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

The Big [Censored] Theory

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#321

Post by inopinatus »

coryfklein wrote: post #277
wrs wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

The law is not a programming language. Believing so is a common misconception amongst engineers, but assuming as much is likely to lead to disappointment, frustration, anger, bickering, conflict, and vexatiously long and mostly unenforceable contracts.

In particular, you can't just write up your own legal fictions and expect them to be honored. It would seem the developers in the story above learned this lesson the hard way.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#322

Post by clouddrover »

ginger2016 wrote: post #310
sudhirj wrote: post #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…

Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli, I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this show to be aired there.

What in particular is racist about it?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#323

Post by chaostheory »

dirtyid wrote: post #276
ALittleLight wrote: post #10

I can see how this might backfire. You notice a censored jump and start to feel the itch of curiosity as to what it concealed. I had to watch several of the censored scenes whereas I would have never just randomly watched clips of the show. Also, love the presentation on this page.

90s kids in the west grew up on censored looney Tunes and "localized" anime like sailor moon, I remember some barely viral discussions of comparisons with OG version and sentiment was basically meh.

Disney is now censoring their old cartoons. They have a ghost hunter episode where they remove all the firearms. It’s annoying to watch the new version

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#324

Post by permo-w »

vorpalhex wrote: post #103
jedberg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and notice how few laughs you get. Did you see the recent video where the white guy dressed up in a poncho, big hat, and fake mustache and carried around maracas? He asked a bunch of white kids on a college campus if they thought his outfit was offensive to Mexicans, and they all said yes. Then he went to the Mexican part of town and asked actual Mexicans, and they…

The important part of virtual signaling is that it has nothing to do with it's stated aims. Virtue signaling such as calling out the college cafeteria for serving sushi as "cultural appropriation"[0] is not because the people doing the signaling care about the art of sushi or the Japanese culture - it's narcissistic posturing by the person doing the signaling. Another term for this is "white savior complex". In many…

I’d agree that that is the case a lot of the time, especially in the online popularity contests, but a big percentage - I’d say probably a majority - of the time it is simply sheep behaviour that has become ingrained

I felt this pull at university, when I spent a brief time flirting with the art society. everyone there had these kinds of values, and it would have made fitting in significantly easier if I had vocally agreed with them. this would have been especially tempting if I was (more) lonely and desperate for company, as many people are

as it was I mostly just kept quiet or carefully found points of agreement. I suspect if I was the type of person to give in to this zeitgeist, and not particularly question my beliefs, it could easily have developed into something real without any need for narcissistic tendencies

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#325

Post by dirtyid »

S201 wrote: post #36
aero-glide2 wrote: post #23

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.

>people of China didn't choose this

Of course they did. PRC is country that skews old and conservative. Half the reason behind media crack down are cantankerous parents and grand parents telling governments they don't want loose western morals spoiling impressionable minds. Outside of western reporting, PRC libtards are relatively extinct compared to vast amount numbers of papa / grandpa wang who don't want to accidentally watch tits n ass or have uncomfortable imported culture war talks with their live-in kids. The only aggregious censorship that lowkey half of the population wants to get rid of is pornography but that's an Asian thing (also guess which half). There are many of policies easily explained by CCP having to appease the people where feasible because their legitimacy depends on it, unlike "democratic" systems where competing parties bunts the responsiblity to the next guy. Or that fractous multi-cultural societies make cultural wars different political party has idpol positions staked very difficult to win. In China, CCP gets pulse on mass culture and enforces it. Yes they can also manufacture identity for political ends but for something like imported mass media, much simpler/easier/pragmatic to embrace opinion of a billion conservative prudes.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#327

Post by stickfigure »

JasonFruit wrote: post #12
cdot2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're missing the point. American censorship doesn't have to be comparable for the question of what can be learned about our cultural bias from what we censor or self-censor to be interesting. What do we eliminate or simply refuse to produce because we can't bear to have our children see the world that way?

Find another thread in which to discuss it or start a new thread. Here it is is whataboutism and sounds like you're trying to justify the original censorship.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#328

Post by leadingthenet »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #182
darawk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess it's hard to see this when you are steeped in it, but a lot of the censorship in democracies isn't exactly democratic. Two American credit card companies have an insane amount of say on the shape of the content on the internet. Beyond that, small special interest groups have time and time again successfully lobbyied for censorship that is far beyond what the majority thinks is reasonable.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#329

Post by isk517 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #308
coryfklein wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible. In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but…

Even during the video rental days you weren't allowed to just go out and purchase a bunch of videos at Walmart and start renting them out, you need to have purchased the rights to rent out the video.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#330

Post by the_af »

nineplay wrote: post #255
wizofaus wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).

Talking about sex is taboo because having sex is taboo. Having sex is taboo because if women have sex with more than one man, none of men can be sure whose child she is carrying. Men, in general, really like having their genes carried on. Men, in general, really hate wondering if a child is theirs or not.

> Talking about sex is taboo because having sex is taboo.

I don't see one being necessarily linked to the other. Murder and violence are "taboos" yet adults talk about them all the time. Especially in TV shows.

> Having sex is taboo because if women have sex with more than one man

I don't see the link. If having sex with multiple men was taboo, then discussing or having sex with a single man would not necessarily be taboo.

Your argument also seems to be about unprotected sex, the kind which can lead to kids. So is protected sex not taboo, then?

Post reply on HN