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

561–570 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#561

Post by handsclean »

kasey_junk wrote: post #520
handsclean wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, censorship is effective even if it only makes something less common. No censorship is absolute: Chinese people absolutely know homosexuality exists, what its censorship accomplishes is keeping it the province of the “weirdos”. Towards the same end, the USG regularly uses financial incentives to make one side of an issue 100x more prevalent than the other. It’s actually a more insidious form of censor…

In the OPs example 1 provider censored and another didn’t. It made global news. It wasn’t subtle. Therefore it wasn’t insidious and was clearly not equivalent to systematic governmental intervention. Again, I’d be happy to discuss how western governments use soft power and financial incentives to accomplish their censorship goals. It’s an important topic. But I’m not going to do it from the basis that it’s equivalent…

I’m not trying to argue in bad faith. I think it’s my idea that’s offensive to you, but I’m open to criticism if you think there’s something else.

> But I’m not going to do it from the basis that it’s equivalent to governmental action at the barrel of the gun.

Genuinely, why do you believe it isn’t? I understand that the threat of violence carries its own separate offense, but in terms of ability to suppress ideas, it is equivalent. At an individual level it’s a choice, but at a systems level it’s enforced as surely as at the barrel of a gun, by modulating influence according to conformance.

I’m not defending China, and more broadly I don’t think criticism of the USG is tacit support for China. Whatever happened to principles leading the good guys, instead of the other way around? And true, in China I wouldn’t have the freedom to express these ideas - maybe if they were smarter, they’d find a way to let me feel that freedom while still firmly controlling whether those ideas can spread and shape society.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#562

Post by 4512124672456 »

lettergram wrote: post #540
elefanten wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well taking only this thread as a datapoint... your list of censored news stories wasn't convincing. In what sense were any of those "censored"? I read all those cases being made on the internet. Are you naming editorial choice of what to publish "censorship"? I'm just confused. Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-sel…

1. Are you serious? Why is Alex Jones censored? Why is Trump censored? Why did people get indefinitely banned for discussing many of those topics on social media? Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi... Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored…

> Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi...

The main problem is that you compare the freedom of social media platforms to regulate the content they host, to outright government-controlled censorship of all media. If it was actually the government censoring the topic, you would not have been able to link to a nypost article talking about it, and Trump wouldn't be able to post on his own social media platform.

> Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.

Why are those topics bannable? Could it be that there is some kind of "code of conduct" that makes sure people are respectful to each other? Those people disagreeing are still free to host their own service, if they desperately want to deadname someone.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#563

Post by mmaunder »

Censorship is obviously a bad idea to those of us in developed countries, and disastrous to those of us who have experienced it first hand. But when many consider the opposite, which is the requirement that you fight to defend your enemy’s right to freedom of expression, they find censorship to be preferable.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#564

Post by richardjam73 »

jrm4 wrote: 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?

There is a kids show made in my country called Bluey. It is distributed by Disney in the USA. They censored parts and even entire episodes of the show. Cutting things like fart and poop jokes, talk of vasectomies and discussions of childbirth.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#565

Post by trinovantes »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #549
trinovantes wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

broadcast != distribution It's not illegal to import/purchase the unedited original versions with guns, deaths, and nudity (excluding lolita). With online streaming being the norm now, the government has no say in the content consumed.

In this context of both the GP and the main post itself, broadcast is no different from distribution, whether via television or the Internet. > It's not illegal to import/purchase the unedited original versions with guns, deaths, and nudity (excluding lolita). One could say the same about China. There's no law against importing uncensored movies for private consumption and any laws against their sale by local denizen…

I'm referencing your comment about 4kids anime censorship. Guns and deaths don't exist in their TV broadcasts but you can still buy/import/sell the original Japanese versions without government interference. You can also watch the original Japanese versions online without government interference. Any censorship that does occur like 7seas is at the discretion of their editors who probably spend too much time on Twitter.

The same cannot be said about China. Official online anime broadcasts are still censored if not outright banned.

There's no point in discussing bootleg and other illegal distribution channels. It's already illegal, why does censorship dodging matter for the distributors?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#566

Post by thebradbain »

jibe wrote: post #527
hindsightbias wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three TV episodes in the 80’s is not a lot of samples in 10s of thousands of prime time TV.

It isn't none, it isn't an exhaustive list, and it should be enough to dispel the claim that there was some sort of white house directive to "ban the mention of that word on primetime television". If you have some evidence to support your claim please share it.

