Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 248 posts

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#161

Post by milankragujevic »

dang wrote: post #119
mommmukk wrote: post #90

I wonder at what point would corporations consider it a risk too big. Any comment can trigger the Chinese, it’s hard to gauge what they find insulting, since according to them all their neighbors and the west has humiliated them in the past. The volatility to the bottom line jsut isn’t worth it.

> Any comment can trigger the Chinese Not only the Chinese, I assure you. Nationalistic flamebait like this is a bannable offense on HN—not to mention racial/national slurs. The users who upvoted and (later) vouched for this comment have abused this site by doing so. People routinely accuse us of being somehow pro-China or secret communists for moderating HN this way, but that's not true at all. We don't like bullies…

I have sent an email requesting clarification.

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#162

Post by mac01021 »

turk73 wrote: post #93
toomanyrichies wrote: post #81

Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures. China is a huge market for Paramount's films. Paramount has previously explored a 49% sale to China's Wanda Group, and they currently have extensive financial backing from the Shanghai Film Group Corp.[2] If they wanted to, it's well within the purview of the CCP to apply pressure to Paramount's ability to finance its films or distribute those fil…

Self-censorship is still censorship. If these companies crater to the least common denominator, then free speech in the West is also doomed. We can't allow that to happen. Putting profits ahead of everything else is a sure way to go broke because it sacrifices quality and every other good for the sake of short-term profit. We saw Disney do this with Star Wars, trying to pander to Asian audiences and failing miserably…

What did Disney do with star wars to pander to asian audiences?

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#163

Post by cwkoss »

kevcampb wrote: post #7
sunkenvicar wrote: post #2

Worth a click through. The full episode is available to watch for free.

"Due to copyright and other legal issues, this South Park episode cannot be viewed in your Country" So yes, banned in China (Hong Kong)

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=396572967928125

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#164

Post by Iv »

toomanyrichies wrote: post #81

Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount Pictures. China is a huge market for Paramount's films. Paramount has previously explored a 49% sale to China's Wanda Group, and they currently have extensive financial backing from the Shanghai Film Group Corp.[2] If they wanted to, it's well within the purview of the CCP to apply pressure to Paramount's ability to finance its films or distribute those fil…

They used to think that economic freedom would be the trojan horse for social freedoms. Quite the opposite I see.

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#165

Post by tasogare »

dang wrote: post #129
BubRoss wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relax, he was clearly talking about the Chinese government, not Chinese people in general.

Your bias predisposes you to read it that way. Were you responsible for a community with a wide spectrum of backgrounds and views, you'd quickly learn how unreliable that sense of "clearly" can be. HN users who are Chinese or of Chinese background have a right to come here and not see comments like that one, just the same as all HN users do. Edit: actually, once I read the context of the thread, I see your point. The…

So, HN is officially a safe space? Strange, because I see all the time comments targeting (all) men or some particular ethnicities that aren’t moderated.

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#166

Post by audessuscest »

boudin wrote: post #153
audessuscest wrote: post #135

In France, there's 10 Southpark episodes censored, and no one cares. Also in France, repression against Gilet Jaunes was way more intense and there was less coverage, even on social medias...

That's not really the situation about South Park, Netflix chose to not make those episodes not available, there is no censorship from the CSA. Nerflix claim that those episodes were censored originally was false as those were broadcasted on Gameone. The only thing that happened then is that the channel got a warning that (for 2 of those) the episodes should have been broadcasted after 22 and rated +12 due to the cont…

Result is very similar, which is all that matters. In a way it's even worse, because they pretend to be a free country and shit (while doing repression even more violently than chinese or russian governements). China at least is not pretending that.

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#167

Post by dang »

Teever wrote: post #146
dang wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your bias predisposes you to read it that way. Were you responsible for a community with a wide spectrum of backgrounds and views, you'd quickly learn how unreliable that sense of "clearly" can be. HN users who are Chinese or of Chinese background have a right to come here and not see comments like that one, just the same as all HN users do. Edit: actually, once I read the context of the thread, I see your point. The…

I'm a little confused by this exchange here dang so I'd like some clarification if possible. If the user above had said "the Chinese government", "The Communist Party of China" or simply "the party" then their comment would have been acceptable to you?

It would still have been flamebait and against the site guidelines, but it wouldn't have been a slur.

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#168

Post by dang »

tasogare wrote: post #165
dang wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your bias predisposes you to read it that way. Were you responsible for a community with a wide spectrum of backgrounds and views, you'd quickly learn how unreliable that sense of "clearly" can be. HN users who are Chinese or of Chinese background have a right to come here and not see comments like that one, just the same as all HN users do. Edit: actually, once I read the context of the thread, I see your point. The…

So, HN is officially a safe space? Strange, because I see all the time comments targeting (all) men or some particular ethnicities that aren’t moderated.

No. It isn't possible for any large open internet forum to be a 'safe space', not that I know what that means.

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#169

Post by gadders »

mommmukk wrote: post #90

I wonder at what point would corporations consider it a risk too big. Any comment can trigger the Chinese, it’s hard to gauge what they find insulting, since according to them all their neighbors and the west has humiliated them in the past. The volatility to the bottom line jsut isn’t worth it.

There was the example of the UBS economist who commented on Swine Fever in China as well[1]:

In a podcast episode, Mr Donovan discussed higher consumer prices in China and referred to an outbreak of African swine fever that has pushed up the cost of pork.

He said: “Does it matter? It matters if you are a Chinese pig. It matters if you like eating pork in China. It does not really matter to the rest of the world.”

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ubs-chief-e...

Re: South Park Responds to Being Banned in China for “Band in China”

#170

Post by yRetsyM »

sgt101 wrote: post #144
fooker wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An illegitimate side according you, might not be illegitimate in general. I'm not saying there are no universally illegitimate sides, but even those have their supporters and some reasonable arguments. The focus should be on deconstructing these arguments instead of marking the side as illegitimate.

Oh there are you know. Some people want to murder other people that they have never met and don't know, also they want to murder those people's children. These people don't have some reasonable arguments, instead they have a shared assumption of hate and (im)moral purpose.

Just as a counter to this, war invokes similar behaviour and a lot of people often support that.
Post reply on HN