want to do PR for us?

Not sure I'm a good fit, but if you want a younger voice I've got a precocious 13 year old daughter... ;)

Eth bro dot co at gmail

For what it's worth, the "homogenized" also means that the "white people TV shows" don't represent white people but rather a sort of lowest-common-denominator that can appeal broadly but not accurately represent anyone including white folks (except perhaps some SoCal types). They happened to feature white actors/actresses, but recent efforts to diversify casts haven't manifested in an improvement in quality.

> It's African Americans put in the situation of Friends, and then living their own similar-but-unique story in that situation, informed by cultural differences. (IMHO, it's also a helluva lot better of a show)

Living Single was a good show because, unlike Friends, it was actually funny.

> That kind of... stopped. Once TV got homogenized and distributors realized that African American viewers would watch shows about white people, but white people weren't as happy watching shows about African Americans.

But let's be nuanced about this - I don't think that skin color is the real case. Everyone watched Cosby (and for the sake of discussion let's ignore the current situation with him). My (white) heavily bigoted/borderline racist grandmother watched Cosby. He was America's dad and loved by everyone. I think the real problem was that black characters weren't put into shows that represented widely popular, aspirational American ideals or lifestyles, which Cosby had (nuclear family with professional parents and kids dealing with kid stuff). If you want to say that really doesn't represent the majority of the black American experience you wouldn't be wrong, but it also doesn't represent the majority of the white/Hispanic/Asian American experience either. It was something to aspire to.

Those sorts of mass-appeal western values-type shows, IMHO, will be some of the best bridges to build in regards to race relations.

Building bridges between communities is good, but it isn't the singular goal of storytelling. There are plenty of stories to tell that aren't wrapped tightly around the mission of making Black people seem cheerful and unthreatening to America, just like there are plenty of stories to tell about about Irish people that are about the complexity of Irish people just as human beings with human stories that happen to feature distinctive aspects of Irish culture.

I'll watch a movie set in Scotland just because I think Scottish culture is super interesting, regardless of whether that movie aims to make Scotland seem charming or "well integrated" with my own culture.

But the thing is, nobody (at least in America) expects a show about Scottish people to shoulder the burden of holding up a bridge between Scotland and the world. But there is a sense (at least in America) that the cultural success of Black stories is to be benchmarked against the Cosby Show. Which is weird, when you think about it.

> the mission of making Black people seem cheerful and unthreatening to America

Implies that America thinks this way. Again, nuance is needed.

The explosion of (largely greenbean, but to your credit yours isn't) concern trolling on this thread certainly supports the implication. On HN one might have expected more discussion of business models, technology, etc. Instead we have wall-to-wall "don't you know it's racist not to pretend that race has never been a thing in USA?"

It takes significant historical events to shed the consequences of past significant historical events. The past is exactly that but that doesn't mean we can escape it. People with half a brain know and understand this but (if I'm understanding you right) there's also a lot of using it as a club in these types of discussions. We'll never get away from that without some significant shift in the collective frames of reference. My comment was more a challenge on the wording used in

> the mission of making Black people seem cheerful and unthreatening to America

_seem cheerful and unthreatening_ is in particular what I take umbrage with. That implies that America finds black folks threatening which is why there better be some deep clarification in that statement. But on it's face who really thinks this way? Only ignorant people and true racists have this perception. As far as I can tell that percentage is low.

As far as the business goes I think there's more opportunity in casting that wider net like Cosby or more recently The Neighborhood and creating more appeal for a larger audience. The model of "Netflix for black people" immediately excludes about 86% of the population. Some non-black folks will subscribe, and giving a very liberal 16% of that share they are still excluding 70% of the potential population. This doesn't mean that they won't be successful though - Tyler Perry basically does the same thing (though not overtly so) and he does pretty well for himself. If I were an investor I'd have to examine this under a microscope before jumping into any investments. But who knows? Hopefully they will do well.

The apparently simplicity of marketing new Cosby Shows in the mass media is the whole premise of this startup; it's "Netflix for Black people" because the bet is that Black people will appreciate a space in the media where they can simply tell stories centered in Black culture which aren't freighted with the need to bridge cultural divides. There is a time and a place for bridges and also for enclosures.

You are certainly welcome to subscribe no matter who you are, and you might well do that if you're interested in stories told in a Black context --- for the same reason you might have been super interested in watching Babylon Berlin even if you don't even speak German. Or you might not. That's one of the cool things about pluralism.

I don't disagree with this. But as I said they've alienated a very, very large pool of potential customers. Good luck to them, but they could have gone bigger.

EDIT: short of a Tyler Perry or Oprah Winfrey jumping on board (someone that has significant momentum), the only other way this survives is with an acquisition. Netflix would be primed to pick this up as the start of a black-interest channel within Netflix itself. If this is a real market Netflix will either buy them or start their own.

And just a note here - I care nothing about the racial aspects of it but do like it when companies and people win and thrive. I want to see that here too but I think they're lopping off too many potential customers.

