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

831–840 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#831

Post by int_19h »

Sabinus wrote: post #613
lettergram wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 d…

For starters, how about governing the country in a way that doesn't create numerous low-hanging opportunities for propaganda against it. You know: don't invade other countries, don't torture people or hand them over to allies who do it on your behalf, don't ally with countries who do all of the above, don't conduct mass surveillance on your own citizens etc.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the enemy agitprop is all true. However, the most effective kind of agitprop is the one that uses facts as the foundation for the rest of the structure. So how about we start there?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#832

Post by int_19h »

Animats wrote: post #394

What's more striking is what comes out of China's domestic entertainment industry. There are far too many historical costume dramas. Those aren't as heavily censored as modern ones. More modern content looks like it was censored in accordance with the US Television Code of the 1950s. ("The code prohibited the use of profanity, the negative portrayal of family life, irreverence for God and religion, illicit sex, drunk…

Historical costume dramas are also censored pretty heavily, sometimes in weird ways. For example, you cannot have zombies, because reanimating dead corpses is disrespectful.

There are also cases where a show gets "canceled" because of something the actor said or did - and unlike the West, when this happens, the removal is sudden and total:

https://dramapanda.com/2021/08/word-of-honor-back-online-aft...

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#833

Post by int_19h »

no_where wrote: post #538
Animats wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China's government seems to be more concerned about containing criticism of the current Chinese government than Communist ideology. It's not like the Maoist period. The Economist has a good story about that this week.[1] Some militant Communists are now in opposition to the Xi regime.[2] The current regime is more authoritarian than Communist. Which is what usually happens when you get a Supreme Leader for Life. [1]…

Authoritarianism does not preclude communism. Likewise, their model more resembles fascism with all facets of life serving the government's ends. Which is the reason for my classification of it as Communist as fascism is a mere variant of communism. The fact that some disaffected communists disagree with Xi is quite common as Communists often disagree.

I would agree that modern China is basically fascist, but fascism is not a "mere variant of communism" in any sense. The key tenet of communism is common ownership of capital; in the authoritarian and totalitarian varieties, this is implemented as ownership by the state that represents "dictatorship of the proletariat". The fascist economic system is completely different.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#834

Post by int_19h »

astrange wrote: post #395
cutemonster wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it slightly amazing how often commenters here (hello aero-glide2) fail to see that the people in a country are not the same as the dictators controlling the country. When such misunderstandings are common here at HN, where people are a bit brighter that elsewhere (or so I think) -- then, such misunderstandings must be dangerously common outside HN. I wonder what consequences follow from that

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.

Chinese people are not a hivemind. Some believe what you have described, others do not.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#835

Post by int_19h »

tgv wrote: post #285
still_grokking wrote: post #270

What's the moral here? There is also a lot of censoring in the "western" world. It's also mostly justified by the exact same "reasons" like the ones mentioned in that blog post. Especial the "but the children" "argument" is used the whole time. And if that gets boring than it's "terrorism". Than again "the children". Also there are a lot of things one can't publicity say for political reasons. In Germany for example…

You’re really not making a strong argument by invoking the German example. The things that they forbid are mainly glorification of a most shameful regime. Holocaust denial comes to mind. Good riddance, I say.

I still remember when they censored the Hitler scene in Castle Wolfenstein. You know, the one where he is presented as a raving syphilitic madman - literally the opposite of glorification. For those that haven't seen it, here's the comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTQ1eBiRRRo

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#836

Post by int_19h »

wizofaus wrote: post #363
dogleash wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have law that restricts indecent/obscene content, and it applies exclusively to FTA TV and radio. But it's completely unrelated to the ratings system for tv and movies. Most channels not restricted by those rules (subscription cable & satellite) set in-house standards on content for commercial reasons. And of the broadcasters that are covered by the regulation, they are the old stodgy networks and never choose to…

The interesting thing is that end result seems to be a proliferation of extreme views in the US vs other similar countries, which is arguably the opposite of what you might reasonably expect from the opportunity to allow freer discussion of ideas.

