If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it. Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right.
I don't agree with Facebook's privacy policies and thus have deleted my account and use other platforms. This isn't difficult. This article is tantamount to saying "Woe is me, NYT won't publish my op-ed." and expecting anyone to take you seriously.
I don't think this is a given. When Facebook is many people's main communications platform and source of news, censoring Facebook is, effectively, censoring communication and news. Since they have such power to affect our societies, they should have some obligations.
Disagree. It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy. As suggested, you can use something else that lines up with what you believe and frankly, if a lot more people do that, there will be another viable rival to Facebook. Vote with your clicks.
"It is the main platform because those folks agree with the terms of use and privacy policy"
I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
I think you nailed it right there. People have not hit those "limits" and are okay with what they see on the platform. Since there is no decent, the people are OK with Facebook's handling of cleaning content.
[Assuming you mean "dissent".] I see plenty of complaining about what Facebook doesn't allow... like the article we're referring to for example. I even see some on Facebook, especially about the breastfeeding policy. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Censorsh...
This has nothing to do with what the OP said. The discussion is about what is allowed on FB and what is not allowed on FB. The article you linked to is talking about data collection policies.
It will be interesting to see how this fact will come up in legislative discussions. Has it happened before -- that so many people ended up relying on a single corporations that the corporation needed to take on special obligations?
I completely agree with the above. The idea that society should accept that it has no control over the design of a major artery of communication is not sensible.
With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness).
I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly.
This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK).
Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so.
(Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
"The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
By real APIs I mean ones with sufficient durability and access to data to allow third parties to provide innovative products based on them.
The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it.
At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy.
I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.
In that case why do we have laws for television stations or print media? Why do we have libel or defamation law, even?
Because we can see it's essential for democracy for public discourse to be structured in a certain way, specifically that it not disproportionately represent one person or organisations views.
I can see that in principle people can choose not to use Facebook, but in practice we see that it is very dominant, and so, if a society perceives that a very dominant platform curtails freedom of speech, it's absolutely right to do something about it.
In principle, we might imagine, a newspaper that prints lies will go out of business. But, maybe it won't? In practice, all developed countries have laws against printing untruths.
It's clearly a balance, but if we look at other mediums and the way we've chosen to regulate them, Facebook is a clear outlier. If that's the case we should find the least intrusive way to ensure a single company doesn't have so much control over public discussion.
The idea that everyone freely selects Facebook for their communications because they love its moderation policy doesn't pass the common sense test.
>In that case why do we have laws for television stations or
The amount of bandwith for tv stations is limited, the internet is effectivly limitless.
>print media
We don't really. Print media is extremely off limits because it's protected by the First Amendment. Try passing regulation requiring a newspaper to print an image just because you deem it worthy.
>Why do we have libel or defamation law, even?
We don't really, the bar is very high. Also, these laws to apply to things written online, just ask Gawker.
What I'm saying is legislation of media (most obviously here, common carrier laws), exists, is widely accepted and often seen as essential for many mediums.
As a consequence, I'm arguing, it would be a good idea to apply a similar approach to Facebook. I'm saying the lightest touch would be to make moving your social network off Facebook easier. Maybe there are other better ideas.
On the topic of print media being off limits... not so. I'm from the UK, I'm not sure exactly about media laws in the US, but the First Amendment does not mean that any publishing company can run just how it likes. Having just Googled I see that there are indeed cross-ownership laws for newspapers in the US. I expect there are many other regulations on print media.
Just as I'm arguing for Facebook, these are not laws about what might ultimately be said - either online or in print - they are laws about how much power a single company can have over the discourse.
>but the First Amendment does not mean that any publishing company can run just how it likes.
It literally does. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government can not make any impositions on print media, save for extreme cases of national security and libel, which also has a very high bar.
Cross ownership is only a thing because they can apply it to the TV half, which again, regulations on TV are made on the justification of their scarcity.
