Live data from Hacker News

The Big [Censored] Theory

pudding.cool

51–60 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#51
This type of censorship isn’t unique to China. Numerous scenes and whole episodes of The Office were silently removed from streaming services. The episodes were renumbered so you wouldn’t notice:

https://www.newsweek.com/comedy-central-caves-cancel-culture...

This article goes so far as to praise the censorship:

https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/the-office-edited-censor...

As usual, piracy (or the legal purchase and ripping of old DVDs) is now the only way to access this material, which was deemed suitable for public consumption as recently as a few years ago.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#52
post #36

I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is it really a bad thing if different countries have different understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.

Because the people of China didn't choose this: their oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.

[deleted]

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#53
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not. Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

Right. Censorship is accomplished economically . The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military. Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

I think it's pretty inarguably better? The alternative is never being allowed to be critical of the military at all. You don't need an f-35 or a tank for a documentary on American war crimes.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#54

It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.

I can't help but wonder what the first-pass of censors did to the big bang theory (I'm pretty sure internal review and the rating service that gave it tv-14 cut stuff out too)

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#55
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not. Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

Right. Censorship is accomplished economically . The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military. Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

You have to really stretch the meaning of censorship for that to count

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#56
post #36

I don't really agree with this, but consider this argument : Is it really a bad thing if different countries have different understanding of what's allowed/not allowed? If the whole world had the same system of governance, that could be dangerous too.

Because the people of China didn't choose this: their oppressive and authoritarian government did it for them.

This is right. If people vote for censorship in a democracy, that's a perfectly fine form of governmental heterogeneity. What's happening in China is not that.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#57

It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.

Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot of these jokes are, but I can definitely see why the censors took offense at some of them.

For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken") plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats, and the “passing off” remark implies that the Chinese restaurant owners are deceptive and would immorally and illegally serve their guests a different kind of meat than advertised. I can definitely see how that joke would be considered offensive.

The author labels that joke as "harmless" but you don't have to be a Chinese censor to interpret it as reinforcing harmful stereotypes. I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and notice how few laughs you get.

Similarly, the racist remarks about Chinese people made by Sheldon's mom are somewhat offensive if taken at face value. I guess the joke is supposed to be at her expense instead ("old people are racists" is an American comedy cliche, if a somewhat tired one) but it's conceivable that either the censors didn't get that, or they feared that their audience didn't get that, so they decided to cut it out entirely.

"They wouldn't get that" is probably also the right explanation for censoring the joke about Jews eating at Chinese restaurants during Christmas, which is a very American tradition. That doesn't imply the joke needs to go, but I can see how that would, at best, leave Chinese viewers scratching their heads.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#58
We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zooming into character's faces or just straight cuts.

This is probably the only reason I maintain a US iTunes accounts (used to have to buy gift cards from sketchy sites online to keep this going, but I recently discovered that my Indian Amex card works fine with a US address).

Also trivia for those who are wondering how cuts are made, at least for cinema content: all video and audio assets are usually sent to theatres in full, but there's an XML file called the CPL (composition playlist) that specifies which file is played from which to which frame / timestamp in what sequence. Pure cuts or audio censorship can be handled by just adding an entry to skip the relevant frames or timestamp, or by specifying a censor beep as the audio track for a particular time range.

https://cinepedia.com/packaging/composition/

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#59
post #5
post #3

I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay -- while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g. American censorship go after?

Anything you can think of you will be able to find that content. We simply don't have the kind of censorship that China has. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous at all.

US programming is highly censored.

30 Rock had to pull episodes because of a gag where a 'completely insensitive dupish character' wore black makeup, to sing as a black person. It wasn't a problem in 2010 but all of a sudden it is in 2020. NBC will not be releasing the original.

A ton of jokes and gags are self censored for a variety of reasons. Eddie Murphy's early specials would absolutely not be aired today for example and I suggest they may face some shelving at some point.

Cultural standards differ.

Now - obviously, there are political elements of censorship, and being in possession of 'banned materials' may be punishable etc. - and that form of censorship is 'not comparable'. But the cultural standards issue is.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#60
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not. Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

Right. Censorship is accomplished economically . The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military. Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

> that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.

It's not directly available. As in, you can't film on a US naval vessel or on a US military base without their support. Stock footage or footage from public spaces are allowed. You may also be able to get the support of another country or make use of mothballed or otherwise decommissioned systems if you have the right connections and money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Tide_(film)

Used footage of the real USS Alabama, used a decommissioned (and sold-off) submarine, and a French aircraft carrier.

Post reply on HN