What A Day - Delete Your Shared Netflix Account

Episode Date: April 25, 2022

The Supreme Court is in session this week and will hear two cases that could have a big impact. The first will be heard today and could affect our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, including the separation of church and state. The other will be heard on Tuesday and could have major implications for migrants at the Southern border seeking asylum.Netflix estimates that 100 million accounts around the world are sharing passwords. The streaming service is considering making users pay more for doing so — which means that if you’re not the one in your family or friend group that actually pays for the shared account, you might have to figure out a new arrangement.And in headlines: The war in Ukraine entered its third month, French President Emmanuel Macron beat his far-right challenger Marine Le Pen, and Twitter is banning paid content that denies climate change.Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/whataday/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Monday, April 25th. I'm Travelle Anderson. And I'm Josie Duffy Rice, and this is What A Day, where our new thing is pressing our noses against a glass at pharmacies and staring at the boosters. You think they'll accept, like, an extra $10 to help me out? Maybe I'll just, like, make a fake prescription thing that says, like, Josie's, she's a doctor, I swear. On today's show, French President Emmanuel Macron wins another term in office by beating his far right challenger Marine Le Pen.

Plus, how Netflix might force you to pay more for sharing your password. But first, this week the Supreme Court is in session. Here's a little bit of background on two of the cases that could have a big impact. The first will be heard today. That's Kennedy versus Bremerton School District. It could impact one of the most fundamental American principles, our First Amendment right to freedom of religion, including the separation of church and state. All right. So tell us a little bit about the backstory of this case. So this case is about Joseph Kennedy. He's a former JV football coach at a public high school in Bremerton, Washington. And at the end of every football game, he said a prayer on the 50-yard

line. Despite what Kennedy's extremely well-funded PR machine would have you believe, this prayer was not really a private thing. His players would join, and he would even invite the opposing team's coach to join sometimes. And one of these coaches complained to school authorities, and a parent of one of Kennedy's players said that his son felt, quote, compelled to participate because otherwise he wouldn't get as much playtime. The school district got involved and tried to accommodate Kennedy, but that was unsuccessful. And then when his contract expired, he claimed he was fired, even though he wasn't. So long story short, here we are at the Supreme Court. Okay, interesting.

Now, what exactly is the issue the court is considering here? So they're basically trying to determine whether Kennedy's action is protected by the First Amendment or prohibited by the First Amendment. Is he expressing his freedom of speech? Or is he interfering with other people's freedom of religion? And the fact that he's a government employee is really relevant here. It's really the most relevant thing here. But you know, this question is really about more than just this one act in this one setting. Right. And we have a very conservative Supreme Court right now. So what should we expect from SCOTUS on this?

SCOTUS. You know, well, it should be really straightforward. It won't be, but it should be. The court decided a case much like this one in 2000 and ruled that prayers led by students at high school football games were a violation of the First Amendment because they, quote, have the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. But that was a different court. And this one is solidly in the hands of conservatives, right? So we could absolutely get a different answer this time. And look, perhaps this doesn't seem like that big of a deal, right? It's one coach praying after a game, big deal. But like so many of the cases this term, it's really a wolf in sheep's

clothing. It opens the door to government employees accepting or rejecting rights, rules, laws that they don't like because of religion. So even just in the public schools context, right? What could this mean for LGBTQ plus teachers or students? What does it mean for kids of other religions? What does it mean for curriculum standards? All of these things. And I think in particular, the LGBTQ plus personnel or students, like, we see what's happening right now, right? We know the impact that the right and the religious right in particular is trying to have on these populations, these marginalized populations. This is part of why we separate church and state, because we know that when you blur the line, it impacts the rights of some of our most vulnerable. Right. And the folks who are already othered in some sort of way. Right. Exactly. Okay. But what's the second case that we should be looking at?