There simply is no equivalent in the US to placing such draconian rules on websites.
Whatever the case with print, it's certainly the case that across many other media all developed countries have many regulations.
I can see your point that Facebook, and the web more generally, does not represent a 'natural' monopoly in the sense that it's not a physical feature of the technology that it is inevitably going to be dominated by a few companies. We could argue that Metcalfe's law actually does make it a natural monopoly.
Either way, it's an empirical fact that Facebook is tremendously dominant, and it seems to me that is the basis for intervention, though of course the intervention should be minimal respect and liberty as much as possible.
I also understand that views on this topic will reflect your wider views on liberty and legislation more generally, but those views ought to be consistent. I think the position that an effective national discourse can be expected to occur exclusively from market forces is extremely dubious, maybe you think differently.
Again, I do think you are mistaken about print media in the US. It seems to me cross-ownership laws do apply to print media, however justified. Much more clearly, copyright laws are applied everywhere.
I think some of these laws are wrong, but there are many precedents for regulating print and the web.
Facebook are free to do as they please within the law. And people are free to complain about it within the law.
Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion).
And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.
>Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion).
I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw).
Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though.
Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities.
Lacking a "public" internet, users are always going to have their expression beholden to the standards of some private entity. Even if you self-host, your ISP reserves the right to define their own idea of "abuse".
Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere.
The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.
> If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it
That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
Why not just tell users that Facebook does not endorse or condone any specific user content? No one blames Verizon if someone uses a racist insult on the phone...there is precedent for users grasping how a common carrier works.
Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.
Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does.
It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that.
And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?
> But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave?
The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
I know some people were annoyed at how bad the usability/design was as people customized things. But people have left other services because they didn't like the changes that the site decided to make. Digg is a very obvious example.
I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large.
In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
>I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large. In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed.
Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
>If you don't like Facebook's actions then don't use it.
In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies.
>Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right.
So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren.
Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks? MySpace got crushed by FB -- IP and trademarks had nothing to do with it, unless you want to fool people into thinking that you were Facebook.
Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace.
You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking.
How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one.
>Trademark? Why would you need to violate trademarks?
This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court.
>Build your own system or come up with your own great idea.
Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence.
> I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court.
Has anything like that ever happened? Someone starts a business and a competitor with a completely unrelated name wipes them out with a trademark battle?
It's going to be hard to point to examples by definition because they were wiped out and nobody ever heard from them again. An example of this you may have heard of, but did not wipe out the company, was AstraZenica's suit against Dr. Reddy's over the purple color of a heartburn pill.
Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply.
I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.
You could say the same for TV or Newspaper. Still, they have obligations.
People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.
It's true that Facebook (and Twitter, Youtube, etc.) are expressing the point of view of the platform creators as to 'acceptable content' and it's worth pointing out. On the other hand, if I made a product that hosted user generated content I would probably have pretty similar guidelines to them.
e.g. Yes the "nipple double standards" can be criticized but given current cultural norms, when this limit doesn't exist, you end up hosting a lot of explicit images like Tumblr or MySpace. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They could enact some level of content control so underage users are limited on what pages they can see or something, and tag explicit pages, but the existing ability to hide/block pages and posts related to them seem like a good enough place to start building on to.
But, thats exactly the point. Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings.
You literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body could.
Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.).
Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
A few things. I'm not American (I'm from India) and I think that fact, plus your point about Yelp, gets to the flipside: that American social media giants' standards are actually more relaxed than the media of many countries, especially non-European countries, when it comes to sexuality, political speech, defamation, etc.
As far as beheadings, I'm not sure but I'd assume Facebook is not trying to be a 'gore' destination either. It's the same problem, whether it comes to limits on sex or violence, if you allow any type of media you create havens for that type of content and then it changes the contours of your product. It's all subjective of course, and different companies set different limits--Apple's app store is well known to be more restrictive than Google play, Facebook more restrictive than Twitter, etc.
