←back to thread

808 points shaunpud | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mrtksn ◴[] No.45003438[source]
Traditionally in the west, censorship was through copyright rights. It wasn’t considered censorship if you do it for money and business.

Fast forward to today, Americans are pushing you for self censorship through force and denial(if you don’t speak in line with the admin, you will have hard time in your US public sector job or if you want to travel to US) and Europeans find all kind of other ways.

Tough new world order. I used to be advocating for resolution through legal/political means, but now I'm inclined to believe that the solution must be technological because everybody wants security and control. Nobody wants loose ends. Everyone is terrified of some group of people will do something to them, freedom is out of fashion and those claiming otherwise want freedom for themselves only. The guy who says want to make humans interplanetary species is posing with people detained for traveling on the planet without permission. Just forget about it.

So this website itself is about censorship, therefore people interested in this shouldn’t be using websites. New tools are needed, the mainstream will be controlled the way the local hegemony sees it fit.

replies(11): >>45003665 #>>45003694 #>>45003703 #>>45003707 #>>45003817 #>>45003837 #>>45003945 #>>45003970 #>>45003991 #>>45004290 #>>45008332 #
mtsr ◴[] No.45003707[source]
Interesting point. There’s wide acceptance of commercial censorship, but censorship for the common good (rightfully) feels like a slippery slope. But are they actually so different? Couldn’t the latter be done in a way just as purposeful? Or does it always lead to loss of freedom disproportional to its goals?
replies(6): >>45003735 #>>45003736 #>>45003749 #>>45003946 #>>45004132 #>>45008978 #
mrtksn ◴[] No.45003946[source]
I don't think that there's difference, just implementation details differ. Youtube was blocked in Turkey for many years because someone from Germany uploaded defamatory videos about Ataturk(illegal in TR) and it was considered protected speech and Germany & Google refused deleting those. The situation was resolved when someone copyrighted Ataturk in Germany and made Youtube remove these videos.

Besides copyright, especially among Americans, I find that its completely O.K. to censor content it is bad for business. A major one is censorship in order to be advertisement friendly but anything flies, even the guy owns the thing and can do whatever he pleases is good enough for many(slightly controversial).

replies(1): >>45004457 #
1. mannykannot ◴[] No.45004457[source]
This is a myth: in Germany, as in many other countries, copyright covers only specific expression; you cannot copyright either the name of a historical person or a topic of discourse. The videos were briefly taken down as an automatic response to a complaint, but it seems the complaint was not upheld and the videos were restored.

At the time, Germany had a law censoring insulting comments about foreign heads of state, but that only applied to living ones (and maybe only those in office at the time?) That law was repealed in 2018.

The videos remained blocked in Turkey, but on account of a specific law banning criticism of Ataturk, not copyright.

replies(1): >>45004555 #
2. mrtksn ◴[] No.45004555[source]
Okay, how this changes the core argument? The videos were not taken down briefly because they did not comply with the Turkish law that protects Ataturk from defamation but for the claim that they violated someones commercial interests.
replies(2): >>45005447 #>>45007470 #
3. mannykannot ◴[] No.45005447[source]
As the claim you made about copyright being used to take down a video was completely false, how did it contribute to anything?
replies(1): >>45005674 #
4. ◴[] No.45005674{3}[source]
5. nani8ot ◴[] No.45007470[source]
The video wasn't taken down over commercial interests. They were taken down because some old law prohibited insults at representatives of other nations, with whom Germany has diplomatic relationships.

https://archive.is/wWvwM