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

151–160 of 348 posts

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

#151

Post by omginternets »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #143
omginternets wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And it's completely and utterly beside the point.

We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.

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

#152

Post by retox »

merraksh wrote: post #67

Facebook ploughed on – before performing an embarrassing 360 and claiming that it was imposing this policy out of concern for victims. A 360 would be embarrassing as it places you back to the same road. Perhaps it was an "embarrassing 180" instead.

You do a 360 and then moonwalk away, obviously.

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

#153

Post by webkike »

smokeyj wrote: post #112
weberc2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, d) I thought we were talking about actual beheadings (e.g., ISIS promo videos) and not theatrics.

Yet we make no distinction between theatrical nudity and actual nudity.

...what is the distinction? Both are "actual" nudity. Nudity is nudity.

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

#154

Post by nommm-nommm »

omginternets wrote: post #146
nommm-nommm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unless its changed drastically since I was a kid (which I admit was a very long time ago) the average parent does not expose their children to violence or violent imagery especially not in middle school. Where the hell do you live where that's the case?

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

#155

Post by throwanem »

covekeyboard wrote: post #139
throwanem wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FSF has a lot of problems, too, like an unresolved contradiction in its rhetoric between claimed populism ("everyone can be free!") and evident elitism ("but if you don't choose to act in exactly the way we promote, to hell with you!") I thought hard about joining, but I'm not comfortable with endorsing such a contradictory and self-defeating stance. I don't see why you should be embarrassed to use Facebook et cetera…

Maybe I'm just oblivious to the underlying tone of what I've been reading, or I haven't been reading the right things, but I don't think I've seen the FSF say "to hell with you" or anything similar to people who don't choose to act exactly in the way they promote. If you have to use Facebook because of the consequences on your social life from not using it, that's understandable, but then there's nothing the FSF can…

> I've never gotten the sense that he has contempt for the users.

Neither had I, until I attended his talk at HOPE XI this year. I found his rhetoric in person to differ markedly from that in his writings. The full video of his talk and the following Q&A session is online [1]; I encourage anyone interested in the subject to hear the man out and form your own opinion.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw&list=PLfcAmpILMM...

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

#156

Post by danjoc »

briandear wrote: post #56
danjoc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies. >Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right. So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not…

Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? MySpace got crushed by FB -- IP and trademarks had nothing to do with it, unless you want to fool people into thinking that you were Facebook. Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace. You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault…

>Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks?

This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court.

>Build your own system or come up with your own great idea.

Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence.

>There's no patent on social networking.

This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent

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

#157

Post by jedberg »

I feel bad for Facebook here. Having been responsible for managing this same problem for another (albeit smaller) multinational user generated website, it's a tough problem.

Everyone around the world, and even within the United States, have a vastly different sense of morality and taste. Which do you cater to?

Not to mention the legal issues, where some content is legal in one place and illegal in another.

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

#158

Post by r_smart »

new_hackers wrote: post #140
fit2rule wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I think the basic problem here is not that there aren't Americans who don't have a problem with seeing a bit of nipple, but that a majority of Americans don't seem to understand that if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in…

Agree. And at the same time Americans have been inundated with "war" and the pro-Nationalist message that we should always, ALWAYS, 1) support our troops no matter what and 2) never forget. The fear-mongering is rampant and relentless. And everyone is afraid to question it.

To be fair:

1) Leadership should be criticized, particularly political decisions leading to war, but I'd steer away from treating soldiers like shit. In a lot of ways this is punching down. It's mostly people from poorer families that join the military, as some of the benefits are a huge boon to getting out of poverty for them or their children. I don't know if you've ever talked to a recruiter, but...there's some powerful propaganda there for an 18 year old. Once you're signed up, you can't easily leave, and the punishments for disobedience can be severe.

2) Why should you forget? What possible good could that serve? Learn lessons from the past.

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

#159

Post by nommm-nommm »

omginternets wrote: post #151
nommm-nommm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And it's completely and utterly beside the point. We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.

Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much everyone agrees with age restrictions in theaters, nobody is protesting in the streets to remove them.

Where the hell do you live?

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

#160

Post by calvins »

rm999 wrote: post #135
merraksh wrote: post #67

Facebook ploughed on – before performing an embarrassing 360 and claiming that it was imposing this policy out of concern for victims. A 360 would be embarrassing as it places you back to the same road. Perhaps it was an "embarrassing 180" instead.

It's actually is one of the rare instances I've seen "do a 360" used appropriately. Facebook revamped their policy around the issue while ending up at exactly the same place: you have to use your real name.

But doing a 360 doesn't mean doing a 180, and then sometime much later, doing another 180.
Post reply on HN