Americans? How about the British, Mexico, Singapore, China, Japan, Korea, every country in the Middle East except Israel?
Then you have a German freak out over even talking about Nazis.
Almost every country has some hang up or another. Suggesting that 'Americans' have a fear of nipples is short sighted. Every culture has something that causes a collective freakout.
The difference (that mgleason_3 was saying) is that Americans cannot see that other's have different viewpoints. Other countries are able to see that others have different viewpoints and can justify their own decisions in comparison with others.
It's why, for example, they are often puzzled when abroad and note that "some people don't like us Americans" and cannot find out why.
I have noticed this particular way of looking at the world with many Americans when working in global collaborative tech projects - it's a kind of imperialism - a built in sense that their way of looking at the world is the only way. It seems to be a common thing, and not everywhere. It also has the characteristic that those with that mindset are unaware about it.
There are many exceptions of course, and the most successful people are able to work with people from other cultures. But I believe this is what the article and mgleason_3 is trying to say.
If you'd like another metaphor to explain the theory: Privilege. Americans have a privilege as the "top" culture which makes them blind to others below them.
Part of it is that the bulk of Americans don't travel outside the country. Many don't travel outside their own state.
Americans tend to live near other like-minded people and are afraid of those with other views - both in our own country and outside.
Facebook pushes this filter bubble which we gobble up. It's not an accident, and it has a scientific basis. It's also better for advertisers.
Regarding sex and violence and censorship - I agree it's a little odd. The only thing I can think of is that there are more laws and regulations regarding sexual photos than violent photos. Also, our media also has a history of pushing violent stories. If it bleeds it leads.
So I'm an American but to be fair I'd like to think I'm one of your acceptions. Personally I agree with you, the female body as a whole is overly sexualized and part of that is making nipples taboo, but Facebook isn't restricting your ability to show your friends pictures of your nipples, or going to a nude beach. To me, their privacy policy is an expression of their own opinion/ideals (or more likely the opinion advertising firms have decided will make them the most money). And while both I have the right to think nipples are nbd and they have the right to say nipples aren't a big deal, I think telling Facebook they must have pictures of nipples on their servers infringes on Facebooks right to freak out about nipples just as Facebook preventing you from making a nipple collage and showing it to all your friends would restict your rights to think nipples are no big deal. It's all good to say anybody should have the right to express whatever they want, but part of that right is to not express things you don't want to.
Maybe it's time to consider Facebook, Twitter, et al, as common carriers, which, under the new net neutrality law, would disallow them from censoring content.
I think you're both being somewhat overheated in your rhetoric, in a way that's likely to be less helpful than otherwise. Perhaps a bit more restraint might be of value? But of course that's your decision to make.
Whoa buddy, that's some pretty heavy socialism. Anyone can make a forum. Mandating moderation rules creates a restrictive barrier for entry and actually harms free speech that falls out of acceptable range
Whoa buddy, that's some pretty limited free market regulation thinking.
There's plenty of laws that only apply on certain companies, after n employees or x revenue. Should be pretty feasible to devise a law that applies to sites with more than n active users such as Facebook and twitter and the likes and not to your neighborhood forum.
Regulations like this are in stark opposition to free speech values. They are a band-aid that does more harm than good. The correct solution is to change mass perception that using these services for news consumption is a bad idea.
They could potentially have this... if they didn't filter or limit content at all (Safe Harbor) but Facebook (and Twitter) have explicitly chosen to do otherwise. They want to control what content is posted to them, very much so.
Facebook (and Twitter) want to have a particular narrative, and one that's ultimately to make their advertisers happier. If you don't agree with that (and, imho, you should take issue with that) then choose an actually free platform. One controlled by an American for-profit company will never be a truly free platform.
The telephone company has virtually no say over what is transferred over their phone lines. What if the phone company decided to use voice recognition to censor swear words during your phone conversation so all you heard was a bleep? Or suppose the electric company decided it didn't like what you were doing with electricity and only allowed electricity to the activities it approved. The law on common carriers goes back over 100 years.
