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

331–340 of 348 posts

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

#331

Post by iThrowA1 »

ecnahc515 wrote: post #324
iThrowA1 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

Your not allowed to have Facebook if your under 18 iirc, even if that's not enforced heavily.

I believe it's 14 now iirc(i don't use so I might not) . Started out as needed a .edu email but Im pretty sure it's advertised to high school kids now too

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

#332

Post by tehwalrus »

rhino369 wrote: post #233
tehwalrus wrote: post #27

It hurts my brain when people describe censorship as "liberalism". Especially fellow Brits.

Censorship often comes from different sides of the political spectrum. In the USA, sexual censorship comes from mostly the right, but increasing from the left as well--exploiting women, perpetuating rape culture, etc. Violence censorship often comes from the left. Democrats used to lead the way on banning violent video games, etc. "Hate speech" censorship comes from the left too. Whoever is in power tends to seek to…

See, Liberalism is nothing to do with left and right, which is economics. The "left" (i.e. centre-right) in the USA are not Liberals by British or European standards (which are different), although they are often referred to as such.

You may have already seen the political compass[1], which shows a 2D view of political theory (which is still too small a dimensionality, but illustrates the point about considering more than just left/right.)

In the UK, Liberal Democrats are often advocates of the political compass approach, as a defence against the stereotype that we "sit on the fence" between the two largest parties.

[1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/

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

#333

Post by kakarot »

skrebbel wrote: post #327
kakarot wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is is the government's job at all to regulate this? Are you a fan of big government putting its hands all over everything?

As a European with pretty mainstream European political ideas, yes. In related news, guess why my internet is fast and affordable.

My internet connection is fast and affordable.

Regulations like this are in stark opposition to free speech values. They are a band-aid that does more harm than good. The correct solution is to change mass perception that using these services for news consumption is a bad idea.

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

#334

Post by nommm-nommm »

jessaustin wrote: post #317
nommm-nommm wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Once one mall started every single mall in the area followed the policy. It is not uncommon- I just did some random googling for examples

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/09/teens-must-be-with-parent...

http://www.wdrb.com/story/30856303/6-things-you-should-know-...

http://www.panamacity-mall.com/security/

http://www.mallatstonecrest.com/pip

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-ford-city-youth-es...

It's not that expensive, I imagine you are only paying the mall cop around minium wage.

We didn't have any movie theaters that weren't at the mall.

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

#335

Post by omginternets »

echaozh wrote: post #318
omginternets wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Clearly I was not talking about butchering cattle.

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

#336

Post by sir_smurf »

r_smart wrote: post #111
sp332 wrote: post #65

Aw, let's be fair now. After all they also ban religious material at the request of the Pakistani government http://tribune.com.pk/story/855030/facebook-censored-54-post... and political content for Hong Kong too! http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20100205/13699972 (translation https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr... )

There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook. So is…

I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react.

From my European perspective:

This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light.

While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of as unimportant this one makes it blatantly clear that an american corporation is trying to interfere in our democracy, something that is going to annoy a lot of people to the degree where they are going to at-least complain loudly about it.

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

#337

Post by r_smart »

sir_smurf wrote: post #336
r_smart wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook. So is…

I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react. From my European perspective: This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light. While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of…

Thanks for that, it's an interesting difference from my own opinion, and totally understandable. I don't like it because it clearly (to me) is a censorship of art, and famous art at that. It violates principles of free speech as I understand it (from the US).

But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture's portrayal of America so much as the simple fact that it's a naked child.

There seems to be a fine line between diplomacy and meddling that hasn't been going too well lately.

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

#338

Post by erikpukinskis »

serge2k wrote: post #263
nonce42 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Calling someone an idiot and a prude for having different values than you isn't going to help.

The difference between the U.S. and many parts of Europe is that in the U.S. you are actually allowed to have different values than whatever mainstream secular society declares. So if you want to cover your head, or raise your child in a sex-negative environment you have the right to do that.

Those things don't reflect my values. I walk around without anything on my head all the time, and if I had a child I would teach them about sex. But I'm glad I live in a country where I have a choice about it. I'll happily defend my "prudish" and "idiotic" neighbors because I have respect, even reverence for what I believe is a sacred responsibility that parents take for their children.

I'll discuss good parenting until I'm blue in the face, but I won't force my values on anyone, beyond protecting children from violence.

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

#339

Post by erikpukinskis »

webkike wrote: post #153
smokeyj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet we make no distinction between theatrical nudity and actual nudity.

...what is the distinction? Both are "actual" nudity. Nudity is nudity.

Theatrical nudity is when someone gets naked in character for the purpose of creating an image. Pornography, modeling, etc.

Actual nudity is when someone gets naked as themselves, for some other purpose than creating media. Sunbathing. Having sex. Trying to get napalm off oneself.

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

#340

Post by sir_smurf »

r_smart wrote: post #337
sir_smurf wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react. From my European perspective: This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light. While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of…

Thanks for that, it's an interesting difference from my own opinion, and totally understandable. I don't like it because it clearly (to me) is a censorship of art, and famous art at that. It violates principles of free speech as I understand it (from the US). But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture'…

yes, I don't think that facebook cares so much about the america perspective of the picture, nor do I think that it's the major point for most people complaining about the censorship, but it is that little extra twist. Compared to if they had censored the photo of the man in front of the tanks on tiamen square in china; it would still technically be as bad, but I would guess that fewer people would complain as it would _feel_ less politically motivated.
Post reply on HN