←back to thread

The Big [Censored] Theory

(pudding.cool)
1444 points feross | 2 comments | 29 Aug 22 17:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.559s | source
Show context
kypro ◴[30 Aug 22 00:29 UTC] No.32645303[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>32645413 #>>32645440 #>>32645443 #>>32645533 #
kasey_junk ◴[30 Aug 22 00:47 UTC] No.32645413[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>32645620 #>>32645990 #
1. apostacy ◴[30 Aug 22 02:29 UTC] No.32645990[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>32647711 #
2. kasey_junk ◴[30 Aug 22 07:44 UTC] No.32647711[source]▶
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.