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

611–620 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#611

Post by ipython »

lettergram wrote: post #587
4512124672456 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 be…

My point was censorship, not who’s doing it. There’s a faction / ideology (across all party lines) in the west that is doing the same thing as China. For the same reasons “to be respectful to one another”. That’s kinda the point I’m trying to make.

Hey, great news! You can start your own site without censorship. The marketplace will determine whether your site succeeds or fails. Alex Jones makes a great living peddling his claptrap despite his claims otherwise- go forth and make your own fortune!

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#612

Post by ipython »

Banana699 wrote: post #580
koprulusector wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Corporations are not people outside of idiotic law speak. They should have no rights to freedom of association once they reach a certain (law-defined) size. Banana699 has the right to block you or otherwise tell you to fuck off from their private property, the 10 million viewers Banana699^TM Inc Ltd does not. Media corporations picking and choosing the type of the story to serve is a very plausible reason for the int…

So you’re saying that if I start a website dedicated to unicorn ponies that has user interaction, I should be forced to accept your comment on neonazi ideology? Perhaps the local Christian owned cake shop should be forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple? Where does that end?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#613

Post by Sabinus »

lettergram wrote: post #428
andruby wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We (the HN crowd, often living in less-censored societies) would be very curious. I’d like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and those living in more censored places. My assumption is that they take it for granted and just continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even find the uncensored clips.

[flagged]

I have a question for someone very interested in freedom of speech and censorship.

We know that geopolitical adversaries weaponize narratives to cause destabilization of the body politic of other nations. We know that the internet and social media have exploded in popularity in the last 20 years, giving 'foreign actors' unprecedented access to citizens.

What should a government of a 'free' nation do to counter that destabilization or those weaponized narratives?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#614

Post by ipython »

lettergram wrote: post #610
ipython wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exte…

Maybe I should remind you of the actual words in the gp comment.

> 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 China?

You have conveniently pivoted to a straw man argument about Covid-19 which was not mentioned.

And there are plenty of people on Facebook talking all sorts of crap about vaccines. If it was so stringently “censored” as you claim, it would be hard for us to argue about - as I would have never heard the anti vaxxers arguments. But good lord, they never shut up- so I’m exceptionally aware of their opinions.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#615

Post by jibe »

autoexec wrote: post #131
goto11 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American way is voluntary self-censorship for commercial purposes. This makes it much harder to say what exactly is allowed and not, because it is easy to see what scenes have been cut from a show but it is impossible to say what scenes was never written or produced. Even blatant censorship like the Hayes Code or the Comics Code was never enforced by the government and therefore never in conflict with the 5th ame…

> The American way is voluntary self-censorship for commercial purposes. The US government hasn't been able to resist censorship entirely. Comedians have been arrested for "obscenity". The FCC will happily go after certain violations in TV and radio. The US government has also censored news broadcasts and journalists. Bush in particular was very aggressive in censoring the news coverage of his war. Most notably, the…

The US government hasn't been able to resist censorship entirely. Comedians have been arrested for "obscenity".

There is a federal law on the books against obscenity, but it has never been used to arrest a comedian. Comedians like Lenny Bruce, and Musicians like Jim Morrison have run into trouble with city governments. Bruce was ironically arrested in both San Francisco and New York. Morrison was more expectedly arrested in New Haven.

the Justice Department also briefly banned the Canadian film "If You Love This Planet" for being "foreign political propaganda"

The film was never banned, classifying it as foreign political propaganda meant that before it was shown the audience had to be informed: "This material is prepared, edited, issued or circulated by the National Film Board of Canada, which is registered with the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., under the Foreign Agents Registration Act."

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#616

Post by WillPostForFood »

banannaise wrote: post #37
jrm4 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not. Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

Right. Censorship is accomplished economically . The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military. Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

Apocalypse Now, a film intended to be anti-war, used Philippine military equipment to stand in for American hardware.

Honestly, with the ubiquity of CGI in film, whether the military choses to participate in a film is hardly a barrier to making a movie.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#618

Post by Natsu »

wrs wrote: post #241
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…

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/

There was a company called Clean Flicks that did something like what's reported here until they got sued:

https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-2512

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#619

Post by computerfriend »

dirtyid wrote: post #325
S201 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accide…

Whether or not they would choose it if they could is orthogonal to the fact that they did not and could not choose.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#620

Post by Banana699 »

ipython wrote: post #612
Banana699 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are not people outside of idiotic law speak. They should have no rights to freedom of association once they reach a certain (law-defined) size. Banana699 has the right to block you or otherwise tell you to fuck off from their private property, the 10 million viewers Banana699^TM Inc Ltd does not. Media corporations picking and choosing the type of the story to serve is a very plausible reason for the int…

So you’re saying that if I start a website dedicated to unicorn ponies that has user interaction, I should be forced to accept your comment on neonazi ideology? Perhaps the local Christian owned cake shop should be forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple? Where does that end?

If your website is a corporation hitting all the legal prerequisites for fairness requirements (size, market share,...), then yes, you must accept my neo Nazi comment. You are allowed to make rules that ban views on other grounds than its content, such as being spammy or off topic to the conversation, but you would have to have objective and neutral criteria for those bans, and you should be obligated to justify yourself to your users with non-automated means, and the banned users should be able to sue you at little or no cost if they perceive unfairness.

The local Christian cake shop are not a corporation and, by the very definition of 'local', almost certainly doesn't meet the legal prerequisites for fairness regulations, so they should not be forced to bake a cake against their will.

Post reply on HN