Phone and electric are commodities with very, very high barriers to alternatives, and so they are regulated as common carriers.
There literally thousands of existing social sharing and networking sites in existence right now that serve as alternatives to facebook.
One of the arguments is that they are "controlling the dialogue," yet here were, having dialogue but not on Facebook.
At any rate, I doubt that you seriously believe your own arguments. For example, I doubt that you support Facebook being for to host white supremacy groups.
While I often disagree with the censorship on Facebook I also think it's required to some extend. Imagine an uncensored Facebook: how quickly would it degenerate into 4Chan?
If Facebook allowed nudity it would become a massive porn site over night. I actually understand their nudity censorship, just censor anything with naked people, to avoid complaints about differential treatment.
Facebook would go out of business if anyone could post anything. It wouldn't be a place most average people could enjoy or feel safe in.
>just censor anything with naked people
It's a simple solution for a complex problem. Countries that follow this way end up covering up ancient statues - just in case, you know.
Facebook can do what they want, but they do censor everything. I don't care about FB, as I have an account that just sits and does nothing. When some organization censors something, they should say a reason, though... Some sites like to delete things and act like they never happened.
The FSF has a lot of good material to read on why we don't want centralized control of our data. Applies to Facebook, Google, etc. As a card carrying FSF member (and supporter of EFF, ACLU, Software Conservancy) it embarrases me a little that I probably spend 30 minutes a day using Facebook, Google +, and Twitter; but I enjoy them, I keep the material I produce largely on my own infrastructure, and I work to prevent these actors from tracking me except for when I am actually using their services.
I use GNU Social a lot, but there is not as much interesting material to read there.
Last week I wished that Facebook screened violent pictures better: someone I know posted a picture of someone receiving 200 lashes, in way too much detail. That picture still disturbs me, just remembering it.
Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures? Otherwise a) you confront the person politely telling them why you think it was inappropriate or b) unfriend/mute them.
Reddit uses a NSFW filter over videos that you have to click through to see the video first... that would also be up to the user to mark as NSFW... or you unfriend them. Or even a downvote button is community-based.
The reason heavy-handed centralized control systems get put in place is because of statements like that "I wished that Facebook screened x better". The consequence of wishing for minimalist centralized control is depending more on community/social-based control systems aka not having your cake and eating it too (being friends with someone while expecting a 3rd party to filter their content to your tastes).
> Why can't your friend be responsible for not posting violent pictures?
Because Facebook have already said that some content is not allowed on their platform.
For a while women who'd had breast cancer and had reconstructive surgery were posting images of their new breasts, or of their now nipple-less breast with tattoos. Or breast-feeding mothers were posting images of their feeding children. Facebook said that those images were not allowed, and removed a bunch of them. But at the same time Facebook was doing nothing about beheading videos. It was weird to see a mother being banned for posting a photo of a feeding child, and someone else not get banned for posting terrorist propaganda.
If facebook is saying "anything goes, as long as it's legal" that's one thing, but as soon as they start to control what's allowed it's reasonable for users to say what content should be more tightly controlled.
Censorship is always a slippery slope. It's true that Facebook crossed that line a long time ago and they can't go back now. I remember they've always been willing to go beyond further than necessary in order to keep things family-friendly.
They should (or at a minimum could) have taken a hard-line early on against policing content and built tools to let people regulate themselves. Now they seemed to always be cursed if they do and cursed if they don't.
Sadly most people seem to prefer it this way instead of taking moral positions against the regulation of language - which was popular a century ago. Or maybe people have always been this way, with the exception of the progressive intellectuals who wrote the early bills of rights in the 19th century.
