this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
190 points (98.5% liked)

Television

2449 readers
70 users here now

Welcome to Television

This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.

Other Communities

Television Communities

A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.

Rules:

  1. Be respectful and courteous to all members.
  2. Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
  3. Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
  4. Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
  5. Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
  6. Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.

Matrix Link

List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A CBS spokesperson rushed to the defense of the network’s censorship apparatus, giving statements to industry trade publications like Variety and Deadline, claiming that CBS Studios had actually financed and secretly produced the public-access episode in collaboration with Monroe Community Media. “As is our regular practice, we send copyright notices to unauthorized websites that post copyrighted content from CBS and our network/studio talent,” the spokesperson asserted, insisting the copyright enforcement was simply routine intellectual-property protection.

But that explanation raised more questions than it answered. Nothing in the broadcast identified CBS or Paramount as producers. There was no corporate copyright message at the end of the hour; instead, an independent, Chicago-based studio was listed as the production company. Colbert also spent much of the episode openly mocking Paramount and CBS in ways that strongly suggested they were not exactly thrilled with the project. So viewers were understandably skeptical that the corporation had lovingly funded an anti-corporate guerrilla comedy special only to immediately suppress its circulation online.

After a backlash erupted, CBS quickly retreated, announcing it would “waive further enforcement” pending additional review.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SirSamuel@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Friendly reminder that boycotts are about financially hurting the target. There are ways to enjoy the entertainment you like without funding the bastards 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

[–] Zier@fedia.io 11 points 2 days ago

You arrrrr correct.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are also ways to hurt them more financially than just boycotting. Boycott companies who advertise with them too!

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago

Boycott as a protest measure is most effective if it is applied closest to the source of contention. A drop in subscriptions, viewers and other typical KPI is much more visible to the direct target. If they look at their charts and see a dip, they'll look for events and changes they made shortly before.

A company that advertises with them likely also advertises with others so the cause of "suddenly people hate us" being "someone else is something" is harder to identify. Odds are, your message would be diluted to the point of being illegible.

Of course, like all protests, they heavily depend on participation, whichever option you go for.

[–] RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Zier@fedia.io 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not a crime if you do it while you are naked. [hotwires Lamborghini in the buff]

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

oh man. I practically can't commit a crime then.