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

261–270 of 348 posts

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

#261

Post by serge2k »

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…

> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen.

Braveheart is rated R.

We did get to see scenes from an R rated movie in grade 10, but it was the opening to saving private ryan while we were studying WW2. I'd argue that violence like that in context is more acceptable. 15 year olds are also much better prepared.

The thing that's really ridiculous is the swearing. The Walking Dead has gratuitous violence, but they can't say fuck because that would hurt advertising revenue. It's ridiculous.

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

#262

Post by fapjacks »

Interesting, considering I've been reporting the same photo for years, which is constantly not deleted by these people. The photo itself shows the naked, bloody, mutilated corpse of a woman who was raped and murdered, then had a crucifix shoved down her throat. For what it's worth, the image is absolutely real, a crime scene photo. Every single time I report it, I get "We reviewed the photo you reported ... and found it doesn't violate our Community Standards." Humans are definitely reviewing that photo. I would post a link (in hopes that others here could help me report it) but it's extremely graphic and I'm sure HN would implode.

Facebook is pretty much 100% terrible and 0% great. I don't think it does anything positive for anybody except Mark Zuckerberg.

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

#263

Post by serge2k »

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.

This is the idiotic prudishness that people are talking about.

Teenagers aren't going to have sex because a movie has boobs in it. They are going to have sex because they want to have sex. It's basic biology. Educate them and encourage them to make good/mature choices.

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

#264

Post by fapjacks »

new_hackers wrote: post #247
joesmo wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Nah, just go ahead and criticize. You are going to be fighting an uphill battle, but as someone who spent over a decade criticizing the military while in the military, I can tell you that the bark has no bite, as is often the case with things like this. You'll actually find a lot of people that agree with you, even though they won't add their voice to yours.

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

#265

Post by RaleyField »

pessimizer wrote: post #206
kinkdr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is one solution with a lot of problems. A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.

No, a better solution is regulation. A personal solution that can be put into action immediately is switching to an open alternative.

Unless it's a bad regulation and you a left without a choice because everyone is regulated.

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

#266

Post by serge2k »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #154
omginternets wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I probably saw die hard and other movies like that in middle school.

I remember seeing saving private ryan around that time too.

The only movie that ever really bothered me for violence was the passion of the christ.

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

#267

Post by r_smart »

new_hackers wrote: post #253
r_smart wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

Yes the leadership should be criticized. My point it is a brainwashing tool. My comment probably did not properly convey the nuanced and subtle ways of mind control. It goes more like this when expanded: "You cannot ever criticize our troops, or our military, because they are heroes. If you do, you are not an American. You must never forget that our troops and our military protect you always." The tautology is that t…

I would argue that what propaganda that is there is hardly nuanced or subtle, and certainly doesn't qualify as mind control.

I also think a component of it comes from how poorly vets have been treated in the past by the culture at large as well as the government they served. A lot of us have friends and family members that were hard used by their service and more or less cast aside or forgotten about.

For me, the propaganda, and double-think is more around the idea of drumming up support for our troops even though, frankly, we fall pretty short of that. Granted it also gets wrapped up in patriotism, etc., but I think it's a pretty blunt tool in that regard. If anything, you could call it a right-wing version of virtue signalling I guess.

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

#269

Post by Oletros »

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…

> For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence

Perhaps because I'm Spanish, but that doesn't make any sense for me.

I prefer that my son sees a tit in TV than a shooting or murder.

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

#270

Post by lorenzhs »

FabHK wrote: post #226
lorenzhs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3

Can't believe the Page 3 Wikipedia page has not a single photo :-(

Oh come on, you can't be serious! That is completely inappropriate here.
Post reply on HN