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

#341

Post by sir_smurf » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #285

tdkl wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but very possibly could decide to have sex. Oh the horror. Perhaps if sane sex ed was wide spread[1], that would be a non issue. Like in EU. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requi...

Sex in movies is usually not "sane sex ed", and that's GP's argument for not showing it.

I would guess that he/she means that if there was sane sex ed in school, then seeing people having sex on tv wouldn't make kids have unprotected sex any more than seeing violence on tv would make them go around killing people.

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

#342

Post by belorn » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

lmickh wrote: post #299

belorn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It did. I remember that there were plenty of studies, however, the collective conclusive has always been negative on the correlation. I even recently saw a museum event on the subject, which draw some strong parallels between current debate about violent video games and the old debate about violent movies.

Personally, I believe there is enough evidence that show that children and young adults that is under major stress and unhealthy social environment will sometimes lash out at society, and they will pick what ever method that is socially unaccepted to do so. Society as such can effect that, but censorship generally has the opposite of the desired effect.

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

#343

Post by snorrah » Tue, Sep 13, 2016, 11:34 PM UTC

Facebooks' an american canc^^^^company, so naturally it acts only in its own thinking.

I mean what do you expect? It's facebook. It was founded on dubious merit, the company will operate in the most grey it possibly can.

(Not wanting to anger the tech nerds here: various FB employees have released super interesting stuff back into the tech community such as the recent SSH CA auth article)

But c'mon. When you see anyone accused of foul play, facebook should be the least surprising of them all.

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

#344

Post by grkvlt » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 6:33 AM UTC

nommm-nommm wrote: post #143

omginternets wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? The fact that adult supervision is required doesn't contradict the claim that American parents are willing to expose their children to violence and not nudity. This literally has nothing to do with anything. Moreover, I was certainly shown R-rated movies in class at a young age. Sure, all the parents had to sign a permission slip, but the fact that they did it just goes to show I'm not making this…

> 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.

You spoiled your point with the hyperbole in the last sentence. The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. It certainly isn't normal behaviour to call law enforcement about this; a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.

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

#345

Post by FabHK » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

lorenzhs wrote: post #270

FabHK wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure this warrants an answer, but my observation was a) tongue-in-cheek, but also b) somewhat pertinent to a discussion on prudish censorship (as many if not most Wikipedia pages have illustrations, but not this one).

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

#346

Post by mason240 » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 1:26 PM UTC

joshuaheard wrote: post #314

mason240 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

Phone and electric are commodities with very, very high barriers to alternatives, and so they are regulated as common carriers.

There literally thousands of existing social sharing and networking sites in existence right now that serve as alternatives to facebook.

One of the arguments is that they are "controlling the dialogue," yet here were, having dialogue but not on Facebook.

At any rate, I doubt that you seriously believe your own arguments. For example, I doubt that you support Facebook being for to host white supremacy groups.

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

#347

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 1:28 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #346

joshuaheard wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

Phone and electric are commodities with very, very high barriers to alternatives, and so they are regulated as common carriers. There literally thousands of existing social sharing and networking sites in existence right now that serve as alternatives to facebook. One of the arguments is that they are "controlling the dialogue," yet here were, having dialogue but not on Facebook. At any rate, I doubt that you serious…

I agree with the interpretation of Facebook as a sort of ISP. One doesn't have to support hate groups, to support freedom of speech.

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

#348

Post by nommm-nommm » Wed, Sep 14, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

grkvlt wrote: post #344

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.

You spoiled your point with the hyperbole in the last sentence. The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. It certainly isn't normal behaviour to call law enforcement about this; a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long tim…

hy·per·bo·le: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

My example is not in any way exaggerated and it is meant to be taken literary.

>The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy.

People have been convicted of crimes for leaving their 8 year olds "unsupervised" because of busy bodies with cell phones. Not charged, convicted! The reason its rare to hear about a case is because its a socially unacceptable for children to be left alone now. [1] Its a rare thing to do so its a rare thing to get in trouble for doing.

>a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.

Absolutely! I sure did when I was a kid! I couldn't imagine being so suffocated by my parents that I wasn't allowed to be away from them to walk to the corner store by myself or ride my bike to the park. My dad sent me to the hardware store on my bike to buy propane, nobody batted an eye. Now if an unaccompanied 10 year old showed up trying to buy propane the parents would be arrested. This is madness, I agree, but the "protect the kids" mantra is terrible, but it is also the reality.

[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-expla...