Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 348 posts

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#141

Post by omginternets »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #127
omginternets wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>beheadings are at least as controversial as nudity From one internet stranger to another, and with all due respect: bullshit. We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice. To claim differently is to either a) appeal to an exception that does not represent the overall social norm b) be disingenuous (which I don't think is your c…

No middle school kid is going to get into an R rated movie if they are dropped off and not escorted by and adult at all times.

What's your point?

The fact that adult supervision is required doesn't contradict the claim that American parents are willing to expose their children to violence and not nudity.

This literally has nothing to do with anything.

Moreover, I was certainly shown R-rated movies in class at a young age. Sure, all the parents had to sign a permission slip, but the fact that they did it just goes to show I'm not making this up. The phrasing might have been hyperbolic, but the point remains valid: we're by and large okay with kids seeing Terminator but not a nipple.

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#143

Post by nommm-nommm »

omginternets wrote: post #141
nommm-nommm wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No middle school kid is going to get into an R rated movie if they are dropped off and not escorted by and adult at all times.

What's your point? The fact that adult supervision is required doesn't contradict the claim that American parents are willing to expose their children to violence and not nudity. This literally has nothing to do with anything. Moreover, I was certainly shown R-rated movies in class at a young age. Sure, all the parents had to sign a permission slip, but the fact that they did it just goes to show I'm not making this…

> What's your point?

The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen.

Hell, if you have a younger looking 12 year old and let them walk to school by themselves expect a busy body to call the cops on you.

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#144

Post by r_smart »

weberc2 wrote: post #108
r_smart wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has something like 330 million people in it. I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple. In this particular instance though, it's worse than your complaint. We're talking about censoring an iconic image captured from an important time in our history. I'd be willing to bet that even among the anti-nipple people, this ima…

We're not talking about censoring the image in any meaningful sense; FB told them it was cool if they blurred out the nudity. From FB's perspective, they want to draw a hard line against child nudity so they don't have to deal with the slippery slope between child porn and "art", even though no one thinks this is the former. Personally, I think blurring out the nudity is a pretty reasonable compromise.

I think our definitions of meaningful are significantly different. I try to picture what the image would be like with a girls head atop a blurry body, and it seems to me a totally different thing. Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for.

Granted, seeing it censored might prompt you to go and look up the original image, prompting you to leave Facebook. So maybe I've changed my mind on the issue :)

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#145

Post by jedberg »

lawless123 wrote: post #77
mgleason_3 wrote: post #54

Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings. We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK? Its interesting to see this story…

Thought this the other day, was watching that Hannibal TV series. Didn't see one nipple but a few people torn to pieces. Intestines hanging out and person cut into slices and displayed in glass are ok.

"The way to have a fully naked woman in a PG-13 movie is to fill her with bullet holes."

I don't know who said it, if anyone, but it's true.

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#146

Post by omginternets »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #138
dragonwriter wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No middle school kid is going to get into an R rated movie if they are dropped off and not escorted by and adult. IME, insofar as that is enforced at multiplexes, its enforced mostly at ticket sales and at multiplex entrances, not entrances to individual screening rooms with the complex; tickets are usually not verified at entrances to individual screening rooms except for special circumstances, e.g., opening weeke…

I was replying to "We as a society... drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice." The average parent isn't going to fill their mini van with a bunch of 12 year olds and drop them off with the instructions to sneek into a film that they won't be otherwise allowed into. That hypothetical parent would be shamed on the evening news if caught. That's all I'm saying, not that it was…

>The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.

In it's precise form, maybe, but it's certainly not a fiction insofar as we very much tolerate children being exposed to violence. It might not be at the literal movie theater, but that's completely and utterly beside the point.

The average parent has no qualms about showing violence to children. That is not a complete and total fiction. With respect, you're quibbling over trivia.

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#147

Post by nzjrs »

John23832 wrote: post #125
nzjrs wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting definition. Does it have a basis in fact? It also operates with some weird time lags.

That's the logical definition that I've always known. From MW: (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) Offhand, I can't think of one group of people who adhere to customs, practice or rules, that they think are immoral. > It also oper…

> I'm not sure what you mean > by this.

That things often continue to be legal (or illegal) well after the consensus on their morality has shifted. And that is to completely put aside those laws that were patently immoral

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#148

Post by AndrewKemendo »

soufron wrote: post #69

1. This won't last as people will want their own cultural and legal rules to apply on Facebook. 2. Facebook is not just a private company anymore. It's cool to have success, but that comes with bigger public scrutiny, and possibly a lot more obligations than a normal startup who would have only a few users. 3. Don't think this is minor. Facebook will need to evolve, even in the US. This is a matter of Free Speech and…

Facebook is not just a private company anymore.

In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct.

Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter, linkedin, tumblr etc...). There are numerous examples of change.org petitions asking for kickstarter or some other platform to change how they do business.

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#149

Post by dmix »

ubernostrum wrote: post #66
dmix wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France in the 18-19th century had many smart people who spoke against this type of stuff (everyone loves to quote Voltaire). But modern France has become the absolute counter-point for wishing to have less censorship and centralized social control. So this problem isn't limited to the United States. This is an issue in all modern liberal societies. Big government and centralized control has exploded over the last cen…

Admittedly I have not read this book you recommend. However, my experience with such arguments is that they never persuade me "big government" is suddenly intruding into places it didn't previously, since the truth is more often that government was suddenly being deployed in support of people it was traditionally deployed against , and against people it was traditionally deployed in support of.

Even if the government power is smaller than previous authoritarian states/monarchies, the simple fact is that the scope and scale of government has massively grown. We're fortunate to be in the only(?) major industry that isn't heavily regulated. Where you can build a sizable business without having to wrangle with regulations at every step (outside of HR and financial regulations).

The best example in the book is how interior designers need a required 4 yr bachelor diploma, pass a difficult test, and buy a licence, in order to choose what furniture and paint colors will look best in a persons living in Florida. Similar regulations exist for cutting/styling hair. Or cutting nails professionally.

Or look at the 'Burkini' ban happening in France right now.

This wasn't some partisan blanket criticism of 'the welfare state' that US republicans take while simultaneously supporting the 100 different agencies and offices that are now involved in fighting terrorism. It was a serious analysis of how far we've come from being able to solve issues society faces without creating another administrative blackhole.

21 million people are working for the US government alone. That's 16% of employed people and not counting the massive amount of private industry that works directly off of gov contracts (particularily significant in the defense industry). So it's probably closer to ~20%. More than all Fortune 500 companies combined.

How many people do you think worked for the crown in France/England in the 1800s?

Re: Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world

#150

Post by sfifs »

Facebook pays its bills by primarily being a mass reach advertising platform just like any mainstream TV channel. They are not some public communications service.

Therefore they will curate their content in such a way that preserves and expands the mass reach as much as possible (eg. by following country specific content guidelines) and keeps them out of legal hot water (in this case, the risk of child porn) and negative imagery contexts to keep them an attractive source for advertising. For instance, mainstream advertisers (with the exception of the Bennetons of the world) don't necessarily want their brands to appear in possibly negative contexts.

Given these economic interests, any content process they have will necessarily lean towards extra caution. It's not so much "censorship" really as economic self interest.

In these things, follow the money.

Post reply on HN