Netflix’s invasion of the public sphere

Private property is a fundamental principle of capitalism. The accumulation of wealth through work belongs to the individual. Private property was not taken for granted from the beginning. Early capitalism was a revolutionary force against religion and the caste system. Hereditary wealth was denied because it was not a product of labor, and the peace of the afterlife promised by the church was readjusted to the worldly convenience provided by wealth. Adam Smith saw that the free individual pursuit of profit based on the division of labor enhances the wealth of society as a whole. Capitalism demanded human beings freed from status, free from religious servitude. From this came the emergence of the private. Private property, private life, personal taste, etc. are inextricably linked with the individual. However, philosophically, tension is sensed between ‘individual’ and ‘private’, which means that they can no longer be divided (in-dividual). The word ‘private’ is derived from the Latin word ‘privare’ (to take away, seize). The English word ‘deprive’ (to seize) contained the traces. If so, the ‘individual’ that capitalism presupposes is actually close to a ‘private person’. He eroded the vested interests of the church and the aristocracy. However, a paradox arises when it is equated to ‘individual’. It is a contradiction that the ‘individual’ who reduces what is not mine and the ‘sign’ who expands what is mine are compatible. It is not that ‘individual’ and ‘person’ coexist. Early capitalism made a revolutionary contribution to saving individuals from religion and the caste system. Associations of free individuals established a new public realm to replace religion and status. The problem is when the ‘sign’ exceeds or dissolves the ‘individual’. For more private property, the ‘private’ eroded the ‘public’. Neoliberalism demanded small government and forced privatization and restructuring of the public sector. ‘Individual’ is also not something that can no longer be divided. Digital technology that transforms humans into data and quantifies them into ‘dividuals’ drives platform capitalism. Emotions such as joy, anger, immersion, and boredom are calculated, and bodily reactions are also calculated in seconds. In this, ‘private things’ reign like ‘public things’. Even though the common property and individuals of many are taken for the vast wealth of a few. ▲ Netflix’s new documentary ‘I am God’. Photo = Netflix Recently, public broadcaster MBC collaborated with Netflix for a current affairs documentary. showed off It performed a public function by informing the dangers and seriousness of pseudo-religion. The unconventional portrayal, which is hard to see on terrestrial television, went viral. Encouraged by the outrage, judicial bodies are also seeking legal action. Even a new word called ‘OTT journalism’ appeared. However, this cannot be viewed positively. To tell the truth, I am concerned about compliments like this as a symptom of disintegration of our public sphere. First of all, it raises the issue of the participation of transnational conglomerates in domestic media activities. The current law regulates the investment and contribution of foreign capital to domestic broadcasting. was not a backdoor listing of foreign capital in the public opinion market. second, showed that public broadcasters can share tangible and intangible public resources supported to them with private companies. It was never horizontal, The public opinion data obtained through this program remained the private property of private companies. Third, the privatized Netflix documentary grammar is transplanted into domestic current affairs programs, increasing the possibility of bringing about the denormalization of the public sphere of journalism. The first scene of < is so Netflix-like. If the existing media is nominally verified for its credibility through cumulative reports, Netflix maintains and expands its subscribers through a chain of stimuli. Netflix’s long-term choice will be the latter in front of the options of gaining trust and accumulating profits.

The success of is due to the insolvency of the Korean public sphere. Individual misery amid factions and divisions was often ignored by the media. Nonetheless, the initiative in reorganizing the public sphere cannot be handed over to private companies. History has exemplified the personal usurpation and exploitation of an unbridled person after a brief cohabitation. A lot of people are perplexed by the clever numbers that . How to restructure the public sphere. I can’t afford to enjoy Django’s time anymore.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.