If they succeed with their intended audience, it's not going to matter how their day-1 messaging touched jumpy message boards like us. The content will win or it won't. Looking all the comments on this thread, I think it'd probably be a pretty big mistake to try to make something that doesn't piss off some of these people, rather than --- as YC tells people to do --- making something that some specific people truly love.

There are black family TV shows like Blackish, but the current trend is to mix a black and white character (or family) and then do plots based on the zany differences between the two. Bob Loves Abishola, The Neighborhood, etc. It's cheap and low-quality tv.

> Living Single isn't Friends with African Americans.

Implies that Living Single came after Friends, but it debuted the year before.

In fact lots of people feel that Friends was largely a ripoff of Living Single.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/white-ripoff

> I don't know what country you're from but if you don't think there are subcultures in your country under-represented by the dominant media I'd assert you're almost definitely wrong

What constitutes under-repressented? Is proportionally represented ok?

I mean, I'm one of those "subcultures" and honestly I don't feel the need to be represented in media. I'm ok with it, but I don't see what does it bring to me or to my "subculture". We need investment in infraestructure and political-institutional changes.

I understand it's your country, so your own to decide but I agree with the other user, I really can't understand why so much focus with media representation in the US.

It feels weird, and honestly the logic behind it comes as very superficial and light-minded.

> What constitutes under-repressented? Is proportionally represented ok?

Reminds me of an article a while back complaining that Muslim characters were underrepresented in film despite being 2X proportion, meanwhile Christian characters in film are rarely represented (and secular characters wildly over-represented). When identifiably Muslim and Christian characters are portrayed in film, they are frequently villains (Muslims being terrorists and Christians being bigots, typically) and when they aren't villains they are fundamentally secular but maybe they wear a cross necklace or feature prominently in a corny Christmas special (e.g., Turk from Scrubs). Anyway, this is all a tangent, sorry for the digression, etc.

Almost all the movies and TV shows and video games I’ve consumed featured no one who looked like me. But I still felt represented when a character behaved like I did or was interested in the same things I was - characteristics that formed a bigger part of my identity than my skin colour. I’d speculate you might be the same - you’re listening to stories that feature people who display characteristics similar to yours.

But here’s the thing you’re missing - if your race is a dominant part of your identity, like it is for many black people in America, it’s certainly normal to look for stories that feature black people and black stories. Stories where the characters experience problems and issues similar to the ones they might face in their lives.

> But here’s the thing you’re missing - if your race is a dominant part of your identity, like it is for many black people in America, it’s certainly normal to look for stories that feature black people and black stories. Stories where the characters experience problems and issues similar to the ones they might face in their lives.

Yeah, maybe, I can perhaps agree with that, but I still fail to see the political proposition.

Maybe I should live in the US to understand it, but honestly when I read about black-americans It seems many of their pressing issues are material ones, and the ones that aren't are probably very related to material ones and I fail to see how a netflix for black people is going to change any of that, except reinforce an ingroup-outgroup dynamic.

It doesn't really answer this question, but the show #blackAF on Netflix helped me learn a bit more about black people in America. For example, fatherhood is challenging for everyone, but the expectations on black fathers is a bit different. This show portrayed those challenges well.

There most certainly is an ingroup-outgroup dynamic, but I don't think a Black Netflix intensifies it, it merely caters to that audience, just like Netflix is doing with #blackAF or DisneyPlus is doing with blackish.

I'm part of a subculture and every instance of "representation" that MSM throws our way is radically off, horrible in every way. I'm not looking for more of that.

If I was in a more predominant subculture, maybe I'd be interested in accurate representation, but expecting a lot of that from entertainment doesn't seem wise.

Accepting entertainment for what it is, and not necessarily representation, feels like a more manageable remove.

I haven’t lived in a society with such a tragic racial history as in US. So my intuition tells me socioeconomic class is more relevant than the race. If I’m a white UPS driver, I have more in common with a black DHL driver than with a white physician. Like, working people go to the same restaurants, shops and have the same struggles overall. But then again, I’ve seen all the news about the BLM protests and I realize I know nothing about how society is structured in the US.

>I don't know what country you're from but if you don't think there are subcultures in your country under-represented

Where do you draw the line in your definition of "subcultures"? Is it Black/White/Brown? I always feel weird that I'm pigeon-holed into "white", as if I have anything in common with those of Italian or Jewish ancestry.

>The country has a deep history of racism and black people being literal slaves

The USA is astoundingly multi-cultural. Why do you think so many people from around the globe try to get there?

Nah, in the US is pretty bad, I have lived in Europe for a long time, and in Asia for a few years, we, here in the US make sure you understand your place, as a x (black, latino, asian, white, .....) Everything you do, from applying for a job , to getting your kids in school, requires you to write your race in a piece of paper. You get all the time , this product X for that race, that other thing Z for this other race, etc... Is like you are not Juan, you are the Mexican guy that lives here. And obviously you get labeled with all the stereotypes as well. If you are white(or any other race), and you feel sorry for other races, maybe just leaving them alone is a start, and stop classifying us like dog breeds.

