←back to thread

1444 points feross | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.377s | source
Show context
ALittleLight ◴[] No.32641619[source]
I can see how this might backfire. You notice a censored jump and start to feel the itch of curiosity as to what it concealed. I had to watch several of the censored scenes whereas I would have never just randomly watched clips of the show.

Also, love the presentation on this page.

replies(8): >>32642328 #>>32642481 #>>32642563 #>>32643000 #>>32643351 #>>32643643 #>>32644533 #>>32648241 #
andruby ◴[] No.32642481[source]
We (the HN crowd, often living in less-censored societies) would be very curious.

I’d like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and those living in more censored places.

My assumption is that they take it for granted and just continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even find the uncensored clips.

replies(5): >>32643389 #>>32645007 #>>32646115 #>>32646867 #>>32647033 #
lettergram[dead post] ◴[] No.32645007[source]
brigandish ◴[] No.32645224[source]
I think the downvotes you're attracting give some indication for the HN crowd.
replies(4): >>32645308 #>>32645346 #>>32646106 #>>32646123 #
lettergram[dead post] ◴[] No.32645346[source]
elefanten ◴[] No.32645549[source]
Well taking only this thread as a datapoint... your list of censored news stories wasn't convincing. In what sense were any of those "censored"? I read all those cases being made on the internet. Are you naming editorial choice of what to publish "censorship"? I'm just confused.

Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-selection by topic combined with randomness.

None of it inspires confidence in your assessment of being "censored" on HN, or diagnosing the audience as less curious.

replies(1): >>32645954 #
lettergram ◴[] No.32645954[source]
1. Are you serious? Why is Alex Jones censored? Why is Trump censored? Why did people get indefinitely banned for discussing many of those topics on social media?

Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi...

Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored or social media posts. Particularly when the FBI / government is suggesting it.

2. This is a perfect example of my point. Most people don’t even realize they are surrounded by censorship. Or they outright agree with it. Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.

Censorship in the US is different, but very apparent.

replies(3): >>32646173 #>>32646203 #>>32646352 #
1. jonnybgood ◴[] No.32646352[source]
You’re conflating business and government. Businesses have the right to do what they want with their property within the law.

Otherwise, I don’t know what you’re suggesting to be done. Do you want to expand the powers of the government to moderate these companies and their property?

replies(1): >>32646400 #
2. lettergram ◴[] No.32646400[source]
If government comes to you and says “this should be taken down due to X reason” then it is government censoring. China does the same thing. I linked elsewhere in this thread examples of the government asking Facebook or Twitter to censor directly.

There’s an implied threat. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this previously. I expect in the next couple years as court cases about the censorship work through the courts, the same thing will happen again.

If the government was silent and the censorship occurred then MAYBE it’s legal. That of course depends on if it’s a common carrier or public space. Both arguably are true for social media, but again it takes time for the courts to figure it out. I would concede that point, but again government asked for the censorship here.

replies(2): >>32646518 #>>32646595 #
3. jonnybgood ◴[] No.32646518[source]
They were asked because the government has no legal grounds to force them. In this situation, Facebook and Twitter are not legally obligated to take action. If they took action, it is because they chose to. In China, companies are legally obligated to take action whether they want to or not. It’s not the same thing.
replies(1): >>32647632 #
4. ipython ◴[] No.32646595[source]
Ok, I’ll take a stab at feeding the troll tonight. The difference is that Facebook and Twitter and just turn around and tell the us gov to fuck off. In china, that’s not really an option.
5. trasz ◴[] No.32647632{3}[source]
[citation needed]