So the second one, which the court will hear on Tuesday, is Biden versus Texas. And there are some pretty technical aspects to this one in particular, but here's the short summary. So in 2018, under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security created a program called the Migrant Protection Program, which, spoiler alert, did not protect migrants. Of course not. It basically required some migrants who traveled through Mexico to apply for asylum at the border to stay in Mexico as they waited for immigration proceedings to begin. Which is part of the reason why Biden tried to terminate the program. It didn't make sense to have a migrant from, say, Nicaragua to stay in Mexico, a country they don't know, and wait things out. Right. And often they're stuck staying in these awful, these cramped, unsanitary,

quote, tent encampments, waiting for months or longer till their claim can be heard. I mean, it's wild, right? But after Texas and Missouri sued Biden for shutting the program down, a Trump-appointed judge in federal district court ruled against Biden. And the reasoning in this case is completely bananas. Basically, this judge said that the Migrant Protection Program had to remain in place until the federal government had enough capacity to detain all eligible migrants. So basically, this Trump-appointed judge found that Trump's policy has to stay in place and that every migrant must be detained, no exceptions. Now, I'm not the most learned person, but something feels off there to me.

Is there a legal basis for that? Or is this just something that came out of thin air? Well, first of all, I'd just like to say you're probably more learned than this judge. Don't know him. Don't know his background, but at least spiritually learned. But to answer your question, no, it came from nowhere. This came from the thinnest of air. It doesn't make any sense. It's not part of the law. And it isn't feasible. And to be clear, the judge knows it isn't feasible. And that's why this was part of his ruling, right? So Border Patrol has always released some people. They released some people under Trump as well. This would be a completely unprecedented policy that stems from nowhere, no legislation, no agency. It's like saying, okay, you can't charge this person

who was arrested with a crime unless you charge everyone who was arrested with a crime. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't reflect reality. It's absurd. Yeah, so what do we do now? Well, that's the trillion dollar question in general. But this week, the court will consider whether Biden

has the authority to roll back this program that Trump made up. And as always, it's not promising given the court that we currently have, even though this has been what presidents have done for decades, right? One president makes a program, the next president removes it. If they don't agree, that's how it works. And despite the fact that Homeland Security as an agency has always had plenty of authority to be more cruel when they want, the court could suddenly find that if an agency has always had plenty of authority to be more cruel when they want, the court could suddenly find that if an agency tries to be slightly more humane or help people seeking asylum, which only happens when there is a, quote, credible fear of returning to one's home country, that's suddenly too far. And keep in mind just how political all of this is and the impact one Trump-appointed judge can have on everything.

We saw it last week with the flight masks ruling as well. These are really activist judges. And this judge in particular just made up this all or nothing rule. They're not lawmakers, but they're making some law. So now we'll see whether the Supreme Court is going to accept that. Oy yi yi, it's not looking good. It's not. Moving to some tech news. Last week, we mentioned that Netflix announced a loss in subscribers for the first time in a decade.

The company lost 200,000 subscribers globally in the first quarter of this year, and the streamer is expecting to lose another 2 million subscribers by June. As a result, the website The Wrap reported that Netflix pulled the plug on a number of shows, mostly in the original animation department. Netflix is saying a few factors caused this loss in subscribers, including the company's suspension of service in Russia as a result of the country's invasion of Ukraine and increased competition from rival streaming services. Netflix is also blaming some of its poor performance on password sharing. It estimates that 100 million accounts around the world are sharing passwords. That is an enormous number. But as someone who, you know, maybe shares passwords, I'm not going to confirm or deny. Tell me what this means for the royal us, not necessarily. The royal us. Yes, yes. It means that if you're not the one in your family or friend group that actually pays for the shared Netflix account, you might have to figure out a new arrangement.