It really is! I'm Asian and have bounced between a few communities over the years. The largest group can act as if the others aren't significant enough to bother with. The other groups constantly have to defend their differences from constant influence and comparison with the majority.

Yes the country has lost its mind. They’re reconstituting segregation in the U.S. at the moment

Nah. This is no different than, say, CrunchyRoll or Viki.

It is a bit different, because I suspect ultimately, this is targeted at a much bigger market. I'm not sure the exact current population of Africa, but it's huge. And it's getting bigger rather than smaller.

I could certainly be mistaken, but I'd bet my net worth that this is about making a product that will resonate with global black youth. From Canada to eswatini. From Addis to Trinidad and Tobago.

And that market is enormous.

Can you give an example? I’m assuming you’re not referring to this Netflix competitor as an example of something equivalent to making it illegal for non-whites to eat at certain restaurants.

Subscribing to a service is not mandatory, so not comparable, but there are case of re-segregation in the US such as white-only race training sessions at work or the whole Evergreen hullabaloo.

Just wait till you find out there's a National Anthem for Black People.

Having dedicated cultural venues or channels for a subculture isn't the same thing as like segregated bathrooms. It's more about appealing to a niche audience that isn't lucrative enough for a mass market purveyor. It's not really different from genre channels like sci-fi only or comedy only except that it's geared to an ethnic demographic who want more representation in their media. When a giant company like Netflix is allocating budget for new content, they will get the most returns by appealing to the largest of broadest groups.

Exactly. Nobody complains about the Latino channels on TV. lol

Out of curiosity, do all black people in the US have the same cultural background? Or is it just the skin color?

Slavery crushed a lot of them into a cultural group with a shared history no matter where their ancestors originally came from or their cultural backgrounds.

There are of course those who immigrated later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_culture

That's precisely the trouble. In NI, when someone ask you if you are Catholic or Protestant and you answer you are Danish, they leave you alone. In the US on the other hand, you get dragged in no matter what. If you are from Nigeria you still get thrown in with regular "African Americans". That has interesting results, because for university admission purposes, black is black. However, amongst Nigerian immigrants education is highly regarded, amongst Americans in general, not so much. One would predict that at top-25 universities, Nigerians are highly overrepresented.

Thanks! Made it even clearer what the problem in the US is, i lived for >1.5 y in Tanzania Kenya Rwanda and Namibia, and the Culture (Food, Music, Cloth, TV, Soap-operas, Religion etc) is so vastly different as if you would compare Iceland to South Italy.

I think it terrible what the US is heading too (equalizing culture with skin-color)

Most African-Americans, particularly the descendants of slaves, have essentially been forced through a cultural funnel to become a new thing. Up until retail DNA testing, the average AA person would have no idea if their ancestors were from Angola or Sudan or Zimbabwe. Teaching ancestral language and culture was generally forbidden. People from a vast set of backgrounds were forced together. Sometimes bred against their will. We are not "heading to" equating culture with skin color, we did it as a matter of policy centuries ago. And it's produced an incredibly vibrant culture at that. African-Americans are arguably the most significant cultural force in the world through music and entertainment.

>Americans are arguably the most significant cultural force in the world through music and entertainment.

Oh man that's some small minded simpleton-vibes here :)

Yes, except for more recent African immigrants.

Ah, the wast minority since 1865?

I suspect you are from a fairly small homogeneous country. It hard to understand the racial dynamics of a very large diverse country if you haven't lived there.

Someone from India, a fairy large and diverse country, might have the same difficulty understanding it.

As someone who lived in Italy and Pakistan all her K-12 education years, your comment is so damn off base. Are you seriously saying that India (and Pakistan for that matter) have the same racial dynamic as America? Yes, India is diverse. Yes, we are not all the same. But that is not akin to the racial structures I have seen in the US.

Are you sure you read that comment correctly? It seems to me to be making the same point that you are, i.e. exactly the opposite of how you've interpreted it.

Indian Muslims, a group that experiences increasing marginalization within that large diverse country; would probably not

If you are generally curious about why this is something that is required, I suggest "Trigger Warning with Killer Mike" on Netflix. Specifically the first episode which deals with Mike trying to get to a concert only using black products and services.

Long story short: The average lifespan of the dollar is approximately 28 days in Asian communities, 19 days in Jewish communities, 17 days in white communities — and just six hours in Black communities. Meaning after that time, that dollar has to go into another community for a product or service.

thanks for the suggestion. Will watch!

It looks to me like simple economics - there's a niche market with unmet demand.

It's not a "cultural divide", it's a "representation divide", and it goes way beyond ethnicity and it's also way beyond the US.

Many institutions in the Western sphere either don't match the demographic/ethnic composition of the target market any more or never have. Parliaments, cabinets, newsdesks, movies, highest level management in big companies, even access to voting - all of this has been dominated by white, straight and often old men, with women, non-White people and LGBT not being represented at all.

