←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 1 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
jrm4 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:16 UTC] No.32641533[source]▶
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?
replies(13): >>32641558 #>>32641741 #>>32641840 #>>32642051 #>>32642100 #>>32642172 #>>32642292 #>>32642369 #>>32642503 #>>32642581 #>>32642807 #>>32646186 #>>32656381 #
cdot2 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:18 UTC] No.32641558[source]▶
Anything you can think of you will be able to find that content. We simply don't have the kind of censorship that China has. Comparing the two is ridiculous.
replies(5): >>32641585 #>>32641625 #>>32641629 #>>32641994 #>>32643413 #
jrm4 ◴[29 Aug 22 18:23 UTC] No.32641625[source]▶
Your second sentence is absolutely correct, the others are not.

Easy example: compare the Marvel "Civil War" comics to the movies. The former was critical of the military in a way that could not happen in any big blockbuster movie.

replies(6): >>32641695 #>>32641813 #>>32641845 #>>32641892 #>>32641933 #>>32642305 #
banannaise ◴[29 Aug 22 18:40 UTC] No.32641845[source]▶
Right. Censorship is accomplished economically. The government doesn't ban content; it simply is the only legal owner of military hardware in the country, and will allow near-unlimited use of that hardware for content that promotes the military; that hardware is entirely unavailable for content critical of the military.

Is this better than explicit censorship? That's more of an open question.

replies(4): >>32641946 #>>32641961 #>>32642020 #>>32646722 #
1. agentdrtran ◴[29 Aug 22 18:48 UTC] No.32641946[source]▶
I think it's pretty inarguably better? The alternative is never being allowed to be critical of the military at all. You don't need an f-35 or a tank for a documentary on American war crimes.