I never said white house directive, but I said he used his social and political power to effectively ban it from, well, really being talked about in the spotlight. There's truly plenty of articles on the subject, or you can ask anyone in Los Angeles who worked in the industry about the concerted effort of Hollywood executives to avoid that word at the behest of Reagan's administration.

Also, your examples are not particularly illustrative. Reagan did not even publicly mention AIDs until 1985 (though reporters had been asking him about it since 1982), when it first started to become worrisome to straight people (and still created no presidential task force or dedicated funding until 1987). Golden Girls mentioned it after that. So did Trapper John, MD. St. Elsewhere was notable precisely because it was one of the only primetime shows that did when it was exclusively thought of as a "gay disease".

To truly understand how insidious Reagan's administration was, when doctors were ringing the alarm bells in press conferences years prior (and the next, and the next, and the next...) Reagan's response was to ask any reporter if they were gay to a crowd of laughter and move on. In fact, Nancy Reagan even arguably personally condemned movie star Rock Hudson, who was a personal friend of theirs, to an earlier death by explicitly refusing his appeal to have him admitted into a retroviral trial in France because they did want to be associated with the gay community in any way.

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9828348/ronald-reagan-hiv-aids

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/03/nancy-reagan...

It's really not too big of a jump to make the connection between a man who basically started the "moral majority" movement and created virtually all modern film and tv regulation to this day (aside from the MPAA, he also repealed the FCC Fairness Doctrine, which basically is what gave rise to the giant split in media today, and really all major legislation around what can/cannot be shown on TV/in theaters that still persists to this day), would actively use his power to discourage AIDs from being talked about in media, just as he did Communism, anything non-nuclear family, and really anything that fell outside his bubble of conservative values.

This was the man who effectively started the war on Hollywood. He came from Hollywood. He knew the studio execs, the donors, the investors (they funded him!), it wouldn't take much for them to listen to him.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#567

Post by koprulusector »

lettergram wrote: post #540
elefanten wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well taking only this thread as a datapoint... your list of censored news stories wasn't convincing. In what sense were any of those "censored"? I read all those cases being made on the internet. Are you naming editorial choice of what to publish "censorship"? I'm just confused. Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-sel…

1. Are you serious? Why is Alex Jones censored? Why is Trump censored? Why did people get indefinitely banned for discussing many of those topics on social media? Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi... Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored…

Seriously, what are you talking about? Last I checked Alex Jones has his own show and Trump has his own social network which has been (might still be) #1 in Apple’s App Store. I am confused on how this is censorship?

That said, if a private company like Twitter thinks Alex Jones is a liability because he spreads conspiracy theories of shape shifting lizard people from alternate dimensions sabotaging the Trump Presidency via the deep state because he’s prepping the military and cia to take out the satanic cultists that worship and appease said lizard shapeshifting creatures via the blood of post-coital children, well…

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#568

Post by [deleted] »

mmaunder wrote: post #563

Censorship is obviously a bad idea to those of us in developed countries, and disastrous to those of us who have experienced it first hand. But when many consider the opposite, which is the requirement that you fight to defend your enemy’s right to freedom of expression, they find censorship to be preferable.

[deleted]

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#569

Post by Thorrez »

kelnos wrote: post #444
Ajedi32 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost. The only reason rentals worked was becau…

That's not really a "logical extreme", that's a straw man and an obvious ploy to do something you're not supposed to be able to do. I think a reasonable person would see that what you describe is an attempt to make an end run around both the spirit and letter of the law. But what VidAngel was doing was "one copy = one view", which is IMO entirely reasonable. There is zero moral difference between mailing someone a Bl…

The difference is when mailing it, it gets worn out, so after a certain number of plays the renter needs to buy a new copy. If it's fine digitally it never gets worn out.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#570

Post by koprulusector »

lettergram wrote: post #546
IX-103 wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Again my point was most people don’t. It wasn’t a troll; it was a comment about censorship. How certain topics are also censored on HN and elsewhere. That people whom we otherwise would expect curiosity are instead pro-suppressing discussion ie censoring. The fact you responded with “hello troll” is a perfect example. 1. The “election fortification” comment is in regards to https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-electi…

The thing is, people and corporations saying they don’t really want to hear or spread bull shit isn’t censorship. It’s basic social contract/etiquette and a right. I have the right to hit “block user” - does this mean I’m censoring someone? If not, where is the distinction drawn? If yes, well, that’s a hell of a slippery slope…
Post reply on HN