Over time, many of the discriminatory policies fell - but the reality was, until maybe a decade ago, representation still lacked - and now, change is coming in ever faster and faster. You now have female-centered superhero movies, Black superhero movies, transgender people in parliaments, a Black US President... and the speed of that change was for many conservatives simply too high, so they framed the quest for equal representation across all parts of society as a "culture war" instead.

Agreed.

Where I work (US-company, but I work outside of US) it is similarly weird to me.

We appear to have gone backwards in the past 5-10 years in my view - no longer can you just be "you", but now it feels like we have to be labelled, categorised, and segregated into different groups. We now have to make a big deal and a big song-and-dance to highlight our differences and define what our ethnic backgrounds are (apparently to "celebrate" it or whatever), despite there being various laws (at least in the UK) about this sort of thing being a protected characteristic that you simply cannot talk about during interviews - its weird.

What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet? What if I don't want to explain in detail my family tree and pointing out which ethnicity my ancestors were? This idea that people are 100% Ethnic-Category-A/Ethnic-Category-B/Ethnic-Category-C and fit neatly in those slots without any kind of overlap seems willfully ignorant at best, and subversive at worst.

I'm typical French and my daughters' mother is African... I had to explain to my daughters the whole concept of race categories and I struggled because it seemed ridiculous and aberrant to them - it is alien to their multicultural daily life. They would laugh at having to chose between being black or white. I don't understand how Americans tolerate being categorized this way. My category: "Other" - always.

You get to understand when you see the divide of prosperity, government support, unequal laws, school access, etc in numbers.

There are no unequal laws.

Now I concede there is grossly unequal enforcement of laws. But the words on the page are just the words on the page. It's the people who enforce those laws in an inequitable fashion.

Before it was illegal/unconstitional many unequal laws were passed. Now that there are explicit laws banning the practice, any newly passed unequal will not be explicit in its language otherwise it can easily be striken down and made unenforceable in court. This may be why you can't recognize modern unequal laws that do exist and likely will continue to be passed in the near future.

Brilliant! This made me happy. I also sometimes forget that there is actually this thing about whites versus blacks versus whatever colored people.

Growing up in the US, I learned to exist happily within a small rational subculture embedded withing a larger culture that is simply insane. The superstitions around “race” are just one aspect of that insanity. There is also the crudest form of Christianity that has ever existed, a reification of “democracy” that is part of a national religion and conflates what is popular with what is right, the prejudice against being educated....it goes on, and I could go on, forever.

The problem is that white Americans don't have the same American experience as black Americans, which is where the divide comes from and it creates another culture. It's been getting a lot better, but there are still two legal systems, two education systems, etc.

My perspective as a white man is that when black people create something for themselves like this, it's reclaiming the power. Like how they use the N word with each other, or how Gay people use that word, it's a reclaiming. Taking the hurtful racist division and turning it into something empowering is the point.

I have no idea if that works in the long term or not, but I always think about Morgan Freeman who said something like the only way we can solve racism is if we stop talking about it

This is 100% false. Cops brutalize anyone who slightly offends them. More black people are disaffected by this, but it happens to us all.

I am white and was nearly killed by a black officer in South Florida. He piled drived me head first onto a concrete floor on video tape. Prior to that, he choked me and threatened to kill me.

I was in Miami to attend the VMAs with a billionaire, yet they claimed I tried to fight them. Eventually all charges were dropped. The cop was actually working private security when this happened.

It’s just men, testosterone, and power emboldened by a badge. The cop — Mr. Ritchie — later won Detective of the Year, while his Sheriff went to federal prison. Reality is different than what you read in the papers.

From south florida and yeah there are allot of aggressive cops. Some of whom I grew up with. They have to deal with very dangerous and aggressive criminals on a daily basis and put their lives on the line. Its a tough job and its a grind, but we need them to protect us from criminal psychopaths in the community. We need to fix the root causes of crime: educational inequality, broken families, lack of opportunity, and the crime/poverty cycle. When and if this happens, the policing problem will go in the opposite direction.

> They have to deal with very dangerous and aggressive criminals on a daily basis and put their lives on the line. Its a tough job and its a grind, but we need them to protect us from criminal psychopaths in the community.

That is nonsense.

I love cops in general. I am a cop supporter. I have known excellent cops.

But cops enjoy a great license in the performance of their duties. Because of that it’s very important that we 1) hire cops of outstanding character, not just bullies who want a civil service pension, and 2) hold them to very high standards, a standard of behavior higher than you would an average citizen.

If dealing with aggressive criminals turns you into one you simply don’t have the strength of character to be a cop. And good cops who tolerate bad behavior in their peers are not good cops.

If you feel that there are two education systems, eg one for Black people and one for White people, aren't you simply reinforcing that by having more segmented services?

Separate but equal was a dismal failure in the US. I don't understand why it deserves a second attempt.

