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

401–410 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#401

Post by coryfklein »

the_af wrote: post #336
coryfklein wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's censorship? I personally tire of this pattern: 1. Article submitted to an international forum about X country doing Y bad thing 2. "Well the USA is just as bad, they also did/doing/will do Y bad thing" Well yes, that is true, but people are voting up the submission because they found that X-doing-Y-today was interesting and don't care to rehash the history…

> Did the article imply somewhere that China is unique in it's censorship? I don't think it implies that, but to be honest, the general implication here on HN is that China is the current Big Bad and everything they do is uniquely bad. It's not spelled out, exactly, but that's how I read many comments here. It may be just me, but that' s the vibe I get from HN in relation to China. > But the regularity with which thi…

> I also don't think you truly think people asking about US behavior here are Chinese agents.

Maybe my thinking is misguided, but this is exactly what I think. China has an abundance of labor and a strong appetite to perform just such tasks.

> That's just silly. China hasn't infiltrated HN.

It's not like you have to "infiltrate" anything here, it's an open forum and China would need to do little more than pay 2 people to take rotating shifts and they have essentially full coverage to counter any content critical of the country.

Since the readership of HN likely holds much more power than the average American, I'd think China silly to not make that investment.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#402

Post by thegrimmest »

wizofaus wrote: post #393
thegrimmest wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures There are loads of sensible "defaults" for human cultures. Aversion and disgust at the practices of unfamiliar out-groups is one - keeps us from getting their diseases. Practices assuring paternity are another - males that are indifferent to who's children they raise aren't very well selected for. Risk aversion in, and preference for protection of,…

I'd agree with those (I just don't necessarily think of them as "defaults", which implies there's no real disadvantage to adopting alternative shared cultural understandings). And I'd suggest that an aversion to talking about sex is surely the opposite of a practice assuring paternity?

Well, it's complicated, but I'd agree with a below poster that it seems like the "implementation" of these practices tends towards limiting opportunities for females to mate outside of their designated partners. This includes:

1. Physically isolating females from males.

2. Conditioning females so they won't seek these opportunities.

In combination, these factors seem to taboo any discussion of sex at all in mixed male/female company. It seems our standards for what is "family friendly" grows out of these taboos. You'll notice that in exclusively male company discussing sex is generally much less taboo.

With the obviously problematic morality aside, this does seem like the most effective approach to assuring paternity, particularly in small, low-tech, tribal groups.

Edit: There's also the need to limit sexual violence, which also seems to be a factor in tabooing discussion of sex in mixed company.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#403

Post by spamizbad »

the_doctah wrote: post #382
fluoridation wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the implicit assumption that everyone is only a sufficiently convincing argument away from going gay.

Do you think the rate of people identifying as gay has increased or decreased along with the general public's acceptance of it?

It’s increased, but I suspect it’s going to end up like left-handedness: https://slowrevealgraphs.com/2021/11/08/rate-of-left-handedn...

Where social acceptance brings people “out of the closet” and the percentage stabilizes.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#405

Post by bee_rider »

fluoridation wrote: post #357
tuatoru wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-heterosexual images (and masturbation) are anathema to China's leadership because China is facing a population decline, due to very low fertility.[1] [2] Internally produced TV in China has been censored for portraying "effeminate men".[3] The CCP has also, er, "encouraged", women to spend less time on social media and shopping. Internally the CCP says members must have three children.[4] 1. Here is military age…

I love the implicit assumption that everyone is only a sufficiently convincing argument away from going gay.

Not even a convincing argument, just seeing gay people go about their lives normally.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#406

Post by fluoridation »

the_doctah wrote: post #382
fluoridation wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the implicit assumption that everyone is only a sufficiently convincing argument away from going gay.

Do you think the rate of people identifying as gay has increased or decreased along with the general public's acceptance of it?