FSF has a lot of problems, too, like an unresolved contradiction in its rhetoric between claimed populism ("everyone can be free!") and evident elitism ("but if you don't choose to act in exactly the way we promote, to hell with you!") I thought hard about joining, but I'm not comfortable with endorsing such a contradictory and self-defeating stance.
I don't see why you should be embarrassed to use Facebook et cetera. As I've discovered to my personal cost, there can easily be very real social consequences for opting out of these services, Facebook especially. I think you'd have to be Richard Stallman to blame someone for choosing not to suffer those consequences over a point of principle. And I don't think very highly of him for so doing, given the nomadic and largely asocial sort of life he's chosen. That such a life suits him is clear, and he's welcome to it, of course. But his judgment of those who find it not so easy to make the same choice is harshly contemptuous and utterly lacking in nuance, and I find that impossible to respect.
GNU legacy aside, I see RMS as a sort of extreme moral compass whose views and principles are an important contribution to a number of conversations, but anyone would be insane to actually try and live by them.
I find I feel rather the opposite - that while Dr. Stallman's technical accomplishments are meritorious in the extreme (especially to a longtime Emacs user like me!), his principles are so uncompromising and lacking in subtlety that they do more to polarize a discussion than the converse. Such, at least, has been my experience.
Maybe I'm just oblivious to the underlying tone of what I've been reading, or I haven't been reading the right things, but I don't think I've seen the FSF say "to hell with you" or anything similar to people who don't choose to act exactly in the way they promote.
If you have to use Facebook because of the consequences on your social life from not using it, that's understandable, but then there's nothing the FSF can do for you aside from recommending a few addons. This doesn't mean "to hell with you", it literally means "there's nothing we can do for you".
As for Stallman, has he really been showing contempt for users of non-free software? He dislikes proprietary software and actively campaigns against it, and this involves writing about their problems without holding back, but I've never gotten the sense that he has contempt for the users.
Even when he uses the word "useds" to refer to Facebook users, I've never gotten the sense that he has actual contempt for users of Facebook. I get that it can be insulting, but I don't think it was meant that way. It's just Stallman trying to get his point about Facebook across and ending up being abrasive about it.
Also Stallman is not uncompromising. He believes in freedom and is working to maximise it, but along the way he's used non-free software when there were no alternatives (the most recent example being BIOS some number of years ago), has promoted non-strict free licenses in some cases, allowed the LGPL/GPL/AGPL instead of just making everything maximally protected with the AGPL, etc. He compromises a lot less than most on the issue, that's true, but that's because it's literally his mission.
> I've never gotten the sense that he has contempt for the users.
Neither had I, until I attended his talk at HOPE XI this year. I found his rhetoric in person to differ markedly from that in his writings. The full video of his talk and the following Q&A session is online [1]; I encourage anyone interested in the subject to hear the man out and form your own opinion.
I don't get why this is such an issue. I understand the sheer numbers of people that use fb and get their 'news' from it, but it amazes me that people are shocked that fb censors the content.
Facebook never claimed to be a news organization nor part of the 5th estate (which, pretty much doesn't exist). So that being the case, I would never expect fb to be a partner for democracy.
Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights.
People need to remember this whenever they post something on these sites. Especially since they outright claim to own the content (last time I checked).
> Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights.
They aren't illogically petitioning the government to force them to stop censoring, they are making the public service announcement at other private corporations and may actually be successful in getting the private corporation to stop censoring.
It was successful a few days ago with Napalm girl, so why stop there.
They were pretty loud about being a source of news. Don't forget the Paper app they cancelled. They even encourage news sources to host their articles on Facebook. https://media.fb.com/2015/05/12/instantarticles/
Free speech rights are limited to government intervention, for good reason. The only question from a free-market perspective is whether or not Facebook has provided the tools to self-censor the content you get in your social network, much like HN where you can downvote/flag content that is inappropriate or of questionable quality [1]. That would downplay the monopolistic side effects of not having a competitor to go to if you're not happy with Facebook's strict censoring rules.
