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

691–700 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#691

Post by gnopgnip »

IX-103 wrote: post #436
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…

Sorry. Each 10 second clip is a derivative work of the whole. So you can't sub-license portions of the work without permission. Just like you can't lend out individual chapters of a book....

You can't license out a copy of a movie in its entirety either. Renting a physical disc is different because you aren't making a copy

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#692

Post by Broken_Hippo »

jjeaff wrote: post #603
isk517 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was just going to mention RedBox!

If I remember correctly, they tried to buy from the company - Disney IIRC - but they were refused sale. Instead, they simply bought retail and rented those.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#693

Post by Banana699 »

4512124672456 wrote: post #667
Banana699 wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>censorship is not inherently bad Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable? They simply have a different definition of what counts as objectionable, that's all, and it's well within their rights to enforce their different cultural values within their borders, just like you argue that a "democracy" has this right. Also, when I go to Netflix and search for "LGBT", I se…

> Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable? There is a difference between banning content that is objectively harmful (e.g. child porn) and banning content to control and suppress minorities. Just because they can doesn't mean it's good. > So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie I never argued this.

There is no such thing as "objectively harmful", all harm or good is decided through values, and those values differ. The exact same way you deal with paedophilia, is the way some countries deal with the LGBT.

It doesn't have to be governments only as well, the Middle East is majority Muslim after all, and muslims do get incredibly offended at LGBT stuff (a lot of Arabic insults are just variations on "gay"). So, according to you, those private citizens and corporations should be allowed to ban the LGBT, it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it right?

>I never argued this.

No, but you did argue for something indistinguishably similar, which is that because a news story is found on Fox then this news story is not actually censored. So, by that same unassailable logic, LGBT stuff is on Netflix and therefore LGBT stuff is not actually being censored. All objections you have against my satire argument is applicable to your real argument.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#694

Post by kasey_junk »

handsclean wrote: post #561
kasey_junk wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

I genuinely don’t believe it’s the same thing because we have proof that it isn’t.

In one example we have a government enforcing a systematic ban that prevented any access to content, in the other we have a singular streaming service making an editorial decision that was expressly rejected by their competitors and widely denounced. No access to content was lost.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#695

Post by inkblotuniverse »

koprulusector wrote: post #567
lettergram wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Preside…

There's an argument that huge social media sites that have wide-scale usage are like utilities. The water company isn't allowed to shut off your taps because you said something they don't like.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#696

Post by epups »

ipython wrote: post #614
lettergram wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 men…

You are right that he conflated two types of censorship in the West. The first is as you say, eliminate it from mainstream media and let lunatics ramble about it on social media (vaccines, lab theory, etc.). This has an impact on the legitimacy of what's being said, and your exposure to these ideas. The second type of censorship is the outright ban of certain topics, such as the Hunter Biden laptop.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#697

Post by trasz »

coryfklein wrote: post #401
the_af wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 peopl…

Do you also believe people shilling for US here are government agents?

Of course you don’t. You hadn’t been indoctrinated _that_ way.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#698

Post by jnsaff2 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #6

> This added up to over one hour of deleted scenes, or nearly three full episodes of purely censored content I would like to watch the edit of only deleted scenes strung together.

There is a very mesmerizing art piece by Mungo Thomson called American Desert [0]. Where he has taken the road runner cartoon and only left the landscape bits. It is beautiful.

[0] - https://mungothomson.com/work/american-desert/

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#699

Post by kasey_junk »

apostacy wrote: post #544
kasey_junk wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peep Show was not edited due to laws, it was a private streaming service that made that decision. At the same time a rival streaming service was showing the unedited version. I think there is an important conversation to be had about censorship by large corporations but equating them to widespread, governmental censorship is not helpful.

It makes almost no difference at all, all that matters is the outcome. People with power are exerting pressure to deny people access to information. Honestly I'd rather have the weak and ineffective Indian government "ban" something, than have the full force of corporate America collude to punish me for trying to serve "problematic" content.

I’d rather have a weak governmental ban than “the full force of corporate America” censoring as well. Luckily that’s not what the choice being presented is.

The choice presented was a singular company making a widely publicized and denounced editorial decision, that a competitor did the opposite of with no consequences vs a systematic and effective censorship across all streaming services mandated by the government with criminal consequences.

Arguing those things are equivalent is a bad faith argument, full stop.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#700

Post by astrange »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #670
astrange wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the people who say this are the only ones who believe it. In particular, Chinese people themselves don't believe it, and do believe their government is the same thing as "them" and represents them, so they still take it personally/nationalistically when you criticize the government.

The CCP claim they have the support of the Chinese people, but they won't allow that claim to be tested by the trial of political freedom and fair elections.

There’s elections in China. There isn’t freedom, but the population of old people with PTSD from the Cultural Revolution seems happy to not have it as long as noone else has it either. And as long as the government is competent and delivers economic growth, which may be coming to an end.
Post reply on HN