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

811–820 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#811

Post by rfwhyte »

What's really terrifying / depressing / disgusting though, is that an even more insidious kind of Chinese "pre-censorship" is now increasingly worming it's way into western media not even explicitly intended for the Chinese market.

As China becomes the either #1 or #2 global market for films, tv shows and video games, global media companies are lobotomizing their products to ensure they'll pass the CCP's censors / goons, and as a result, marginalized voices are ultimately going to be pushed further even further to the margins. Big globomediacorps won't take the risk that including whatever "Sensitive" subject matter the CCP has decided it's against that week will bar their product from the Chinese market, and as a result the Chinese censors don't even have to do anything as the film / tv / game companies are doing their job for them in advance.

I mean, just look at Legendary Entertainment. There hasn't been a single LGBT+ character in any of their films since Wanda group bought them in 2016, and I've got a bridge to sell you if you think that's anything less than intentional.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#812

Post by LawTalkingGuy »

notahacker wrote: post #130
cowtools wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the chinese people had the option between the censored and uncensored version, which one do you think they would prefer? On an individual level it is obvious that almost no one advocates for self-censorship. Most people are only enthusiastic about censorship when they are the censor and not the censored. The communist dictatorship is a parasitic form of governance, but most cannot escape because they're stuck at a…

I strongly suspect many if not most Chinese people would choose to see the censored version, especially if the stated reason for the censorship was "we have removed some things which may be insulting to Chinese people". Most people don't like being censored themselves, but don't confuse that for a moment with believing that most people want everything uncensored. For all public discourse in America constantly talks a…

I imagine that if the choice was to watch a movie with the family, free of annoying propaganda, that you'd be right. But if the choice was to never be able to see the "propaganda" you're being protected against, that fewer people would take the deal.

These discussions conflate voluntary censorship like age-gating with willingness to actually let someone lie to you, even in cases where you know the truth directly, and accepting it - ostensibly for the good of the group.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#813

Post by MichaelCollins »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #799
MichaelCollins wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the fixation on sex, in particular, seems to go beyond that, and yet it’s fairly universal among them. Sex is how workers create workers, a means of production. So of course they try to seize control of it.

Meh. Even setting aside non-(nominally-)Communist totalitarian regimes, the USSR experience seems to be that after the Party collectively becomes God-Emperor, any philosophy that was supposed to motivate that status is set aside like so much trash (possibly next to shot corpses of its authors). Ever noticed how the state in 1984 was supposed to be all ideological, yet had little actual ideology aside from the state b…

The ideology is a pretext for seizing power; those drawn to the ideology are those to whom seizing power sounds appealing.

Basically, the kind of people who rose to the top of a system like the Soviet Union are control freaks, and they acted accordingly.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#814

Post by MichaelCollins »

6stringmerc wrote: post #786
MichaelCollins wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree, but I got the sense that the company being mormon was meant to bias the reader of that comment towards thinking that the company was in the wrong. I hoped to drive the conversation past that prejudice by conceding and dismissing it rather than pushing back against it, because I felt that on this forum pushback would likely prompt a religious flamewar rather than a discussion about digital rental. Us…

Mormons have a well-documented refusal to assimilate while concurrently using devious and mono-social-mind power to cheat the systems they benefit from and complain about frequently. If there’s one home grown US group that embodies “have their cake and eat it too” it’s culturally ingrained in the definition of being a practicing Mormon. Now if you object, replace the word Mormon with Skinhead regarding mentality of o…

I'm not a Mormon and I don't deny that I think the particulars of their belief system are often weird. But I don't think the nature of Mormons actually matters in this context, and speaking generally I don't think there is anything wrong with people choosing which media they and their families consume. If people want to fast forward over parts of a movie they don't like, I think that's understandable. And if their decision about which parts of a movie to skip is weird to me, so what?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#815

Post by MichaelCollins »

linkdink wrote: post #752
MichaelCollins wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree, but I got the sense that the company being mormon was meant to bias the reader of that comment towards thinking that the company was in the wrong. I hoped to drive the conversation past that prejudice by conceding and dismissing it rather than pushing back against it, because I felt that on this forum pushback would likely prompt a religious flamewar rather than a discussion about digital rental. Us…

Your take on the setup for stereotypical situational humor about puritanical sensibilities and big expensive families invokes another stereotype about the puritanical sense of humor.

