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

841–850 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#841

Post by cxr »

coryfklein wrote: post #307
dj_gitmo wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server. Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

It was exactly like Aereo. Their Supreme Court battle set the precedent that made the VidAngel battle a no-contest. Which makes me wonder how VidAngel ever thought they could get away with that business model.

If you read any of the responses by VidAngel's CEO (?), you'll find the answer: hubris.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#842

Post by int_19h »

jrm4 wrote: post #3

I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay -- while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g. American censorship go after?

Here's one example of somebody in the USA actually getting prison time for violating the federal obscenity laws:

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2276921/porn-producer-s...

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#843

Post by int_19h »

lwansbrough wrote: post #531
concordDance wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> xenophobic It's interesting how politically charged words mutate over time.

Xenophobia is about prejudice. The joke in question relies on underlying prejudice towards the image of Chinese restaurants in America in order for the joke to land. If you don’t understand the stereotype of Chinese restaurants the joke wouldn’t be funny to you. Is it bad or legitimately harmful to perpetuate those types of stereotypes? Probably not. But I don’t think the quality of the joke makes up for it in this c…

FWIW the notion of unscrupulous food vendors serving dog/cat meat is pretty common in other cultures, and it doesn't exclusively apply to Chinese restaurants. I've heard it in just about any context where meat is served.

To give a specific example, there's an old Soviet joke about a guy buying meat pierogi from a street vendor; after closely inspecting them, he asks: "So, did this meat bark or meow?", to which the seller replies, "Neither; it asked too many questions."

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#844

Post by int_19h »

npteljes wrote: post #715
eyear wrote: post #592

Where is the diversity we advocate? Must the whole world accept one value? We accept homosexuality so we won't accept other people like Muslims not accepting it? So WE are definitely right and people who are different from us are absolutely wrong?

>we won't accept other[s] not accepting it I think that's right. Paraphrasing Popper: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance". It's not about being right or wrong, it's about how people should treat each other, even if they dislike how the other one acts.

In order to maintain a tolerant society, you must not tolerate intolerant actions. It does not require suppression of intolerant opinions.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#845

Post by int_19h »

gopiandcode wrote: post #729
jlawson wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop other…

> I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning. Yeah, it really is sad to see people so eager to embrace authoritarian sensibilities like this. The paradox of tolerence has seemingly become a buzzword without meaning, perverted beyond its o…

"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

- George Orwell, "Freedom of the Press" (1945)

Note that this predates Popper's paradox.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#846

Post by int_19h »

Spivak wrote: post #745
jlawson wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop other…

I’m not inverting is meaning, I just have a broader definition of what things constitute violent acts of suppression of beliefs. I see this misunderstanding constantly online, that hate speech, *phobia, and *ism is an expression of belief rather than an act of violence that suppresses the speech of the group being targeted. Here, let’s talk about the person who literally replied to your post. Quoting it since I’m sur…

How does the comment that you reference suppresses the speech of the group being targeted, in and of itself?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#847

Post by Dylan16807 »

dahart wrote: post #824
Dylan16807 wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing. Saying it could work in theory if people just transcode on the fly and self-limit the rental rate isn’t particularly convincing, fwiw. The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming de…

> I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing.

Except for all the pre-digital precedent that informs and agrees with my opinion.

> The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming definitely is making a copy, because the bits exist in two places.

I don't think it reaches hyperbole. The bits only need to exist in two places for milliseconds. It should not count as a copy. It's only a copy in a pedantic technical sense.

> The point of copyright law is to give copyrights holder control over who gets to distribute and who gets to consume, and it may not make any difference whether there’s technically copying involved according to however you define copying.

Except they're supposed to lose a huge amount of control after the first sale. This feature of copyright is broken for digital items.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#848

Post by ginger2016 »

_kbh_ wrote: post #789
ginger2016 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oliver Stone’s “Ukraine on Fire” won’t be shown on network television in US.

Is network television in the US obligated to show Russian propaganda?.

I haven’t seen the film and don’t intent to watch it. It is it Russian Propaganda? I thought Oliver Stone is an American. No, we are not obligated to show Russian propaganda in network television.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#849

Post by brigandish »

ipython wrote: post #772
brigandish wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the government was so committed to “suppressing” There's no need for quotes around suppressing as it was suppressed, objectively. > they were awfully bad at it It was done to sway an election, which went the way was desired, and without any legal blowback. That is not being "awfully bad at it". > as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. But at the time and when it was most…

I was there at the time and I was very aware of the story. At no point was it difficult to learn more. References to the story were posted everywhere. Anyone who wanted to be aware of it was aware and could easily read it. Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp, I encourage you to visit china and research the subject. Compare the efforts you…

> I was there at the time and I was very aware of the story.

Your ability to know about a story does not tell us whether the wider population knew.

> At no point was it difficult to learn more.

And yet it was actively suppressed. I also wonder what topic you couldn't claim that for?

> Again, if you are somehow equating this hunter biden story with the censorship of, say, tiannamen square by the ccp

I didn't use that example, perhaps it was used further up. Regardless, equating is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Comparing would be a better fit. Yes, all instances of censorship can be compared simply because they are censorship.

> you will see how awfully bad the us gov is at censorship

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about this censorship because the government is bad at it compared to the Chinese government? That's not going to fly. I also think the obvious slippery slope here would be hard to characterise as fallacious, given we're provided with both ends of the slope, and in actual fact, the US is not at the top of the slope.

> If the government was so concerned about trump as you say, then why did the same fbi re open an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server just weeks before the 2016 election?

The government is not of one mind, it is made up of many departments, groups and individuals, each with their own attitudes, desires and intentions. Regardless, how am I supposed to answer that? Or more to the point, what kind of answer would satisfy you?

> if you believe that the efforts to censor the hunter biden laptop story and tiannamen square are equivalent

Did you mean to reply to me?

> I will make a bet

I skipped this as it was childish and unhelpful, and only builds on the straw man (intentional or not) that you are building.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#850

Post by linkdink »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #815
linkdink wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not beating around the bush.

The story is funnier because of stereotypes. That's the function mentioning the group serves. Taking a joke overly seriously and then having it explained to you is also a stereotype. It's just mildly humorous, and now it's slightly moreso.

Post reply on HN