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

#291

Post by gozur88 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #178

nommm-nommm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That study is designed to find what they wanted to find. There's a big difference between the "gun violence" you find in PG-13 movies and what you find in R movies. The A-Team is not Saving Private Ryan.

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

#292

Post by exclusiv » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 8:57 PM UTC

chippy wrote: post #80

briandear wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans? How about the British, Mexico, Singapore, China, Japan, Korea, every country in the Middle East except Israel? Then you have a German freak out over even talking about Nazis. Almost every country has some hang up or another. Suggesting that 'Americans' have a fear of nipples is short sighted. Every culture has something that causes a collective freakout.

The difference (that mgleason_3 was saying) is that Americans cannot see that other's have different viewpoints. Other countries are able to see that others have different viewpoints and can justify their own decisions in comparison with others. It's why, for example, they are often puzzled when abroad and note that "some people don't like us Americans" and cannot find out why. I have noticed this particular way of l…

Part of it is that the bulk of Americans don't travel outside the country. Many don't travel outside their own state.

Americans tend to live near other like-minded people and are afraid of those with other views - both in our own country and outside.

Facebook pushes this filter bubble which we gobble up. It's not an accident, and it has a scientific basis. It's also better for advertisers.

Regarding sex and violence and censorship - I agree it's a little odd. The only thing I can think of is that there are more laws and regulations regarding sexual photos than violent photos. Also, our media also has a history of pushing violent stories. If it bleeds it leads.

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

#293

Post by weberc2 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:00 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #238

weberc2 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Wasn't trying to lead you, I was just wondering if there could be another reasonable conclusion. Your answer seems to be confirming my suspicions.

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

#294

Post by r_smart » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:00 PM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #282

r_smart wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are murdering and raping people. >I would never utter such an ambiguous and clearly manipulative phrase. Pick one.

I don't need to. Most of my readers can process more than once sentence at a time.

Sorry if the previous response was overly terse, but it seemed easiest to point out what you were doing with your own words. Namely, demonstrating the behavior you're decrying.

Also, how is showing you sentences from different parts of your post being unable to process more than one sentence at a time? If you just wanted to match snark with snark, then fair enough, but as a refutation, it's a bit lacking. Rather, you seem to be making a veiled appeal to authority via having a readership / cult of personality based around you.

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

#295

Post by John23832 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

nzjrs wrote: post #249

John23832 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you really can't.

I can stand here today and say that chattel slavery in the antebelum was wrong. But I'm saying that today, with today's morals. Time machine back to the 1840's, the moral landscape is much different, and slavery is accepted. There's even moral justification for it. Standing here in 2016 I can see that that justification is bunk, but back then it stood.

It's the same issue that researchers run into when talking about the acceptability of cannablism in native cultures. Once your removed from the act, both in space and time, you've lost the moral context.

To bring us back to our original topic, one of the purposes of codified law is to place a moral stake in the ground that serves as a reference point for everyone. You can judge people by those laws/morals after they were created (and before they are superceded by a new set of laws/morals), but you can't judge those that came before by a moral stake that didn't exist when they acted.

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

#296

Post by weberc2 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:07 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…

> 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 has nudity and violence, and we don't allow 8-10 year olds to see it.

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

#297

Post by raarts » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #104

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…

There really isn't a problem with seeing beheadings either. I was obsessed with seeing just how evil IS were (spoiler: nazi level) so for a time I watched all the videos the press talked about. Some of them did make me feel bad, but none of them harmed me.

You should state how old you were at the time.

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

#298

Post by weberc2 » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

Oletros wrote: post #284

weberc2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American, and as far as I can tell, beheadings are at least as controversial as nudity. I wouldn't put much stock in the LA Times either; lots of very biased reporting. EDIT: There seems to be some confusion as to whether we're talking about actual beheadings (e.g., ISIS videos) or theatrical violence. My previous statement pertains to the former context; I don't dispute that fictitious violence in America is…

> beheadings are at least as controversial as nudity. Really, really astonished that in some circumstances someone compares a beheading with nudity

To be clear, that person wasn't me. I was responding to someone who originated the comparison.

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

#299

Post by lmickh » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #219

ascendantlogic wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American here. As always there can be a middle ground. I 100% agree that the female body (or male body for that matter) is not the end of civilization but there's still a line to be drawn with regards to what children see. You never see the human body depicted in media as simply the vessel we exist in. It's always sexualized almost always with the aim of selling a product. My kids don't need to be seeing that until t…

To take Sweden as a historical example, it used to be quite common that Swedish movies had nudity in them. Sweden has a lot of lakes and shores, and the capital is built on top of cluster of islands, so swimming nude during the summer was a very common scene in movies made before 2000 (sometimes with children among the adults), as would comedian pieces with people running in the street naked. The neck spirit was also…

Did your gang violence increase? Just curious.

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

#300

Post by r_smart » Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #293

r_smart wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wasn't trying to lead you, I was just wondering if there could be another reasonable conclusion. Your answer seems to be confirming my suspicions.

Maybe, depends on how you did it. Like I initially thought of doing her whole body, but I guess you could just do the parts of her that makes it nudity, so it would be a censorship bikini. That would probably make it more obvious that she was naked, and I'm not really sure what that solves.