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

#231

Post by nonce42 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #93

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.

The theatrical dimension doesn't change much. That's how strange the US is in this respect. The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent, contrary to the amount of censorship applied to sex, real or otherwise. Do Americans censor "real" violence more than theatrical violence? Possibly. Do they censor "real" violence less than any form of nudity? Yes. You can show Braveheart or a video of a st…

Some random thoughts on the US movie situation:

For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.

It seems like movies have a monopoly on socially acceptable portrayals of nudity. Nobody raises an eyebrow if you go to a mainstream movie with a nude scene. And actresses can show breasts in movies, but would cause a scandal if a nipple showed happened in real life.

Once I started thinking about how much violence is shown in movies, I realized that it really is a crazy level. Just count the murders in a typical action movie and compare to real life. (Interestingly, rapes are portrayed very very rarely in movies.) I'm not suggesting censorship of violent movies, but doesn't it seem like maybe there's a bit too much?

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

#232

Post by oneloop » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #170

American censorship is bad, but wait until you meet Russian, Chinese or Pakistani one... If Facebook limits itself only to American censorship that won't be as bad, a bigger concern would be it will apply censorship rules of any country that has enough market pull to influence Facebook's monetary interests. As soon as you start on this road, Russia would say if you censor what's bad in America, why don't you censor w…

Tell us more about this Russian censorship, you seem to know a lot about the subject.

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

#233

Post by rhino369 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:58 PM UTC

tehwalrus wrote: post #27

It hurts my brain when people describe censorship as "liberalism". Especially fellow Brits.

Censorship often comes from different sides of the political spectrum. In the USA, sexual censorship comes from mostly the right, but increasing from the left as well--exploiting women, perpetuating rape culture, etc.

Violence censorship often comes from the left. Democrats used to lead the way on banning violent video games, etc.

"Hate speech" censorship comes from the left too.

Whoever is in power tends to seek to bad seditious speech.

And the right usually wants to censor blasphemous speech.

It's a mixed bag.

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

#234

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #149

ubernostrum wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

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.

So, would you like to compare to how long an apprenticeship you'd have to serve, or what hoops you'd have to jump through and payments you'd have to make, to get into a skilled-trade guild in the golden old days?

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

Sumptuary laws and other regulations on clothing are millennia old.

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.

In a feudal society 100% of people worked for either the government or the church. 16% is a nice downsize from that.

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

#235

Post by freshflowers » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

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.

Since when is it normal for a mainstream COMPANY (since you feel it's worth shouting about this must be the crux of your argument) to interfere with how people use its products based on fundamentalist ideologies?

It's not something people should expect the happen, and in most civilized countries, we protect consumers against such unreasonable interference. Because we live in actual democracies, not in someones libertarian wet dream.

If Facebook promoted itself as the platform for Christian fundamentalist conservatives, fine. At least that would be honest, and give people a clear choice up front.

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

#236

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #232

smsm42 wrote: post #170

American censorship is bad, but wait until you meet Russian, Chinese or Pakistani one... If Facebook limits itself only to American censorship that won't be as bad, a bigger concern would be it will apply censorship rules of any country that has enough market pull to influence Facebook's monetary interests. As soon as you start on this road, Russia would say if you censor what's bad in America, why don't you censor w…

Tell us more about this Russian censorship, you seem to know a lot about the subject.

How many weeks you're willing to spend on it? :) Yes, I know a bunch about the subject, but most of it hardly relevant to the topic at hand.

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

#237

Post by r_smart » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:01 PM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #210

MichaelGG wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

"Nothing wrong with supporting the troops." That depends on what you mean by "supporting the troops." I actually have no definition or even a clear idea of what this means and I'm certain no one else does either. It's just a generic motto used for brainwashing. Does it mean that I support the individuals not dying? Because if so, then yes, I support the troops very much and I hope none of them die. Does it mean that…

>They are murdering and raping people.

>I would never utter such an ambiguous and clearly manipulative phrase.

Pick one.

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

#238

Post by r_smart » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #227

r_smart wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Faceboo…

> Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for. What else might pixelation or blurring mean in this context besides that she is naked?

If you're trying to lead me to a specific idea, I'm not following, sorry.

To answer you literally: Serious injury or mutilation, wearing some kind of propaganda the censor didn't want you to see, bawdy tattoos. Probably a million other things, but it would probably still be obvious it was because she was naked.

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

#239

Post by kinkdr » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

FabHK wrote: post #230

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.

That (essentially libertarian) defence doesn't hold a lot of water. Even an American COMPANY is subject to rules, which in turn are designed/evolved to satisfy objectives - they're not immutable natural law. Even Milton Friedman conceded that government intervention was justified in the case of externalities or natural monopolies. Social networks are, by virtue of the network effect, arguably natural monopolies, and…

I was not trying to defend FB, but rather suggest that people should use open alternatives, as problems like this will always be there with FB.

PS: I just meant to put emphasis on the company, not shout.

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

#240

Post by jimmytidey » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:12 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #191

jimmytidey wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with the above. The idea that society should accept that it has no control over the design of a major artery of communication is not sensible. With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness). I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to mak…

Society has complete control in deciding whether or not Facebook is a major artery of communication.

In that case why do we have laws for television stations or print media? Why do we have libel or defamation law, even?

Because we can see it's essential for democracy for public discourse to be structured in a certain way, specifically that it not disproportionately represent one person or organisations views.

I can see that in principle people can choose not to use Facebook, but in practice we see that it is very dominant, and so, if a society perceives that a very dominant platform curtails freedom of speech, it's absolutely right to do something about it.

In principle, we might imagine, a newspaper that prints lies will go out of business. But, maybe it won't? In practice, all developed countries have laws against printing untruths.

It's clearly a balance, but if we look at other mediums and the way we've chosen to regulate them, Facebook is a clear outlier. If that's the case we should find the least intrusive way to ensure a single company doesn't have so much control over public discussion.

The idea that everyone freely selects Facebook for their communications because they love its moderation policy doesn't pass the common sense test.