FWIW, neo-Nazi marches in Europe have way more people attending them than anything that American fash have tried to cobble up to date (including the particularly infamous one in Charlottesville). Radical nationalist parties seem rather popular in Europe lately as well, to the point where they already run some countries (Hungary, Poland).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#837

Post by cxr »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #372
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.

You are completely wrong. There's no such thing as "right to rent video." You could 100% buy a bunch of videos and start renting them out today, and it would be completely legal. Netflix does this today for their DVD rental business. This is also why libraries are legal. You can't buy a DVD and charge tickets to see the DVD played by you. You can't stream the DVD's contents over the Internet. But you can absolutely r…

> There's no such thing as "right to rent video."

There is, strictly speaking—it's part of the exclusive rights that Title 17 lays out for copyright owners[1]. It's just that (a) it forces you to be in the business of doing the rentals yourself (you don't get to just point at someone with an interest doing rentals and dictate terms to them, sans contract), and (b) even if you're doing your own rentals, if you're also selling copies, then there's nothing stopping someone from doing an end-run around your rental business by just buying a copy from you and doing things their way with that copy.

(Granted, this doesn't make the person you were replying to any more correct about what they meant when they said you couldn't do this.)

1. "distribute copies [...] by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#838

Post by jacobsenscott »

jedberg wrote: post #122
jacobsenscott wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I constantly hear right wingers referencing it. It must be very popular in the echo chamber.

Yes, it does support a right wing point of view, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. It's just one video, but there are many other videos and essays about the same topic.

This guy simply edits videos to provoke a reaction and get clicks. It is just business, and not an accurate depiction of reality at all.

It isn't even a creative or original idea. Remember Jimmy Kimmel's "The Man Show" where he got women on the street to sign an "End suffrage now!" petition because "suffrage" sounds like "suffering"?

It is an easy trick to embarrass people by shoving a camera in their face and putting them on the spot. But it doesn't actually tell you anything. It isn't a data point.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#839

Post by CobrastanJorji »

kuschku wrote: post #659
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are completely wrong. There's no such thing as "right to rent video." You could 100% buy a bunch of videos and start renting them out today, and it would be completely legal. Netflix does this today for their DVD rental business. This is also why libraries are legal. You can't buy a DVD and charge tickets to see the DVD played by you. You can't stream the DVD's contents over the Internet. But you can absolutely r…

In the current age of gigabit FTTH connections, I wonder how the situation would be if the service provider would just allow you to rent a dvd drive in a datacenter that's connected via regular sata, just tunneled through the internet. That'd avoid all the "breaking the DRM", "modifying the data", etc. As provider you just offer a device that loads dvds from a user's in-datacenter storage cabinet into their in-datace…

That's just Aereo again.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#840

Post by cxr »

tsimionescu wrote: post #674
kuschku wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current age of gigabit FTTH connections, I wonder how the situation would be if the service provider would just allow you to rent a dvd drive in a datacenter that's connected via regular sata, just tunneled through the internet. That'd avoid all the "breaking the DRM", "modifying the data", etc. As provider you just offer a device that loads dvds from a user's in-datacenter storage cabinet into their in-datace…

Another comment [0] pointed out that a version of this was already tried, and it was found to still be a public performance. Not sure how much the details of the technologies used would affect the ruling, but probably not enough. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32645286

> Not sure how much the details of the technologies used would affect the ruling, but probably not enough

Right. Aereo notwithstanding, one way around this might be to set it up like MP3Tunes[1] where you're a specialized digital locker service. The "fixed" "tangible medium" should originate with the customer, and a transfer from the customer-controlled copy to the business should be involved (rather than the other way around). With a large enough physical presence, you could get this down to pizza delivery time frames and/or Redbox levels of friction.

1. contrast with mp3.com

Post reply on HN