Facebook is imposing American censorship on the rest of the world • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by res0nat0r » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #119

weberc2 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Today Zuck censors for America, tomorrow it's the royal saudi family. This isn't a reasonable compromise. Reasonable is having the offended disconnect their internet and resign from society so they can live in their curated bubble of an existence.

Or the folks who don't like Facebook asking them to censor their images could just not use Facebook and post elsewhere...

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

#172

Post by omginternets » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

kj01a wrote: post #169

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…

>We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice. How many people do you know that actually do this? The parents I know that were okay with their kids seeing violent moves were equally okay with their kids seeing nudity.

>How many people do you know that actually do this?

Too many to count. FFS, you're responding to an article about Facebook censoring nipples! ;)

More seriously, I envy you. Where do you live? I might move there.

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

#173

Post by bostonpete » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

BlackFly wrote: post #126

smsm42 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe that the old Europe has very interesting things to say Like UK libel laws that are so nice that they created a phenomenon of "libel tourism" where people come into UK to sue others for libel because in other places they'd be laughed out of court? Or like courts forcing search engines remove pages because some person feels uneasy with true public information about them being out there? Or criminal penaltie…

Very solid whataboutism. Yes, Europe is not perfect and has some serious problems with freedom. That being said, the first amendment (jurisprudence) in the USA suffers from two serious flaws not necessarily suffered by freedom of expression legislation in other countries: 1. The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test. 2. The first amendment is on…

> The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor.

I don't consider this a flaw. I wouldn't want government intervening in private websites (like this one) attempts to moderate discussion on the grounds of first amendment rights.

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

#174

Post by kinkdr » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

BlackFly wrote: post #115

kinkdr wrote: post #85

Lots and lots of people seem to forget: Facebook is an American COMPANY. It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and hence they have to put up with their rules. If they don't like it, they should stop using it and start using the open alternatives.

Much like the dichotomy between violence and obscenity which is the subject of the article, the public and private distinction on the ethics of censorship is extremely American. Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color. The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no…

Regulation is one solution with a lot of problems.

A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.

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

#175

Post by RestlessMind » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

nzjrs wrote: post #120

John23832 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legality is group morality codified.

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

How about legalization of same sex marriages by US Supreme Court in recent years? When "marriage" was referred to in various laws in, say, 19th century, no one would have imagined them to apply to same sex couples given the moral codes of those times. Whereas in 2014, same text was interpreted to support same sex marriages (or at least, not prohibit them). Hard to imagine that decision in 1914.

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

#176

Post by dmix » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #53

dmix wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Otherwise a) you confront the person politely telling them why you think it was inappropriate or b) unfriend/mute them. Reddit uses a NSFW filter over videos that you have to click through to see the video first... that would also be up to the user to mark as NSFW... or you unfriend them. Or even a downvote button is community-based. The reason he…

> Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Because Facebook have already said that some content is not allowed on their platform. For a while women who'd had breast cancer and had reconstructive surgery were posting images of their new breasts, or of their now nipple-less breast with tattoos. Or breast-feeding mothers were posting images of their feeding children. Facebook said that thos…

Censorship is always a slippery slope. It's true that Facebook crossed that line a long time ago and they can't go back now. I remember they've always been willing to go beyond further than necessary in order to keep things family-friendly.

They should (or at a minimum could) have taken a hard-line early on against policing content and built tools to let people regulate themselves. Now they seemed to always be cursed if they do and cursed if they don't.

Sadly most people seem to prefer it this way instead of taking moral positions against the regulation of language - which was popular a century ago. Or maybe people have always been this way, with the exception of the progressive intellectuals who wrote the early bills of rights in the 19th century.

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

#177

Post by sliverstorm » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #111

sp332 wrote: post #65

Aw, let's be fair now. After all they also ban religious material at the request of the Pakistani government http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post... and political content for Hong Kong too! http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100205/13699972 (translation https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr... )

There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook. So is…

The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.

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

#178

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

Yes, it does, and the fact that you think that we don't let them see R-rated movies (which contain more sex but not more violence than PG-13 [0]) means that we don't let them see violence illustrates, rather than contradicts, that point.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...

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

#179

Post by omginternets » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

nommm-nommm wrote: post #159

omginternets wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves.

Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity.

Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence!

This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.

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

#180

Post by MichaelGG » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

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.

Nothing wrong with supporting the troops. Marion Le Pen was questioned on his regarding French military action a long time ago. Her correct response was to point out that the French soldiers did their job, did what they were supposed to. If apologies and shame are appropriate, it needs to be aimed at the leadership.

The attitude towards Vietnam vets was disgusting, right? Drafted people forced into a pointless war. Support the people not the leaders...