Daredevil vs Parents Television Council

[CaptainAmerica]

So you're saying that it's not a problem anymore, right? That adults can easily limit what their kids can see, and if they have any problems with it maybe they should be more invested in what their own children watch?

This is such a stupid line. Mom gives Junior a bag of Haribo gummy bears and it turns out 10% of the bag are actually THC edibles.

"Welp, I guess parents should just be more invested in what their own children eat."

Parents don't have an infinite knowledge bank where they're expected to know the appropriateness of every piece of content that exists. They trust companies like Disney to put up reasonable guardrails.

 

[King Panda 77]

This is such a stupid line. Mom gives Junior a bag of Haribo gummy bears and it turns out 10% of the bag are actually THC edibles.

"Welp, I guess parents should just be more invested in what their own children eat."

Parents don't have an infinite knowledge bank where they're expected to know the appropriateness of every piece of content that exists. They trust companies like Disney to put up reasonable guardrails.

Well that's a reasonable analogy.

 

[jasminethecat]

This is such a stupid line. Mom gives Junior a bag of Haribo gummy bears and it turns out 10% of the bag are actually THC edibles.

"Welp, I guess parents should just be more invested in what their own children eat."

Parents don't have an infinite knowledge bank where they're expected to know the appropriateness of every piece of content that exists. They trust companies like Disney to put up reasonable guardrails.

. Your entire argument is that parents are ignorant and shouldn't have to take responsibility for their children's video consumption. When the system was binary, as you say, even the movie Aladdin wouldn't show up for children's accounts. Would Jessica Jones and Daredevil show up then? Clearly not. If a parent cannot even make a profile for their children and distinguish between "child" and "adult", then they're not capable of making any informed decisions for young children with regards to online streaming services. A lightbulb should go off when you set up an account and you have to pick between child and adult, that maybe there is content not suitable for all children and you should investigate further. Especially when the app/website actually spells that out for you.

If you want to stick to your line of reasoning, a better analogy is that a mom gives her kid $20 and sends them alone into a convenience store (which is known to sell candy) to buy whatever the young child wants. The parent expects the child to buy gummy bears, but instead buys THC gummies. The parent maybe didn't know that the store sells those things. You could be mad at the store for offering things not geared to young children, and you could force the store to stop selling things which are unsavory to children just because some people want to send their child in alone with money. Who knew they also sold beer, vapes and cigarettes?

Or parent could set limits on what their child consumes, and they could be with them to monitor what they're doing. I think you painted yourself into a corner here, and now you just cannot admit that parents have a responsibility to monitor their children and what they do online. Saying parents don't have unlimited knowledge is a strawman fallacy. You don't need unlimited knowledge to know that some disney content isn't for very young children.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you want to stick to your line of reasoning, a better analogy is that a mom gives her kid $20 and sends them alone into a convenience store (which is known to sell candy) to buy whatever the young child wants. The parent expects the child to buy gummy bears, but instead buys THC gummies. The parent maybe didn't know that the store sells those things. You could be mad at the store for offering things not geared to young children, and you could force the store to stop selling things which are unsavory to children just because some people want to send their child in alone with money. Who knew they also sold beer, vapes and cigarettes?

Cool, let's stick with this analogy.

I'll keep your exact same fact pattern, except the convenience store is named "Family Friendly Convenience Store for Kids," and the owner also runs a shop right next door called "General Convenience Store for Grownups."

The part of Disney's decision making that I find strange isn't the decision to put this content on one of their streaming services. The part that I don't understand is putting it on Disney+ when Hulu exists for the sole purpose of housing this type of content.

 

[Disney Irish]

Cool, let's stick with this analogy.

I'll keep your exact same fact pattern, except the convenience store is named "Family Friendly Convenience Store for Kids," and the owner also runs a shop right next door called "General Convenience Store for Grownups."

I've asked you before to provide the marketing materials that claims D+ is ONLY "Family Friendly" content.

If you can't then this analogy doesn't fly.

The part of Disney's decision making that I find strange isn't the decision to put this content on one of their streaming services. The part that I don't understand is putting it on Disney+ when Hulu exists for the sole purpose of housing this type of content.

The short answer is because its their content and they can put it wherever they want. The long answer is more related to unifying all Marvel content onto the same service, since the majority of Marvel content is on D+ is makes the most sense to put these Marvel shows also onto D+.

Also why is there an assumption that Hulu will remain a separate standalone service forever? I mean outside the US Star isn't a separate service outside of Latin America. And all the same content that is currently hosted on Hulu is on Star right in the D+ app as its own tile.

So it only makes sense that eventually Disney will do the same here in the US with Hulu in the near future.

And on that note why is it only here in the US where this seems to be a problem? If the rest of the world seems to not have an issue with adult content being on D+ then why can't the US be ok with it too? For all the rah rah "USA is the best country on the planet" shtick that some in this country like to push around it sure seems like we're backwards on a lot of these type of topics.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I've asked you before to provide the marketing materials that claims D+ is ONLY "Family Friendly" content.