The reality is that most of the country remains extremely segregated.

There are apps that cater to comic book fans, are they promoting the comic nerd divide? What is wrong with a service that caters to a content niche? Separate but equal is only a bad thing when people cannot choose which of the two systems they select into. A black person can choose to get regular netflix instead of this niche service.

it’s bad because it create a bubble. It’s like the instagram for republican (parler). It turned into a social network for dangerous extremist very fast and is one of the reason the capital got attacked

I guess it's time to ban HN and force everyone onto reddit then, because HN is a bubble.

I disagree with your implicit assumption that all bubbles are inherently negative.

While HN is a bubble it will not result in burning the country to the ground. The problem is when polarization create war between 2 camp.

Is this still about BlackOakTV?

Regardless, who decides which category a site/app falls into? There are legal remedies that can fix literal "war between 2 camps", everything else is freedom of expression.

> Separate but equal was a dismal failure in the US.

It was not a failure, it was an lie that succeeded quite well at exactly what it was supposed to do, and was struck down for exactly that reason.

But there is a difference between de jure segregation of public services to assure that one community is underserved and crafting of commercial services to the serve a distinct set of preferences associated with a particular demographic.

I think you may be horrified to learn that American schools are still segregated

https://www.epi.org/publication/schools-are-still-segregated...

> These data show that only about one in eight white students (12.9%) attends a school where a majority of students are black, Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian. (We refer to this group collectively as students of color hereafter.) In contrast, nearly seven in 10 black children (69.2%) attend such schools (see Figure A).

That seems less like segregation and more of just statistics. If black students are a minority, then by definition they won't be a majority in a random subsample.

> As shown in Figure B, black students are also in economically segregated schools. Less than one in three white students (31.3%) attend a high-poverty school, compared with more than seven in 10 black students (72.4%).

That's probably the stronger argument in your link. That outcome isn't surprising given that most school funds come via property taxes - if most economically depressed areas are minority occupied due to lower costs, then those same schools would also be economically depressed.

Keep going! How did there come to be schools that were predominantly black? Why is school funding tied to property taxes? Why isn't there a level of mobility that would allow students to go to a more well funded school? Who made these policies and why?

> How did there come to be schools that were predominantly black?

The residents in their area are mostly black.

> Why is school funding tied to property taxes?

That's how most of your city is funded.

> Why isn't there a level of mobility that would allow students to go to a more well funded school?

There is? Like, you can move to a different school district but it's going to be more expensive. Nobody is preventing you.

> Who made these policies and why?

It's not clear what policies you are referring to. That we fund things via property taxes?

Was it really equal the last time around? As a thought experiment, which is better: amalgamated but unequal or voluntarily separate but truly equal?

> The problem is that white Americans don't have the same American experience as black Americans, which is where the divide comes from and it creates another culture. It's been getting a lot better, but there are still two legal systems, two education systems, etc.

It's really more about how much money you have in your pocket, what neighborhood you're in - but please continue driving a racial wedge to further divide the nation and distract from our broken system's root causes.

> It's really more about how much money you have in your pocket, what neighborhood you're in

And the most important that you don't mention, the mobility. If there is no mobility and black people will be forever on the poor side, the elephant is still in the room.

Even wealthy black Americans get harassed by police more often than their equivalently wealthy white counterparts, sometimes simply for being in the neighborhood where they live.

If you want to focus on the root causes "money in your pocket" and neighborhood, look at the root cause for why there is a racial wealth gap and why neighborhoods have been historically segregated.

Freeman recanted that statement. You can't solve bad culture by not taking about it. It will just thrive. Imagine a corporation had a toxic culture. In what way could not talking about it ever fix the company culture? The toxic people would just thrive. Would sexism and sexual harrasment just end if we stopped talking about it? The only thing close to what he said that would make sense is if parents and media stopped teaching their kids racists ideals both consciously and subconsciously.

> The problem is that white Americans don't have the same American experience as black Americans

This implies that there is a "white experience" and a "black experience" which is simply false and subtly racist. This is kind of the point of the parent's post--we've gone from understanding that variance within a race far exceeds variance between races to a mistaken belief that different races have such different experiences that we basically can't understand each other, that we're practically different species. Consider the white translator who was forbidden to translate the work of a black poet, the eminently qualified white school board volunteer who was forbidden from working with students because he wouldn't "understand the experiences of nonwhite students", or the anti-standardized-testing folks who argue that blacks are innately unable to compete in standardized tests.

On that latter point, there's a popular analogy[0] circulating over the last decade that implies that different races are like different species of animal--chimps, goldfish, elephants, penguins, etc--and standardized testing is like a tree-climbing test. To put a fine point on it, these folks are implying that blacks are innately inferior at standardized testing while whites (and presumably Asians) naturally excel.

[0]: https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/137652006277390336...

I agree with morgan freeman this is also why I don’t think making a black tv channel and black churches and black university help it actually make the problem worse because it increases divide.