Devastating. So over the weekend, we finally got some details about how Netflix might go about limiting password sharing. So can you break the news to us like gently, as gently as possible to me personally? How might this go down? Well, the good news is nobody's account is going to get frozen or suspended for password sharing. But it is likely that if you want to continue sharing your account with, say, your mom and sister who live in South Carolina and your two friends who live in New York City while you're living in Los Angeles, y'all might have to locate a few extra coins to cover a slightly higher bill. I'm just going to guess that you have completely made up those particular details of this hypothetical scenario. You know,

I believe this is where I'm supposed to plead the fifth. And so I'm just going to keep on going and say that Netflix has apparently already been testing a new feature internationally that charges an additional fee for password sharing outside the main account holder's address. Users in Peru, Costa Rica, and Chile have been paying the equivalent of around $2 to $3 U.S. more a month to be able to create up to two sub-accounts outside their home. Netflix COO Greg Peters described it this way in a conference call with investors last week. So if you've got a sister, let's say, that's living in a different city, you want to share Netflix with her, that's great. We're not trying to shut down that sharing, but we're going to ask you to pay a bit more to be able to share with her so that

she gets the benefit and the value of the service, but we also get the revenue associated with that viewing. I should say that none of this is set in stone yet, but the reporting out there is that if Netflix does crack down on password sharing, this might be the model they announce. I'm currently in mourning. You mentioned that they also blamed increased competition for the drop in subscribers. So can you say more about that? We know that there are more streamers today than there were even five years ago. So Netflix is not only not the only girl in town, but if, for example, you're most interested in Disney Channel original movies like The Cheetah Girls or Gotta Kick It Up, si se puede for my fans out there, you might want to go with Disney Plus, all right? Or HBO Max if you can bring

yourself to still watch the Harry Potter franchise. So the exclusive content on these platforms is super important and it helps dictate what people are willing to pay for. Okay, number one, Xenon Girl of the 21st Century. Remember that? Period. Number two, Encore is the best show on Disney+. Allow me to change y'all's lives. Well, also we should note, right, that inflation rolls at its fastest pace in more than 40 years this past month. The cost of housing, food, and gasoline is steadily rising across the world. I paid $6.45 for regular unleaded last week, which is absurd. Stop it. Okay?

But as a result of all of this, a recent survey by Momentive for CNBC and Acorn says 35% of people here in the U.S. have already cut a monthly subscription to a streamer to save money. So maybe charging people more for password sharing isn't the right way to go? Question mark. I personally cut three subscriptions last week when I found out my husband was out here subscribing to every which way movie channel that I was like, we're not doing that. You know, everybody's having to cut back.

But what is most interesting to me, though, is that back in 2017, the official Netflix Twitter account actually tweeted, quote, love is sharing a password. And now it seems like they're asking in the iconic words of Tina Turner, what's love got to do with it? Everything was all good. Until it wasn't. Until it wasn't. That is the latest for now on Netflix.

We'll be back after some ads. Now let's wrap up with some headlines. Headlines. The war in Ukraine entered its third month on Sunday, and yesterday was the first time that top U.S. officials visited the country since Russia invaded. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin went to Kiev to meet with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. Meanwhile, an estimated one in six people in Ukraine have been forced to flee their homes

since the war began. Yesterday, refugees gathered at churches to celebrate the Orthodox Easter holiday. Many congregated in the western city of Lviv, which has largely escaped the worst of Russia's invasion, while millions more commemorated the holiday throughout Eastern Europe in places like Poland and Romania. As that happened, Ukraine tried once again for diplomacy talks. The country proposed a special round of negotiations with Russia to discuss humanitarian corridors for civilians and troops still trapped in the southern port city of Mariupol. No escape routes were established, but Ukraine's deputy prime minister said negotiators would try again today. French President Emmanuel Macron beat his far-right challenger Marine Le Pen in the final round of voting yesterday. He will remain in office for a second five-year term. Le Pen conceded last night but told supporters she was celebrating the votes she received. She mustered a projected 41.5%

of the vote, which brought her closer to the French presidency than any other ultra-conservative candidate in history. Le Pen and Macron ran against each other back in 2017 when centrist candidate Macron won by a landslide. Le Pen has a history of nationalist and xenophobic beliefs, some of which she inherited from her dad, who once led her far-right party. This is more evidence of how you can't spell Nazism without nepotism. Or maybe you can, but they do rhyme? Not really sure. Anyway, this time, Le Pen campaigned hard on the economy and cost of living issues,