Do you mean publicly or privately? Publicly, sure it has increased. Most people won't admit to something that they'll be shamed for. Privately, how could we know? Has there always been more or less the same amount of gay sex going on behind closed doors regardless of the situation in the public sphere? My default assumption would have to be yes, unless I saw compelling evidence to the contrary.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#407

Post by c3534l »

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.

The issue isn't a different cultural perspective, its censorship. In this case, the censorship is vast, arbitrary, and sweeping. Making it illegal to criticise North Korea is not protecting anyone, its oppressive.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#408

Post by sangnoir »

tuatoru wrote: post #268
concordDance wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not on a regular basis, perhaps. The glitches serve to remind them daily that their government is manipulating them. The dilemma that China's leaders have is that they need an educated workforce, capable of logical and critical thinking, but they can't stop that workforce thinking critically outside work.

I'm itching to give a counterexample, but that'll ignite a flame war. I'll cowardly insinuate it instead: you know the country I'm talking about.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#409

Post by still_grokking »

danjoredd wrote: post #290
still_grokking wrote: post #270

What's the moral here? There is also a lot of censoring in the "western" world. It's also mostly justified by the exact same "reasons" like the ones mentioned in that blog post. Especial the "but the children" "argument" is used the whole time. And if that gets boring than it's "terrorism". Than again "the children". Also there are a lot of things one can't publicity say for political reasons. In Germany for example…

It is more extreme in China than in America. In addition to sex, lgbt, and other things of a similar nature, movies with magic are especially rejected. Ever notice how movies seem to be getting more bland and milk/toast each year? its because there is a lot of money in China, and China only accepts a few foreign movies each year. Disney, Warner Bros, etc. all want a slice of that pie so they comply with Chinese censo…

> Germany is almost as bad, I agree, […]

I hope we didn't reach Chines levels by now, and that there is still hope.

But yes, we're working hard on that and "like" to reach their level soonish. Our variant of the Ministry of Truth gets shaped out a little more with every year. Since the so called "Netzwerkdurchsuchungsgesetz"¹ we've got really close I guess. But there's already more coming: "Chatkontrolle"²…

> […] but companies aren't stooping to Germany.

Well, we're the country that had had shooter games with green blood for years, because reasons (and companies obeyed). Also there are of course special versions of movies, extra for the German market, that are "reworked" here and there to pass the censors. Freedom of speech and freedom of art have strict limits, you know… Something something, because Nazis. (The above mentioned laws get actually partly justified "because Nazis"; but judge for yourself).

___

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act

>> The Network Enforcement Act (Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, NetzDG; German: Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Rechtsdurchsetzung in sozialen Netzwerken), also known colloquially as the Facebook Act (Facebook-Gesetz), is a German law that was passed in the Bundestag that officially aims to combating fake news, hate speech and misinformation online.

>> The Act obligates social media platforms with over 2 million users to remove "clearly illegal" content within 24 hours and all illegal content within 7 days of it being posted, or face a maximum fine of 50 million Euros. The deleted content must be stored for at least 10 weeks afterwards, and platforms must submit transparency reports on dealing with illegal content every six months. It was passed by the Bundestag in June 2017 and took full effect in January 2018.

>> The law has been criticised both locally and internationally by politicians, human rights groups, journalists and academics for incentivising social media platforms to pre-emptively censor valid and lawful expression, and making them the arbiter of what constitutes free expression and curtailing freedom of speech in Germany.

Of course it's only against "fake news, hate speech and misinformation online". Exactly like the laws in China…

Just for fun: Compare with the German Wikipedia page. Maybe you notice something. ;-)

___

² https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co...

>> The EU wants to oblige providers to search all private chats, messages, and emails automatically for suspicious content – generally and indiscriminately. The stated aim: To prosecute child pornography. The result: Mass surveillance by means of fully automated real-time messaging and chat control and the end of secrecy of digital correspondence.

>> Other consequences of the proposal are ineffective network blocking, screening of person cloud storage including private photos, mandatory age verification leading to the end of anonymous communication, censorship in Appstores and the paternalism and exclusion of minors in the digital world.

Post reply on HN