If you can't then this analogy doesn't fly.


The short answer is because its their content and they can put it wherever they want. The long answer is more related to unifying all Marvel content onto the same service, since the majority of Marvel content is on D+ is makes the most sense to put these Marvel shows also onto D+.

Also why is there an assumption that Hulu will remain a separate standalone service forever? I mean outside the US Star isn't a separate service outside of Latin America. And all the same content that is currently hosted on Hulu is on Star right in the D+ app as its own tile.

So it only makes sense that eventually Disney will do the same here in the US with Hulu in the near future.

And on that note why is it only here in the US where this seems to be a problem? If the rest of the world seems to not have an issue with adult content being on D+ then why can't the US be ok with it too? For all the rah rah "USA is the best country on the planet" shtick that some in this country like to push around it sure seems like we're backwards on a lot of these type of topics.

Hulu wasn't expanded internationally because Disney doesn't own 100% of it yet and because they need soccer bundled into the product to sell subscriptions in LATAM.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I'll start with I have no problem with them putting the Netflix shows on the service. But I do see why some feel it doesn't belong on D+. With the name Disney+, there is the perception of Disney. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but in the United States, if you brand something Disney, there's an expectation level of content. And no matter how they try to make it about everything, Disney is the number one billing.

Disney should have thought about that before buying Marvel and other non-Disney IPs.

 

[Disney Irish]

Hulu wasn't expanded internationally because Disney doesn't own 100% of it yet and because they need soccer bundled into the product to sell subscriptions in LATAM.

Not true, Disney has owned the majority of Hulu since the Fox acquisition in 2019 and could have expanded it all they want. Plus you don't think that Comcast would love the extra revenue coming in so it makes their stake in Hulu worth more money?

Hulu wasn't expanded because its not known outside the US and Japan, whereas Star is.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Not true, Disney has owned the majority of Hulu since the Fox acquisition in 2019 and could have expanded it all they want.

That's not what I said. Disney CAN do what they want with Hulu. They WON'T expand Hulu because that gives Comcast, who still owns 1/3, more value.

Plus you don't think that Comcast would love the extra revenue coming in so it makes their stake in Hulu worth more money?

Pay attention, Sven.

Disney doesn't want Comcast's stake in Hulu worth more money because Disney is buying them out in 2024 at "fair market value." It is in Disney's interest to have Hulu worth as little as possible until that buyout is complete.

 

[Disney Irish]

That's not what I said. Disney CAN do what they want with Hulu. They WON'T expand Hulu because that gives Comcast, who still owns 1/3, more value.

That is literally what you said, "Hulu wasn't expanded internationally because Disney doesn't own 100% of it yet". Which is an incorrect statement. Disney could have expanded Hulu an already established service any time they wanted, but it wasn't known outside the US. Making it less attractive to expand versus another service they also own, Star, which is more well known outside the US.

Was some of the reason to screw over Comcast, I'm sure that was part of it, but wasn't that major a factor.

So what makes more sense from a business perspective, expand a less known service or expand a more well known service?

Pay attention, Sven.

Disney doesn't want Comcast's stake in Hulu worth more money because Disney is buying them out in 2024 at "fair market value." It is in Disney's interest to have Hulu worth as little as possible until that buyout is complete.

If this was true then Disney wouldn't be spending literally Billions on new content for Hulu to literally make it more valuable. If they really were trying to make it less valuable they would let it languish until 2024.

So while I appreciate your opinion, the facts just don't bear that out.

 

[Dead2009]

Parents don't have an infinite knowledge bank where they're expected to know the appropriateness of every piece of content that exists. They trust companies like Disney to put up reasonable guardrails.

Back in the day parents actually paid attention to what their kids consumed, or what they could consume. It's not on Disney to do their job for them.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Back in the day parents actually paid attention to what their kids consumed, or what they could consume. It's not on Disney to do their job for them.

Agree to an extent but if Disney intends to add PG-13+ properties to it's service it should probably also provide disclaimer messaging and "age" walls that the parent(s) can set.

 

[erasure fan1]

Disney should have thought about that before buying Marvel and other non-Disney IPs.

True, but perception is perception. As they say, a zebra can't change its stripes. Disney built its brand on fairly sanitized entertainment. People put up with the MCU and star wars because even the pg13 stuff is pretty weak from a pg13 standpoint. Again, I don't have an issue with the Netflix shows going to D+. The point was, I see why some take issue with R rated content on the platform. And yea, Disney should have thought of that for sure. But if I had to guess, they really don't care. As long as they are making bank, all is good in the world.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I guess that group doesn't know Disney's own history, do the names Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, and Miramax not mean anything to them....

Disney has release many violent films before under many different studio names, for example Pulp Fiction is technically a Disney movie.

Also we live in a different world, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable by the masses.