[1] I should note Facebook already does provide lots of ways to filter people from your feed without unfriending them if you don't like what they post.
I think the issue raised here is that Facebook censors content according to rules based entirely on American values, while parading as some sort of global organization, "connecting the world" type-of-thing.
What is morally acceptable to see on a feed for an American is not the same for a Norwegian, a Japanese or a Sudanese. The author mentions sexuality/nudity content here, which is a blatant cultural difference between Europe and the US, but there are so many more regional variations among the hundred of countries where Facebook operates.
Facebook is definitely entitled to censor content as they see fit, but we are also entitled to criticize their policy. Here, it seems that the main criticism is the americano-centric view of what is inadequate content.
Maybe Facebook should look into developing local content rules instead of relying on a guideline written in California by Californians for Californians?
Maybe Facebook should look into developing local content rules instead of relying on a guideline written in California by Californians for Californians?
How would such a thing work? Would a user register as a resident of a particular country? Or, IP-based checks of location? I'm a Scot living in America, with Dutch friends - do I see the US, UK, or Euro content? Does the content I see (on the same feed) change based on which country I happen to be in today?
I think a location-based policy at the time of posting is sensible. That's also how international law work: if I smoke a joint in Amsterdam, I am not liable for it back home. When in Rome...
I also think that the policy should apply to the poster, not to the viewers. What makes our world great is its wide range of cultures, and we should not isolate ourselves in little silos. Conversely, we should not allow a single culture to dictate to everybody else what is acceptable or not.
To be fair, I don't think any policy is necessary besides moderating and reporting illegal content. But since Facebook seems quite inclined to go the extra mile to make its platform less offensive, I think this would be a good compromise.
Normally I'd agree with you, but Facebook have absolutely been positioning itself as a news source. They even publicly talk/gloat (as they should) about how Facebook was used to disseminate information during the Arab Spring.
So they really can't have it both ways. If they want to be a source of news, they're going to get flack if they hide stories, even if it was done by an algorithm.
And all of us here know that Facebook is a private company and they can do anything they want, but for the majority of people that use the Internet, Facebook and Google are the Internet to them. So for a lot of people, this feels like Facebook is "censoring the Internet."
No one is surprised a private company censors content, it's the cultural homogenisation on a global service that can grate, even though it's no surprise. A global service that tries very hard to be the global platform for everything, including news publication (that may have been unsuccessful). No surprise after many years of this most people's networks are on Facebook.
No doubt to an American some of the things I, as a Brit, think and do will be plain weird yet Brits are quite close compared to some nations. For all us outsiders, FB (and other US sites) and US attitudes to nudity and violence are, well, interesting. Usually just amusing, sometimes it can be annoying like in the case of this globally famous photo. Don't forget none of us foreigners have a first amendment or rights under it - so that's not even relevant to us.
It wouldn't be that hard to have regional appropriate guidelines for censorship, acceptable behaviour and what have you. Then Americans could have American mores, Norwegians theirs, and we can be confused, amused or fascinated when something goes viral enough to overlap.
I'd like to preserve more of the global differences - it's what makes the world interesting. We might find others do some things better.
You say it wouldn't be that hard to have regional guidelines, but that seems like an incredibly difficult thing to do.
Even within a country you can have strongly divided opinions on what's appropriate or inappropriate to be hosted on social media, now not only do you need some way to document these (including refining them as norms change), but you also need to implement a system that can "know it when it sees it" so to speak and filter on the fly. That's either going to be a large number of humans filtering the content more-or-less by hand (already got FB into trouble when the humans filtered stories they didn't agree with) or build an automatic screening process that can make the appropriate decisions on the edge cases, which would be difficult to say the least.
Additionally, you run into the problem that many social groups overlap. How many German users need to be friends with a French user before they're covered in the same filter? What about an American vs Iranian? Ultimately you need some way to decide how to break ties and at the moment they're all breaking on the side of the US because that's where FB is based. Unless that changes, I don't see a shift to fragment what's considered acceptable on the platform.
