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

271–280 of 348 posts

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

#271

Post by desdiv »

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…

>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.

Confusingly enough, child beauty pageants originates from the US, and are mostly still a US-only thing. This contradiction really boggles the mind.

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

#272

Post by Noseshine »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #217
smokeyj wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And violent depictions are violent. I wouldn't recommend Kill Bill to a child because the gore isn't real.

Violence is bad because of people getting hurt, not because they're getting red liquids all over. Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt. Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.

    > Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.
Yes - and they are the same as the fictional stuff in your first part. Meaning nobody gets hurt, it's just "there". Nothing breaks or is torn to pieces or shredded or crushed.

    >  Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt.
Same with fictional violence and nudity - and for the latter it does not matter, as you pointed out. Nobody is going to be hurt in either case.

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

#274

Post by kinkdr »

pixl97 wrote: post #243
larsiusprime wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit).

I cannot feel any sympathy for them.

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

#275

Post by RaleyField »

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…

It's not like you can't run two social networks concurrently. That's how Facebook replaced its competition, they weren't the first one. And thus far having Facebook account is not really a necessity so why should government intervene?

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

#276

Post by dragonwriter »

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. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.

AFAIK, there is at least as strong of a research-demonstrated link between violent behavior in young people and violent media consumption as there is for the same thing with sexual behavior and media.

So, I am skeptical about your claim here, even before we consider the severity of the harms of children deciding to engage in violence and then deciding to engage in sexual activity.

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

#277

Post by pixl97 »

kinkdr wrote: post #274
pixl97 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.

People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.

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

#278

Post by r_smart »

rahkiin wrote: post #256
rhino369 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you give a source on the 1/8? I am wondering what counts as 'sexual abuse'. Eg. If a mother or father kissing her or his kid on the mouth is sexual abuse, the number does not surprise me.

Maybe depends on where you come from in the US. Where I come from I totally believe it. But then, I am fairly open about my childhood abuse, and it makes other people feel okay about opening up, so I could just hear about an inordinate amount of it.

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

#279

Post by wiz21 »

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…

So I guess censorship is not something American companies are forced to avoid. They can use it if they wish (newspapers don't show all the information they haven they regularly hides some of it)

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

#280

Post by wiz21 »

pixl97 wrote: post #277
kinkdr wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit). I cannot feel any sympathy for them.

People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.

They didn't give that. They asked you to agree to their terms of services, eventually gave away some of you personal data in exchange for a, I admit it, practical mean of communication. But thy sure didn't give anything. That's what so many forget...
Post reply on HN