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

601–610 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#601

Post by ipython »

ALittleLight wrote: post #573
snowwrestler wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single one of those stories was suppressed by the government in the U.S., which is what the article details happening in China. In fact many government officials supported and promoted those stories. Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.

The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the US government? Zuckerberg was on Rogan recently explaining that the FBI told him the story was Russian disinformation and Facebook took that to mean they should suppress the story and they did. Presumably something similar happened to Twitter and possibly other platforms. If memory serves former intelligence officials do go to mainstream media and say the story w…

Good lord. If the government was so committed to “suppressing” those stories as you claim, they were awfully bad at it, as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. And I don’t see black helicopters anywhere picking you up to some secret prison.

Unlike the ccp example here, where I would say they do have a great handle on what can and cannot be discussed on any public platform and dissenters are most definitely threatened with if not actually subjected to physical force.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#602

Post by snowwrestler »

ALittleLight wrote: post #573
snowwrestler wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single one of those stories was suppressed by the government in the U.S., which is what the article details happening in China. In fact many government officials supported and promoted those stories. Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.

The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the US government? Zuckerberg was on Rogan recently explaining that the FBI told him the story was Russian disinformation and Facebook took that to mean they should suppress the story and they did. Presumably something similar happened to Twitter and possibly other platforms. If memory serves former intelligence officials do go to mainstream media and say the story w…

In the sense that the government did not suppress it. The NY Post ran the story with zero legal consequences and people in the U.S. have published and spoken continuously about it from then until now.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#603

Post by jjeaff »

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.

That's exactly what companies like RedBox do/did. They would send buyers out to Walmarts and Best buys all over the country to buy up copies.

I think they eventually stopped doing it just to appease the production companies and avoid their frivolous lawsuits.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#604

Post by ipython »

lettergram wrote: post #583
4512124672456 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People (or NPCs/bots, like you call them) downvote you because not only is it a bad take and does have questionable grammar, it's also full of misinformation. Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in C…

“misinformation” is a term used to discredit and dismiss. It’s often used by the government in an attempt to censor people on social media heres an example where the White House admits it: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for... That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point. What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here…

Fantastic word salad you have there, managing to avoid the entire question posed to you. Shows that you have no cogent argument, just a bunch of grievances. I’m sorry to hear of your problems.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#605

Post by jjeaff »

bentley wrote: post #400
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ae…

I always liked Antonin Scalia’s dissent in that case. “We came within one vote of declaring the VCR contraband 30 years ago in Sony [v. Universal] . The dissent in that case was driven in part by the plaintiffs’ prediction that VCR technology would wreak all manner of havoc in the television and movie industries. The Networks make similarly dire predictions about Aereo. We are told that nothing less than ‘the very ex…

I think Scalia is right in this descent, but applying the same textualist logic to many other decisions he made doesn't make nearly as much sense. In other words, his textualism leads to a lot of "there's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball" type decisions.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#606

Post by jibe »

thebradbain wrote: post #566
jibe wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 par…

"There's truly plenty of articles on the subject"

But you can't cite a single one? That's pretty suspicious.

"It's really not too big of a jump"

So in a very long winded way, you are saying you made it up and have no evidence? wow...

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#607

Post by ipython »

lettergram wrote: post #585
jonnybgood wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re conflating business and government. Businesses have the right to do what they want with their property within the law. Otherwise, I don’t know what you’re suggesting to be done. Do you want to expand the powers of the government to moderate these companies and their property?

If government comes to you and says “this should be taken down due to X reason” then it is government censoring. China does the same thing. I linked elsewhere in this thread examples of the government asking Facebook or Twitter to censor directly. There’s an implied threat. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this previously. I expect in the next couple years as court cases about the censorship work through the co…

Ok, I’ll take a stab at feeding the troll tonight. The difference is that Facebook and Twitter and just turn around and tell the us gov to fuck off. In china, that’s not really an option.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#608

Post by jjeaff »

vlunkr wrote: post #512
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…

Vidangel is a pretty absurd company. I read recently that they are still around and trying to come up with their next strategy. It does raise an interesting question for me though: is Hollywood losing out on profits by not offering censored versions of their content? Clearly there’s some demand. People like to make arguments about artistic integrity, but they have no problem censoring content to air on network tv.

Exactly. There are already censored versions of most movies made by the production studios themselves. They will even have the actors record alternate lines for certain parts. These air on network tv as well as on airplanes. There are lots of families that would like censored movies. I don't understand why they don't want to offer it.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#609

Post by snowwrestler »

lettergram wrote: post #577
snowwrestler wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single one of those stories was suppressed by the government in the U.S., which is what the article details happening in China. In fact many government officials supported and promoted those stories. Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.

These are just a handful off the top of my head… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BN3PIGLDscQ https://twitter.com/alexberenson/status/1558060844549902338 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/FACEBO... https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/government-dictating-what-soci... I can keep going, but most of those people who are impacted you don’t hear from due to censorship.

Always funny when people link to publicly available content in order to demonstrate that it is being censored.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#610

Post by lettergram »

ipython wrote: post #604
lettergram wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“misinformation” is a term used to discredit and dismiss. It’s often used by the government in an attempt to censor people on social media heres an example where the White House admits it: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for... That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point. What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here…

Fantastic word salad you have there, managing to avoid the entire question posed to you. Shows that you have no cogent argument, just a bunch of grievances. I’m sorry to hear of your problems.

Maybe this format would help

Q: How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?

A: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for... That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point. What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here looks like misinformation” then the company removes that snippet. They extend it to insults about the Chinese race, but don’t we do the same with gender pronouns? How is it different materially?

Post reply on HN