which resonated with more voters than her appeals to racism. Macron's supporters took to the streets yesterday to celebrate his victory. And this election has a major global impact as well. Macron's win secures France's position in the European Union, its support for Ukraine, as well as its close alliance with the United States. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren made waves yesterday when she called House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy a, quote, liar and traitor on CNN's State of the Union. Warren's comments were in response to the new audio released by the New York Times last week of a phone call between McCarthy and other members of his party that took place just days after the insurrection. In it, you can hear McCarthy say that former President Donald Trump bore some responsibility for the Capitol riots,

indicating that behind closed doors, this man has some ability to engage with the real world. McCarthy can also be heard saying that he plans to urge Trump to resign over the matter, which the record will show almost certainly did not happen. The Times' audio made things pretty awkward after McCarthy first denied reports that he said any of these things. While McCarthy seemingly hasn't faced any consequences from his party or the former president for his comments, Republican leaders are facing larger scrutiny for their hypocrisy on Trump and the insurrection. In Sunday's CNN interview, Warren said this. That is really the illness that pervades the Republican leadership right now, that they say one thing to the American public and something else in private. I love how McCarthy was like, I didn't say it. one thing to the American public and something else in private. Mm-hmm.

I love how McCarthy was like, I didn't say it. And there was tape as offered as it gets. Truth Social just became the last safe place to say that icebergs actually enjoy melting. Because Twitter announced last week that it is banning paid content that denies climate change. So from now on, advertisements that go against the scientific consensus on global warming, i.e. it's real and it's happening, don't be an idiot, will be removed from the platform. The initiative echoes a rule Google implemented last year, which banned ads on YouTube videos that quote, refer to climate change as a hoax or a scam. Climate activists have long criticized Twitter and other big tech companies for profiting off of ads

that misrepresent the dire threat of global warming. It's enough that they profit off of all of our fears, insecurities, and base desires. But even this mild effort at tamping down on disinformation by Twitter could be at risk, because new reports from over the weekend indicate the company is reconsidering the offer of devout free speech

warrior Elon Musk to buy the platform. According to the Wall Street Journal, Twitter representatives met with Musk's team on Sunday. The move comes after the Tesla CEO said that he had secured $46.5 billion to back his takeover bid last week, meaning he's willing to pay significantly more than Twitter's value based on its stock price alone. The company is expected to respond to the bid by Thursday when it reports its first quarter earnings. If Musk buys the company, his stance on quote unquote censorship could have major implications for Twitter's content moderation initiatives. I just want to say this is the same guy who called a random person in thailand a pedophile for no reason told that to the world named his child pound sign pound sign weird other sign that i don't know what it means

and is like good friends with peter teal it's like a bingo card of the worst possible things but 46.5 billion. Come on now. Yeah. You know. And Twitter was like, this goes against all our values. And then they were like, but $46.5 billion. Which, I'm not going to lie to you, Twitter. I get it. If someone has $46.5 billion that they want to give me, I'm also considering my values.

Money talks. It does. You know this. It does. But they're rich enough. They don't need it. And this is really just the icing on the cake of the world ending. It's like Elon Musk takes over everything.

It's just shitty. And those are the headlines. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe. Leave a review. Stop letting Twitter profit off your base desires, and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just fact-check statements about the wants and needs of icebergs like me, What A Day is also a nightly newsletter.

Check it out and subscribe at Cricut.com slash subscribe. I'm Josie Duffy Rice. I'm Travelle Anderson. And roll back the tape, Kevin McCarthy. Oh, yes, we heard you, honey. We know what your deal is. And I will be clowning you until the end of time. What a Day is a production of Crooked Media.

It's recorded and mixed by Bill Lance. Jazzy Marine and Raven Yamamoto are our associate producers. Our head writer is John Milstein, and our executive producers are Leo Duran and me, Gideon Resnick. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard andashaka.