Disney created those studios specifically so they could create content that wasn’t appropriate for the Disney brand, Hulu serves the same purpose here.

There were articles back in 2019 in which Disney stated that Disney+ wouldn’t have anything above PG13, and all the Marvel and other movies people are using as examples of current “violent” content on D+ are PG13 or lower.

Personally I’d rather have it all in one place but I understand why people aren’t thrilled about this change, Disney+ was the one place you didn’t have to police your kids, now parents will have to police D+ too.

 

[doctornick]

I've asked you before to provide the marketing materials that claims D+ is ONLY "Family Friendly" content.

To address this, I’d point out that Disney+ was marketed as Disney, Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel (specifically MCU), and National Geo. And Simpsons I guess. The stuff that isn’t aimed exclusively at children is pretty solidly “family friendly” being basically PG/PG-13. I think the expectations were set pretty solidly that the most “adult” anything got was Star Wars/MCU/Pirates of the Caribbean not R rated fare with sex or gore. And if that stuff was too much for a particular family member they had a filtered child setting.

It was pretty implicit that there was not TV-MA stuff on there (in the US).

I don’t think “family friendly” means stuff only tailored for kids.

 

[doctornick]

Personally I’d rather have it all in one place but I understand why people aren’t thrilled about this change, Disney+ was the one place you didn’t have to police your kids, now parents will have to police D+ too.

This. It’s a paradigm shift for the service. I didn’t have any qualms letting my tween/teen kids have free reign for anything on the service but now I have to restrict their accounts and passcode the adult one. It’s not the end of the world and I’m happy for expanded content but let’s not pretend that it’s not a significant change.

 

[Disney Irish]

Agree to an extent but if Disney intends to add PG-13+ properties to it's service it should probably also provide disclaimer messaging and "age" walls that the parent(s) can set.

And that is exactly what Disney is doing, they have already added the Parent Controls to limit things based on age plus a disclaimer will be added to specific content.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney created those studios specifically so they could create content that wasn’t appropriate for the Disney brand, Hulu serves the same purpose here.

My point was that Disney isn't the pure family friendly content that this group thinks it is, hasn't been for many decades now.

D+ and Hulu are platforms not brands or studios, its similar to a theater in this analogy. Marvel is the brand and studio in this analogy.

There were articles back in 2019 in which Disney stated that Disney+ wouldn’t have anything above PG13, and all the Marvel and other movies people are using as examples of current “violent” content on D+ are PG13 or lower.

And none of their marketing ever push this is was just PG-13 and below. Just that is was "Your Favorites and more".

Also just because that was once what was said by Iger doesn't mean that it was set in stone. They obviously changed their mind after seeing how D+ with adult content via Star outside the US didn't cause heads to explode.

Personally I’d rather have it all in one place but I understand why people aren’t thrilled about this change, Disney+ was the one place you didn’t have to police your kids, now parents will have to police D+ too.

I never said I didn't understand, just that it really shouldn't be that surprising given the companies history and how D+ is marketed outside the US.

 

[Disney Irish]

To address this, I’d point out that Disney+ was marketed as Disney, Pixar, Star Wars, Marvel (specifically MCU), and National Geo. And Simpsons I guess. The stuff that isn’t aimed exclusively at children is pretty solidly “family friendly” being basically PG/PG-13. I think the expectations were set pretty solidly that the most “adult” anything got was Star Wars/MCU/Pirates of the Caribbean not R rated fare with sex or gore. And if that stuff was too much for a particular family member they had a filtered child setting.

It was pretty implicit that there was not TV-MA stuff on there (in the US).

I don’t think “family friendly” means stuff only trailered for kids.

But again show me where in the actual marketing it stated that it was A. Only Family Friendly content, and B. That they would be limiting to PG-13 or lower.

I get where people are coming from, but it was assumptions being made based on some outdated comments in the media.

 

[doctornick]

But again show me where in the actual marketing it stated that it was A. Only Family Friendly content, and B. That they would be limiting to PG-13 or lower.

I get where people are coming from, but it was assumptions being made based on some outdated comments in the media.

You are being pedantic and you know it. Sure, they didn't explicitly advertise it as only only being family friendly content by using those exact words, but they most certainly implicitly advertised it as such by showcasing only things that were family friendly. And then they launched it with only such content. It was made abundantly clear that if you are okay with MCU/Star Wars/POTC level of violence and language for your kids then you would have no need for any sort of parental locks for the service because that was the "worst" it got.

Sure, I guess they could have advertised Star Wars and Marvel and Pixar and then dropped Pulp Fiction on there and been like "well we didn't say we wouldn't have adult content on there" but we all know that would have been counter to how they advertised the service. And some people would have felt it was a "bait and switch" delivering something different than what was promised.

Again, no one here is saying they have a problem with the shift and it's acknowledged there are parental controls in place. But there's no denying that this is a significant change from how the service was initially advertised and launched and it is perfectly understandable for people to not be happy with it.