41–50 of 61 posts
I suspect a big part of the difference is down to Japan's very strict defamation laws (much as the UK tends to be more circumspect than the US, but even more so). Even e.g. product review sites are difficult to use because they're desperate to avoid saying anything negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, pretty much this. I think tourists from many nations - and usually for varying reasons - sure don’t seem to lend to international understanding and goodwill. When I lived in Europe, I had a Swiss girlfriend complement me that I ‘dont dress like all the other Americans’. I got caught up in being flattered but then thought to ask exactly what she meant. ‘You know… they wear the khaki pleated shorts… sandals with s…
Sandals with socks are great.
I wonder if there's a desire for a western equivalent with the same rules?
I sometimes try to only visit blogs this way for a day, and it's refreshing. No algorithms, no ads. Usually very good and interesting content, all these people have skin in the game by having a domain name, a website and effort put into crafting an interesting read.
There comes a time where I don't want to visit any 'regular' social media like FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Youtube, etc. The open web is already social media. It works for what I want, which is text and images and sometimes a small video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sorta doubt it. Anybody who speaks Japanese knows it's really hard to get reliable information on topics searching the Japanese web. You find all these Matome and personal sites that are loose with their sources or unclear with their phrasing. It's interesting because you do actual web "surfing" and learn a lot more interesting things along the way, but it's not good for centralized knowledge or social interaction.…
> Personal sites still exist in the west, but nobody really seeks them out. The IndieWeb movement, standards like WebMention, services like Neocities, and a growing Fediverse have made it so that there is at least some interest in personal websites in the Anglosphere again. I follow a lot of people in my RSS reader, and there’s a growing community of people regularly writing blog posts, having conversations via their…
It is only on HN that I see people talk about the indie web outright flourishing. But I suspect what is flourishing is a community of people who came together to identify as an indie-web community. Not people who want to write about a topic (particularly a non-nerd one), get read and commented on by other followers of that topic, but don’t particularly want to be part of a specific indie-web subculture.
I wonder if there's a desire for a western equivalent with the same rules?
I follow a lot of what I call 'dev blogs' via RSS from a lot of people here on HN. My subscription list is hundreds of websites long by now (probably 350), collected over two years or so. I sometimes try to only visit blogs this way for a day, and it's refreshing. No algorithms, no ads. Usually very good and interesting content, all these people have skin in the game by having a domain name, a website and effort put…
I suspect a big part of the difference is down to Japan's very strict defamation laws (much as the UK tends to be more circumspect than the US, but even more so). Even e.g. product review sites are difficult to use because they're desperate to avoid saying anything negative.
I ask the question the other way around: Why is it socially acceptable and even legal in the US to talk shit about other people in public, without them present to defend themselves.
In my opinion laws shouldn't exist unless it can be clear to a person that they would be breaking the law beforehand. In the case of speech, laws limiting speech are full of gray areas and imprecise definitions that leave too much ambiguity. A person can very easily say something that to them doesn't feel offensive at all only to be charged later with breaking a law because someone decided after the fact that it was in fact offensive. This level gray area rarely exists for other laws, for example its clear what it means to assault someone or steal.
Out of curiosity from the other angle, why in some places is it illegal to say something bad about a person unless they can defend themselves? And who has the power to decide what is or is not legally considered talking shit?
I don't see any other example other than the Japanese? East Asia is not like Europe where the border is blurry and services are interchangable. Even moreso in the context of the Internet. The 3 big economies: China, Korea, and Japan, all have their own search engine, their own messenger, their own payment system (even their own card networks), etc. Cultural exchange over the internet is also not that common, especially outside of Japanese media subculture.
Extrapolating Japanese (and in some capacity Han Chinese) culture as The East Asian culture has long been problematic. Even in the internet era we still maintain each our diverse culture. Hope the author understands that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's legal and acceptable in Japan is rather different than anywhere in the West. As one example, animated or drawn child pornography is perfectly legal there. There have been multiple legal rulings reinforcing that. Western audiences find that horrible, for the most part. Actual pornography is censored in Japan however, and many of the people I've talked to there find uncensored real pornography to be far more off…
I thought of that, really. It's funny how the author dances around that never mentioning what it was about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's legal and acceptable in Japan is rather different than anywhere in the West. As one example, animated or drawn child pornography is perfectly legal there. There have been multiple legal rulings reinforcing that. Western audiences find that horrible, for the most part. Actual pornography is censored in Japan however, and many of the people I've talked to there find uncensored real pornography to be far more off…
I thought of that, really. It's funny how the author dances around that never mentioning what it was about.
Even Google/YouTube gets in on the dog pile. Just try to mention Epstein in a YouTube video and see how quickly that strike or demonetization comes in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ask the question the other way around: Why is it socially acceptable and even legal in the US to talk shit about other people in public, without them present to defend themselves.
Obviously can't speak for all Americans, but from where I stand free speech is an absolute right and there shouldn't be anything legally wrong with talking shit. In my opinion laws shouldn't exist unless it can be clear to a person that they would be breaking the law beforehand. In the case of speech, laws limiting speech are full of gray areas and imprecise definitions that leave too much ambiguity. A person can ver…
You are right that its impossible to determine if your speech will offend others. But you can use other criteria, like your statements being intentionally untrue and causing damage to the victim, like lost contracts or unemployment.
I'm somewhat fine with the current situation in Germany where the court decides what is off-limit. Maybe it could even be stricter like in JP.