As someone that grew up extremely poor. I am not aware of the two education system other than the “historically black university”.

What do you call the “white education system”?

> I don’t think making a black tv channel and black churches and black university help it actually make the problem worse because it increases divide.

You seem to not be informed that black people were expressly banned from many American universities as recently as the 1960s. Even after racial bans were made illegal racial discrimination was heavy, things don't change instantly just because a law is passed.

The only reason black universities exist is because black people didn't have other options. Creating black univerisites couldn't possibly make the problem worse.

The media is dominated by white writers and actors and as a result the large majority of content is based on white culture with storylines that appeal to white people. Black actors audition and black stories are pitched, but most don't get hired or funded. BlackOakTV is making a space for those who are rejected and can't get funding for stories appealing more to a black audience.

> despite there being various laws (at least in the UK) about this sort of thing being a protected characteristic that you simply cannot talk about during interviews - its weird.

Likewise here in BC.

I believe it is illegal to discuss race, gender, pregnancy, family planning, and so on and so forth during the interview.

It is possible that American culture has already been divided more than most HN readers have been aware of.

See Michael Harriot's "blackfamous" thread:

https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/120569584639172198...

That thread was interesting. It had me thinking about all the people that _I_ consider to be famous, but which I doubt most people would be able to recognize.

I will admit, I did not know who Stacy Adams is. I wonder about the size of the portion of people who know who Stacy Adams is, or who Louis Vuitton is, that also know who Corrinne Yu is.

We've gone from "don't label me, I'm not a soup can" in the 90s to literal label worship nowadays.

> We've gone from "don't label me, I'm not a soup can" in the 90s to literal label worship nowadays.

No, we haven't. “Don’t label me, I’m not a soup can” was a reaction by certain people against what they saw the current dominant culture to be at the time in exactly the same way that pointing to that as an ideal today is. Except that the latter adds in the construction of an idealized view of the recent past on top of it.

EDIT: But, it is true that the 90s—basically the last period of sustained, strong, broad economic expansion (subsequent expansions have been much worse distributionally)—was also a local high point in subjective perceived quality of race conditions, though not particularly in objective measures. People are a lot more prone to be concerned with fairness issues when their experience falls short of expectations than when they don't.

There's a meme floating around that America is no longer the Great Melting Pot (where everyone assimilates to American culture), now we are the Great Salad Bowl (where everyone is their own unique and special thing)

Personally, I don't really understand all this need for individual representation, but then neither do I really have to.

> We appear to have gone backwards in the past 5-10 years in my view - no longer can you just be "you", but now it feels like we have to be labelled, categorised, and segregated into different groups.

I’ve been alive for almost half a century, and I notice no such change.

I have noticed lots of people feeling like there is a recent change when they realize the identities that arr important to many people outside their immediate bubble (or even inside, though those are often just silently assumed within in-group dialogue or by dominant groups), often in the late teens or 20s.

> We now have to make a big deal and a big song-and-dance to highlight our differences and define what our ethnic backgrounds ar

No, we don’t. Some aspects of identity are important to some people. Why some people who notice that then suddenly also feel the fact that certain dimensions of identity are important to other people implies a general obligation, I don't know.

People for whom Black is an important aspect of their identity don’t, as a rule, think it is important for being White to be central to White people's identity. (And the same is true, mutatis mutandis, with other dimensions of identity.)

> What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet?

Then...you are just like everyone else, in that regard.

> This idea that people are 100% Ethnic-Category-A/Ethnic-Category-B/Ethnic-Category-C and fit neatly in those slots without any kind of overlap seems willfully ignorant at best, and subversive at worst.

Sure. But many of the people to whom minority identities are most critically important and worthy of attention would be the first people to tell you that; in fact, they have a whole analytical framework around it (intersectionality.)

>What if I don't fit into some neat pigeon hole on some spreadsheet?

See story on that from Les Earnest: https://web.stanford.edu/~learnest/earth/mongrel.html

Man, this is always such a spicy comment to make. Americans always get mad but its true. As a Venezuelan I always find the racism stuff coming from the US completely baffling.

I think most of the world is just completely weirded out by how US culture tackles this issue.

Much of the rest of the world is more casually comfortable with racism, it does not cause the angst that it does in the US.

True. It’s very funny when people from countries that could be considered the forefathers of racism down the US for talking about it while refusing to acknowledge the cries of their own underclass.

it's pretty bad. Not just on race. Youngest vs Young vs middle age vs old. leftist vs liberal vs conservative vs rightwing. LGBT vs non-LGBT. Working-class vs white collar class. nortnern states vs southern states. California vs flyover states. hipsters vs squares. punks vs. preps.

It's really tiresome.

Really? Hipsters vs Squares is an equivocal history to that of LGBTQ+/Straight socio-political dynamics, or dare I say, the history of racial dynamics? Did you consult any queer folk on that one? Did you ask any Black folk about that?

Yes, Black Americans have their own culture from music to literature to TV shows like Good Times and the Jeffersons. This is not seen as a bad thing here, it has produced many great things.

