Maybe it's time to consider Facebook, Twitter, et al, as common carriers, which, under the new net neutrality law, would disallow them from censoring content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
While I often disagree with the censorship on Facebook I also think it's required to some extend. Imagine an uncensored Facebook: how quickly would it degenerate into 4Chan? If Facebook allowed nudity it would become a massive porn site over night. I actually understand their nudity censorship, just censor anything with naked people, to avoid complaints about differential treatment. Facebook would go out of business…
>just censor anything with naked people
It's a simple solution for a complex problem. Countries that follow this way end up covering up ancient statues - just in case, you know.
The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.
> The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored. No, it's more like the person who has been censored has an ego so big he thinks it shouldn't happen to him. This outrage was ridiculous.
It's the specific context around this photo. Vietnam was defined by media presence which was what drove public outrage against the war.
Essentially the thesis is this: if Facebook were the dominant media platform during Vietnam, we never would've seen these images; we probably would have continued committing atrocities against civilians and our own soldiers.
Seeing as we are now involved in several wars around the world, if our media cannot publicize the realities of war because a child's clothes got blown off with her legs, then someone (i.e. Facebook) has a stranglehold on public opinion.
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.
>I prefer that my son sees a tit in TV than a shooting or murder.
Seriously. Sex is normal. Killing is not.
I love the US, I really do, but the level of prudishness is just... insane.
Maybe it's time to consider Facebook, Twitter, et al, as common carriers, which, under the new net neutrality law, would disallow them from censoring content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
I just read a comment on HN that calls for using government to force private companies to host and serve content against their will. Is this real life?
The telephone company has virtually no say over what is transferred over their phone lines. What if the phone company decided to use voice recognition to censor swear words during your phone conversation so all you heard was a bleep? Or suppose the electric company decided it didn't like what you were doing with electricity and only allowed electricity to the activities it approved. The law on common carriers goes back over 100 years.
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.
Please enlighten us anyways. Now your argument is empty, or fuelled by fear of the Russians. Not with any sources.
Enlighten you about what? Existence of censorship in Russia? Really, you didn't know about it despite all the extensive research you performed on the subject (like googling "censorship in Russia")? Or you have specific questions - if so, which ones? Or you're just hoping to bog down the argument by demanding excessive proof to known and widely covered things and hoping I'd eventually give up and you could say "well, I knew it, no proof, all lies!"?
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.
It's not really a contradiction. We associate child nudity with sexuality because we've started to sexualize children.
It's why America refuses nipples on TV, but we go hog wild for huge tits.
Where did you grow up, Soviet Russia? I wasn't even one of those "mall rat" kids, and most of the time I went to the movies with friends we switched to a different screen.
Well the suburban malls didn't care for "urban" kids taking the bus to the mall even if they weren't causing trouble. They eventually just flat out banned anyone under 18 from entering the mall without a parent, seriously, the mall cop stands at the entrance and IDs young looking people at the entrance. That was after I turned 18 they started that policy though. When I was about 24 I got IDed at the entrance to the m…
Haha I don't think I've ever been an age at which going to a mall was worth getting IDed. Movie theaters in indoor malls suck anyway, like most things about indoor malls. (In USA, anyway, I once went to a mall movie theater in Philippines and it was awesome.)
Even so I'd say the mall you're describing was particularly authoritarian. Most malls in USA couldn't afford a guard at every entrance.
> 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.
>I prefer that my son sees a tit in TV than a shooting or murder. Seriously. Sex is normal. Killing is not. I love the US, I really do, but the level of prudishness is just... insane.
Sex is natural, essential to the continuation of the species. You cannot say the same for killing humans. Butchering cattle, well, maybe that's necessary, but slaying a man or a woman definitely is not. People are advocating to ban death sentences, yes?
> The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored. No, it's more like the person who has been censored has an ego so big he thinks it shouldn't happen to him. This outrage was ridiculous.
It's the specific context around this photo. Vietnam was defined by media presence which was what drove public outrage against the war. Essentially the thesis is this: if Facebook were the dominant media platform during Vietnam, we never would've seen these images; we probably would have continued committing atrocities against civilians and our own soldiers. Seeing as we are now involved in several wars around the wo…
Sure but Facebook isn't preventing the media from showing this, sure if Facebook was our only forum for journalism censorship of things like this would be atrocious. But I don't think facebooks argument is this shouldn't exist but that Facebook isn't a news station and isn't the right forum to share those kind of things. One easy reason is news stations warn about graphic content and are usually watched by adults whereas any 10 year old with an internet access can find it on this guy's Facebook page. I think this article, and the outrage in general, treats Facebook as too powerful of a social institution. It undeniably is but I feel it's influence is overstated, and that Facebook trying to maintain itself as a forum for socializing is fine, it owns the website it can decide what to put on it. If the thing you need to say is so important there are many other forums to express that idea, even within the internet. That said I think if this truly is Facebook is trying to make a policy that truly promotes what their trying to do it should be stricter. Videos of beheadings belong on deeper webs imho.
Facebook is not just a private company anymore. In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter,…
> In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct. Facebook, Inc. is a publicly traded company. An example of a private company would be Dell Technologies.
Step 1) become facebooks majority shareholder. Step 2) do whatever you want with their censorship policy. Publicly traded companies are still private in the sense of ownership, their publicly traded because anyone can buy that private ownership, but until you do (and a lot of it) Facebook doesn't have any obligation to put what you want or don't want on their site. I still agree that their censorship policy is ridiculous, but they get to decide what kind of forum they are. I suggest you find a better forum cause imho fb just sucks in general