You've lost me. You'll have to tell me what you mean instead of beating around the bush.

I believe the only comment I've made about my take on humor is that anybody who laughs at TBBT must be under the influence of laughing gas. But you think this is because I have puritanical beliefs? Are you accusing me of that, or have I misread your comment? This earnestly is not clear to me.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#816

Post by JasonFruit »

stickfigure wrote: post #327
JasonFruit wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. American censorship doesn't have to be comparable for the question of what can be learned about our cultural bias from what we censor or self-censor to be interesting. What do we eliminate or simply refuse to produce because we can't bear to have our children see the world that way?

Find another thread in which to discuss it or start a new thread. Here it is is whataboutism and sounds like you're trying to justify the original censorship.

Listen to you telling me where I can and cannot discuss things, and explaining to me what my comments mean!

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#817

Post by dudeguy3301 »

vlunkr wrote: post #771
dudeguy3301 wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so, censoring a film is editing the intended form. this seems damaging to creators. also, if a movie has a bunch of sex and violence that gets censored out, what remains is still the intended context for the sex and violence, so why would a concerned person even watch it in the first place? absurd! like, for example, pulp fiction...how the fuck would a censored version make any sense, and who in gods fucking name wou…

Like I said, they already do it themselves for TV airing, is it criminal then? And sure Pulp Fiction would be a mess. That’s quite an edge case though.

sorry, i was implying that when another company or group of people do their own version of censoring. the creators agree with brodcast tv laws and parameters to edit down their work because they want it to be available in that form. vidangel seemed to be doing whatever they wanted as a third party.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#818

Post by Dylan16807 »

dahart wrote: post #794
Dylan16807 wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ban on the normal mechanism via which rentals work. Sorry for shortening it. It's a bad solution. It should require no cooperation to build an online version of DVD rental.

For better or worse, the US legal system and media publishers disagree, and they’ve established the rules that do require cooperation with the copyrights holders to build online streaming services. But as I’m sure you know, it’s at best problematic to call online streaming a “DVD rental”. It doesn’t fall under first sale doctrine if you stream a transcoded copy of the DVD you bought. This is why the laws around digit…

I would say the law around first sale doctrine has not caught up yet more than it actively disagrees.

> It doesn’t fall under first sale doctrine if you stream a transcoded copy of the DVD you bought. This is why the laws around digital distribution and copyright aren’t exactly the same as the laws around physical distribution and copyright.

I don't think transcoding should matter, at least if it's done on the fly, but also it's entirely doable to throw raw DVD bits over the wire. And neither one should count as a copy any more than shining light onto a book makes "copies".

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#819

Post by jjeaff »

lliamander wrote: post #647
jjeaff wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does a specific example come to mind? I've generally been a big fan of the opinions he writes, but I'd be interested to see what some of his weaker opinions are.

Castle Rock v Gonzales is probably one of the worst. After a woman with a protective order against her abusive husband was ignored by the police after he abducted their children sued the police department, Scalia basically ruled that police have no duty to do anything to help anyone. Even in a case where you have a court protective order that says the police "shall arrest" someone who violates the order.

The woman reported her children kidnapped and showed the order to the police and they refused to do anything and said she should just wait and he would probably come back.

The man showed up at the police station a day later with her 3 children, dead.

So now we have the precedent that even in the most extreme and obvious cases, police have absolutely no duty to uphold their oath.

Thanks Scalia.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#820

Post by jjeaff »

6stringmerc wrote: post #786
MichaelCollins wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree, but I got the sense that the company being mormon was meant to bias the reader of that comment towards thinking that the company was in the wrong. I hoped to drive the conversation past that prejudice by conceding and dismissing it rather than pushing back against it, because I felt that on this forum pushback would likely prompt a religious flamewar rather than a discussion about digital rental. Us…

Mormons have a well-documented refusal to assimilate while concurrently using devious and mono-social-mind power to cheat the systems they benefit from and complain about frequently. If there’s one home grown US group that embodies “have their cake and eat it too” it’s culturally ingrained in the definition of being a practicing Mormon. Now if you object, replace the word Mormon with Skinhead regarding mentality of o…

Your just confusing the Mormons with Republicans. Both being the majority in Utah. You'll find little difference in other republican controlled states.
Post reply on HN