The Big [Censored] Theory

This happens in the West too. For example one of my favourite shows, "Peep Show" has a scene removed because one of the main characters wears black face to break social taboos. Obviously, it's done in a mocking way, but even mocking someone for black face has been deemed inappropriate by modern Western standards. The show isn't even that old either.

I'm almost certain there would be things seen as normal or inoffensive in China that would be seen as offensive and censored here. For example, a show that expressed criticism of homosexuality probably wouldn't be tolerated in the West. I'm guessing there could also be scenes that we would consider examples of animal cruelty given our differing views on animal welfare.

Peep Show was not edited due to laws, it was a private streaming service that made that decision. At the same time a rival streaming service was showing the unedited version.

I think there is an important conversation to be had about censorship by large corporations but equating them to widespread, governmental censorship is not helpful.

Yes but at least that episode of Peep Show was clearly marked and advertised as censored, right? They didn't try to pass it off as unaltered, right?

> This happens in the West too.

Not like this. The censorship occurring in China is state-mandated and absolute, which is completely different from a network or content provider voluntarily choosing to remove objectionable content.

> I'm almost certain there would be things seen as normal or inoffensive in China that would be seen as offensive and censored here.

Again, you're conflating different things. What's being described in the article isn't a network simply choosing to remove content that might be objectionable. It's the state telling the distributors that they cannot show certain things period because the state does not like them.

In the United States a content distributor can distribute such content if they choose to, as long as it's not on a regulated platform (e.g. public television has specific regulations about what can't be shown). In China, the content cannot be distributed at all without first being edited and approved by state censors. It's a completely different situation.

From the article:

> According to the state-owned media outlet Xinhua, streaming platforms received a private notification from regulators to remind them of one key rule:

> “imported American and British TV shows must be ‘reviewed and approved by officials before streaming to the public.’”

On the contrary, censorship is effective even if it only makes something less common. No censorship is absolute: Chinese people absolutely know homosexuality exists, what its censorship accomplishes is keeping it the province of the “weirdos”. Towards the same end, the USG regularly uses financial incentives to make one side of an issue 100x more prevalent than the other. It’s actually a more insidious form of censorship, because there’s less legal oversight, most people don’t know that it’s happening, and it’s hard to call out any particular instance of it.

In the OPs example 1 provider censored and another didn’t. It made global news. It wasn’t subtle. Therefore it wasn’t insidious and was clearly not equivalent to systematic governmental intervention.

Again, I’d be happy to discuss how western governments use soft power and financial incentives to accomplish their censorship goals. It’s an important topic. But I’m not going to do it from the basis that it’s equivalent to governmental action at the barrel of the gun.

I also won’t accept a boxing match where you can kick and eye gouge and I’ve got a hand tied up. If you think either of those things is equivalent, great, it’s your right in the west. It’s not in the regimes you are tacitly defending and I won’t explicitly condone it by engaging.

It makes almost no difference at all, all that matters is the outcome. People with power are exerting pressure to deny people access to information.

Honestly I'd rather have the weak and ineffective Indian government "ban" something, than have the full force of corporate America collude to punish me for trying to serve "problematic" content.

I’m not trying to argue in bad faith. I think it’s my idea that’s offensive to you, but I’m open to criticism if you think there’s something else.

> But I’m not going to do it from the basis that it’s equivalent to governmental action at the barrel of the gun.

Genuinely, why do you believe it isn’t? I understand that the threat of violence carries its own separate offense, but in terms of ability to suppress ideas, it is equivalent. At an individual level it’s a choice, but at a systems level it’s enforced as surely as at the barrel of a gun, by modulating influence according to conformance.

I’m not defending China, and more broadly I don’t think criticism of the USG is tacit support for China. Whatever happened to principles leading the good guys, instead of the other way around? And true, in China I wouldn’t have the freedom to express these ideas - maybe if they were smarter, they’d find a way to let me feel that freedom while still firmly controlling whether those ideas can spread and shape society.

I genuinely don’t believe it’s the same thing because we have proof that it isn’t.

In one example we have a government enforcing a systematic ban that prevented any access to content, in the other we have a singular streaming service making an editorial decision that was expressly rejected by their competitors and widely denounced. No access to content was lost.

I’d rather have a weak governmental ban than “the full force of corporate America” censoring as well. Luckily that’s not what the choice being presented is.

The choice presented was a singular company making a widely publicized and denounced editorial decision, that a competitor did the opposite of with no consequences vs a systematic and effective censorship across all streaming services mandated by the government with criminal consequences.

Arguing those things are equivalent is a bad faith argument, full stop.