I have been living bouncing back and forth between Brazil, Israel, and Colombia for the last several years. I use Tinder and Bumble a lot, and I notice in all these countries if you look at girls Instagram profiles(not all but many many), have their countries flag emoji in their profile, or maybe "100% Colombiana", or Israeli flag with hearts, etc etc. But when I visit America the girls display the flag that their like grandparents immigrated from and seemingly nobody wants to be "American" and it seems like a redneck or low class thing to put your american emoji in your profile. I have noticed this in larger American cities, it seems nobody wants to rep their flag, and it is a great contrast to other places I have been. Just an observation from a lurker

It isn't /completely/, but many are invested in making it more divided than not.

Its simple really, the cultures in America are very diverse, which may not be the case in your country.

Indian Americans regularly consume music and foods that most other Americans don't.

Hispanic Americans mostly are bilingual with Spanish/English. There are more spanish only speaking hispanics than there are english only speaking.

America has a history of racists laws (goverment) and bylaws (corporations, institutions, universities) created directly to disenfranchise non-whites that shaped present day distribution of races in different states, neighborhoods, socioeconomic status, cultural values and more.

As recently as the 60s, blacks were expressly banned from many colleges so in order to fill the gap, HBCU (Historically Black Colleges & Universities) were created because black people had no good options.

Most media in America is created by whites and the stories are based largely on white American culture. The Indian and Chinese Americans are another group that have a very hard time finding tv shows and movies that resonate with their culture. BlackOakTV looks like an attempt to offer more content representing the real differences in black American culture written from the perspective of those who actually understand it.

> “X for black people” sounds so bizarre to me(non-American). The cultural divide between the people must be insane.

Is more or less what I thought, (with the difference that I thought "Y for Z people").

So I can't judge if it's necessary or makes sense, but from the point of the author it seems to be the case.

Which is sad as black people are not a small minority in the US and so I would expect more representation of them.

I mean Netflix (or any thing similar) should be "for everyone" featuring a diverse mix at least similar to reality (or maybe slightly more diverse (1) ).

(1): For <small> minorities in a country representation with a mix "like reality" would mean they would not get much representation as just a <small> number of content thingies would represent them. So increasing the degree of diversity above it is I think a good idea.

> “X for black people” sounds so bizarre to me(non-American).

“Black” in America is, confusingly to lots of people, the name of an ethnic/cultural group formed by centuries shared experience of kidnapping, deliberate eradication of prior cultural identities, deliberate ongoing disruption of the family unit, slavery (and after slavery de jure discrimination, and after that substantial ongoing public and private discrimination in fact) to which the racial group also labelled “black” was subjected in America.

So far as I can tell the whole “melting pot” experiment didn’t really work, absent powerful enough unifying vision/motivation/ideals and the cultures were immiscible. So now they’ve gone the multicultural route. I’m interested to see where this ends up for the US.

These guys don't deserve to have their launch thread turned into the Nth copy, for extremely large N, of a same-old flamewar. That's what you started here, and it was entirely predictable from your comment, which means you broke the site guidelines. Please review them and stick to the rules. This kind of thing is nasty and avoidable.

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

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

The guidelines are very far from being an exact science and your comment is too subjective.

And even if I started it, it was up to dozens of others to not comment on my comment. Could have just downvoted it to oblivion.

Of course, dozens of others did their share. But commenters are responsible for the statistical outcome of what they post, and in this case the expected value was definitely negative.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

yep, it's quite silly. many americans recognize how silly it is. it's the dualistic messaging of mutually exclusive A & B:

A. We're all equal! B. We need something special, because we're different!

The question must be asked if YC is funding companies based on race then if I created the Netflix for Nigerians where I am from, will they fund me? How do they decide which ethnic group to fund at YC? As a Nigerian this screams of racial profiling, we see our selves as Nigerian first and not black.

I'm Russian and, probably, I don't really understand the situation with race in US.

But I think that MLK was fighting against this "X for black people" thing. (X == buses, schools, shops, etc). Isn't it racism and segregation?

I’m American and believe me, at least half of the country thinks shit like this is utterly insane and divisive. But there is no reasoning with ideologues.

If you read more than the headline it might better your understanding.

Racism is the belief that different races are distinctly inferior or superior to one another. [1] I don't see anything in the author's post or the product that indicates they believe Black people are racially superior.

Segregation, specifically in context of what King was fighting for, means spatial or institutional separation of the races. [2] Clearly not the case here, they are pushing for more representation of Black people in media, not less.

(There are other civil rights leaders you can invoke besides MLK when you're feigning outrage btw)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

> 'm Russian and, probably, I don't really understand the situation with race in US.

Correct.

> But I think that MLK was fighting against this "X for black people" thing.

No, Dr. King was not fighting against Black-founded commercial services attempting to serve the particular interests of Black consumer. But, that's a pretty good illustration that your first sentence is correct (though its also a pretty good mimicry of American White conservatives coopting Dr. King, so, maybe you do understand a bit about race-based political propaganda in America.)

