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

#241

Post by RaleyField » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #92

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…

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…

> censoring

Is this really censure though? You'd think it's Facebook applying certain policy mechanically and not Facebook being very pro Vietnam war by trying to curtail others' speech which I would count as censure.

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

#242

Post by kinkdr » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

freshflowers wrote: post #235

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 libert…

Apologies for the shouting, I just wanted to put emphasis on the company. Maybe asterisks would have been more appropriate.

I think I didn't put my point across very well, I by no means meant to defend FB. My point was really that problems like this will always arise when the people give so much power to a single company. Hence my suggestion to switch to an open alternative.

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

#243

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

larsiusprime wrote: post #103

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.

The problem with this view of free speech is that the means of communication are privately owned: http://www.jonas-kyratzes.net/2014/04/26/free-speech-and-the...

In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there.

What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.

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

#244

Post by tdkl » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

nonce42 wrote: post #231

omginternets wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sce…

> but very possibly could decide to have sex.

Oh the horror. Perhaps if sane sex ed was wide spread[1], that would be a non issue. Like in EU.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requi...

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

#245

Post by FabHK » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

kinkdr wrote: post #239

FabHK wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah ok, fully agree on that people should explore alternatives... (I'm trying to get people on Signal and Wire, instead of Skype/Whatsapp/FacebookMessenger/Viber/...)

As someone has highlighted above, though - there is the coordination problem, that everyone (or at least most people) would have to migrate. (But then - it's happened: Friendster, orkut, ...)

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

#246

Post by tdkl » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #218

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…

This issue is beyond simple American prudish tendencies. Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual. This exact photo was on the front page of the NYTimes when it was first taken. This issue is more about the hyper paranoia about child abuse and child porn. Then again something like 1/8 chi…

This seems to be also something that got pushed into mainstream over the world with the widespread of the Internet and probably as a boogeyman term to police it. Also to stop millions of dollars of unpaid tax money in purchase of this merchandise online, which was fine before.

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

#247

Post by new_hackers » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:27 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…

Exactly, and exactly why it works so well.

If you question "the troops" including why they were sent there to begin with, then you are easily labeled "unpatriotic" and your ideas are immediately dismissed.

It is a very easy way to implement self-culling behavior among the masses. The "powers" do not have to black bag the dissidents, if they are never able to achieve any viable mind-share.

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

#248

Post by new_hackers » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #180

new_hackers wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

BTW, I am supportive of the troops, and I think that the total cost of war is not calculated. If we are not prepared to shoulder the burden of our military troops after they return, then we did not have the capital to go to war in the first place.

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

#249

Post by nzjrs » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

John23832 wrote: post #186

nzjrs wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Well yes. Law's are codified at a certain time. And then the law changes, and morality is codified at the new time. You really can't judge the morality of an action when removed from the instance and context that action happened in... I guess I should have said codified at a certain time, but I thought that was implied.

> You really can't judge > when removed from the > instance and context that > -action happened in...

Sure you can. Rape, murder, slavery, that sort of thing.

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

#250

Post by r_smart » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

RaleyField wrote: post #241

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…

> censoring Is this really censure though? You'd think it's Facebook applying certain policy mechanically and not Facebook being very pro Vietnam war by trying to curtail others' speech which I would count as censure.

Sure it's censure. The motivation doesn't change the act, at least not in this case. I don't think anybody finds Facebook to be taking a stance on the Vietnam War here.