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

371–380 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#371

Post by bentley »

wizofaus wrote: post #363
dogleash wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have law that restricts indecent/obscene content, and it applies exclusively to FTA TV and radio. But it's completely unrelated to the ratings system for tv and movies. Most channels not restricted by those rules (subscription cable & satellite) set in-house standards on content for commercial reasons. And of the broadcasters that are covered by the regulation, they are the old stodgy networks and never choose to…

The interesting thing is that end result seems to be a proliferation of extreme views in the US vs other similar countries, which is arguably the opposite of what you might reasonably expect from the opportunity to allow freer discussion of ideas.

Is that the case, though? The US has problems of religious and political extremism, but is Muslim violence worse in magnitude than in France with its restrictions on religious expression, or anti‐semitism than in the European countries that ban Holocaust denial?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#372

Post by CobrastanJorji »

isk517 wrote: post #329
MichaelCollins wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are completely wrong. There's no such thing as "right to rent video." You could 100% buy a bunch of videos and start renting them out today, and it would be completely legal. Netflix does this today for their DVD rental business. This is also why libraries are legal.

You can't buy a DVD and charge tickets to see the DVD played by you. You can't stream the DVD's contents over the Internet. But you can absolutely rent the DVD itself.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#373

Post by iratewizard »

concordDance wrote: post #242
mftb wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely backfires. No one is as successful at selling US culture as the US, except all those countries that censor exported/imported US culture.

This seems untrue. Do more than a fraction of a percent of Chinese people watch the uncensored versions of things?

Agreed. It's easy to handwave it off. Americans churn out propaganda and inject it into every form of media it can. Similar to preservatives, some media is more nitrate than meat. China cuts it out because it says it's unhealthy to consume. China can do that overtly in it's culture war because it has never guaranteed not to.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#374

Post by koonsolo »

The censored "Temple of Doom" scared the shit out of me. (WARNING: Spoilers!)

When I was young my cousin had a VHS of "Temple of Doom" recorded from the BBC. We didn't know this was the censored version. So there was this scene where the priest puts his fingers on top of the chest of the victim, and then next scene they lowered the victim into the pit.

We watched that movie a few times.

Needless to say, it scared the shit out of me when I saw that movie again another time, but all of a sudden his had went straight into the chest! :o

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#375

Post by bigmattystyles »

jedberg wrote: post #86
sltkr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 decep…

> 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…

I saw that clip - there may be a valid point somewhere in there at being too easily offended but it's a stupid stunt from a non-honest broker. At the outset, the video's author's intent is to make liberal college students look dumb or like snowflakes, so that's what that video sets out to do but; there's no telling how many people they to talk to get cut on either side of the argument.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#376

Post by awinder »

ginger2016 wrote: post #326
briantakita wrote: post #129

Companies & Governments in the US & West censor for political reasons. Why is this any different?

Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” won’t be shown on network television in US.

Network television is some fine goalpost-moving, but as far as general media access goes you can find it on 3 US streaming services, and the reason no broadcast network is picking it up for redistribution has no basis in government censorship.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#377

Post by koonsolo »

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.

The cuts are mainly obvious because of the sound glitch. I think when they would have a better crossover of the audio, it would be way harder to notice.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#378

Post by CobrastanJorji »

joezydeco wrote: post #302
dj_gitmo wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server. Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

Part of me still thinks Aereo wasn't honest with their technology. They showed off massive boards full of miniature UHF antennae, but a tuner/encoder is more than that. They never showed that part.

It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's logic was "sure, every individual part of this is completely legal, but if you consider it as a black box, it feels like a different thing which is illegal, so we're going to treat it like it's illegal thing." That conclusion was pretty likely, but it's utterly baffling to someone who thinks about the law like a programmer.

To put it in the Supreme Court's exact words: "Given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here."

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#379

Post by the_optimist »

ryanobjc wrote: post #274
the_optimist wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The joke is the latter. The woke college grads who write the shows think it's funny to have/lampoon racist characters. However, it is a staple of the fare that these characters must exist in the shows to add foils and character depth.

Well the shows were written before wokeness was invented, so we're gonna need a new theory.

Sorry, no. You don't get to be a college professor teaching woke theory without spending decades polishing and teaching it. As someone who have been well-exposed to US higher education for decades, I can speak from experience. The theories that embody wokeness have been taught for at least the last 30 years.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#380

Post by thegrimmest »

the_af wrote: post #330
nineplay wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Universal, cross-cultural taboos haven't generally adjusted to the last 60 or so years of innovation in birth control. The realities that gave rise to them are ever present in an agrarian, low-tech economy.

(not just human) Males need to be sure of paternity. Males who don't mind whose children they are raising aren't well selected for. This should be apparent to anyone who has ever watched a nature documentary. Humans are simply not that different.

Post reply on HN