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

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

Hm. I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to be a flamebait. Also, can you please clarify about tangents? Looked up for a translation of the word 'tangent' and the meaning is still unclear. (English is not my first language)

In the idiom, a tangent is a branching divergence from the main conversation; it's related to that conversation, but is taking it in a new direction. Tangents are fine, and often good, but we are careful about them here when they lead into predictable off-topic arguments.

Interesting idea. I don't think I've ever seen this many dead comments on any HN post. For those not wanting to miss on the action I highly recommend turning on your showdead setting.

Dang is not going to have a fun day today.

Crikey. This gives me a great idea.

BoomerFlix.

What better market to target if you want to make a few coins?

Who's in?

> BoomerFlix

I'm not actually a "boomer" (I'm too young), but my kids call me one anyway. But I'm a little surprised that there's no streaming service that includes nothing but old 60's/70's/80's movies whose rights could almost certainly be obtained cheap, and not even bother with more recent movies.

This is a great idea. Good luck!

Really, a down vote? HN is basically a worse 4chan at this point.

Isn’t this racist? How about Netflix for white people?

this is somewhat racist... but in a good way

crazy you have to do this in order to give some people a chance

youtube biase is a fact. good luck on the project!

Best of luck with this!

Many persons are not going to understand the need or motivation for this, but that's fine, it is not for them.

I hope I am not the only one offended because there is a need for this.

I wish someone with deep pockets will get the message, buy it, and add it to their (bigger) service offering.

Considering current social and political climate in US this may work.

Imagine the scary pushback if replacing "black" with other color.

Woow, im not racist. I think everyone is equal. In the same time if someone would do a video service for white ppl that would be branded as racist all over the news

There is a default opposition on anything that twitter activists have been protesting for in the past few years

Netflix for Africans Netflix for Asians Netflix for Indians ... sounds normal.

But

Netflix for Black People Netflix for Women Netflix for LGBT

Will definitely cause an outrage

An other example on how we are tribal, even if the tribes are just activists vs non-activists.

I don't think any "<GenericSerive>" for <Group>" sound normal.

I mean if you need e.g. "Restrooms for Indians" implies that "other" Restrooms are somewhat not suited for Indians which normally hints to some major problem with discrimination.

Just to be clear I explicitly mean "<GenericService>" not "<SpcificProduct>", e.g. black people often have a kind of hair which non-black people have rarely, as such a "Shampoo for Black People" (which is actually a "Shampoo for any kind of people with that kind of hair common with Black People") isn't that unreasonable. Similar a movie focused on living circumstances especially common with black people staring mostly black people is also likely mainly targeting black people as an audience.

But Netflix (HBO, Disney) are not specific products but very generic services.

News for programmers, would not really imply normal news is unsuitable for programmers.

Since content is often relevant to a particular culture, and streaming platforms collect content together, focusing on content from one culture can make sense.

Neflix is like the news, and Neflix for Black People/Culture would be like HN.

The existence of LGBT people has been an outrage for literally millennia. The portrayal of LGBT romance on screen is still an outrage to many, a threshold that Hallmark crossed for the first time just last year. So, don't worry about us. We're used to the outrage.

Is this inclusive?

What's wrong with Nollywood? or Bollywood?

They seem to be doing well and are already on Netflix.

I'm not black but I enjoyed those shows in the 90s too. They were inclusive. Your focus on race is exclusive. It's a "Black space" and I get the feeling I'm not welcome.

Maybe you're just trying to target a niche, but I think you're limiting your potential market, and, frankly, helping to further divide our society on racial lines.

Why the down vote?

I wholeheartedly disagree, would you feel unwelcome at an Asian restaurant or a place that serves authentic Mexican food?

Simply creating a space that caters to culture specific creativity is a good thing, and as others have pointed out its been done before with BET.

There are a lot of efforts to increase diversity in media.

One effort that has been happening is providing incentives to have diverse top of the line staff on productions so that they share their stories and angle on things.

We at wrapbook (https://www.wrapbook.com) at making it easy for productions to measure their diverse staff so that we can incentivize diversity down the line.

I wish the founders the best but I'll admit the headline did rub me the wrong way at first. Just a little too on-the-nose or something. I definitely understand trying to reach an undeserved market, just feels weird so explicitly segmenting by race... In any case, good luck on your launch!

Question to the mods- Would it be okay to make a Netflix for white people company and post it to hacker news?

Question for the founders- At least since Feb 2021, Amazon and Netflix have created and promoted black voices by creating a separate category. Is the problem you attempt to solve more visibility and is what Amazon doing insufficient?

Well, the focus is (and, indeed, should be) on disadvantaged and under-represented minorities - at least until the playing field levels (which may take a while).

Maybe(?) the intension is good behind this kind of services, but honestly this is #1 reason why we will never get rid of racism. It just gets rebranded and will stay with as long as there are humans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com