Note that other big American social media services (Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr for a start) are fine with some various degree of NSFW nudity. Yes, I think Americans overall tend to be a bit more squeamish towards nudity than Europeans, and it shows in our content policies to some degree. But a pretty wide spectrum of opinion exists here; the country Facebook was created in is also the country 4Chan was created in.
I do agree with you that preserving global differences is important, hence why ensuring the web remains "decentralized" is important. Facebook's content policies aren't a big problem as long as there are compelling alternative social media platforms to switch to if you don't like what's going on.
Because Facebook has become so big that it's essentially a cultural hub, which means that it can have a serious effect on world cultures. Think about this for a moment: Facebook, governed by strict Muslim cultural code. Womens' faces are not allowed. Any picture of an uncovered woman is summarily deleted. Would that work for you? Would you feel that Facebook is perfectly within its rights, and that you should like it or lump it?
Exactly, when we use Facebook, we basically make a deal with them - we surrender a part of our freedom (of speech mostly) in exchange for the convenience and entertainment that FB provides.
If people are no longer happy with this deal, they are free to look for alternatives, but instead prefer to complain about censorship. It's like going on vacation to England and complaining about the rain.
It's strange because the people upset over this are the same people who are full steam ahead on censoring anything and anyone they don't like, waving that XKCD comic as battle flag.
They also seem to be unable to imagine turning off FB. Which would be the first thing I would do and ask my friends and family to do if I were really concerned with their control of the media. They are seen as default, as if they are the entire universe, so inescapable that we have to beg mercy from the master rather than simply leaving.
I'm not a fan of Facebook so this is great news. The more they manipulate the platform and undermine its objectivity and freedom, the less people will trust it. And while the reasons they shouldn't trust it - namely privacy- are not directly related to these actions, Facebooks attempts to control people like this will make them aware of its untrustworthiness.
TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.
Agreed. It's not Liberalism at all - if anything, from the article, thinking about this on a global scale - it's a cross between a Silicon Valley tech mindset, American puritanism, and the current flavour of rich, white, university educated politically correct behaviour. In short it means an odd mixture of whats allowed and not which the article talks about, but it's nothing to do with liberalism.
edits: I think it's cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture and literally cannot see others that with less power should have some of that influence.
Sorry, I can't allow the context to make it seem as if I approve of being deliberately thoughtless. I generally try hard myself not to be incorrect (politically) since it would break one of Bill and Ted's two commandments.
I just dislike it when Liberalism, which I believe in whole-heartedly pretty much exactly as I think Mill intended, is dragged into this debate about censorship, when it was about what should be illegal not what was moral or immoral. (Indeed, it is a way for people who disagree with each other about what is immoral to live in the same country under the same law and feel safe.)
Censorship often comes from different sides of the political spectrum. In the USA, sexual censorship comes from mostly the right, but increasing from the left as well--exploiting women, perpetuating rape culture, etc.
Violence censorship often comes from the left. Democrats used to lead the way on banning violent video games, etc.
"Hate speech" censorship comes from the left too.
Whoever is in power tends to seek to bad seditious speech.
And the right usually wants to censor blasphemous speech.
See, Liberalism is nothing to do with left and right, which is economics. The "left" (i.e. centre-right) in the USA are not Liberals by British or European standards (which are different), although they are often referred to as such.
You may have already seen the political compass[1], which shows a 2D view of political theory (which is still too small a dimensionality, but illustrates the point about considering more than just left/right.)
In the UK, Liberal Democrats are often advocates of the political compass approach, as a defence against the stereotype that we "sit on the fence" between the two largest parties.
I'm not a fan of Facebook so this is great news. The more they manipulate the platform and undermine its objectivity and freedom, the less people will trust it. And while the reasons they shouldn't trust it - namely privacy- are not directly related to these actions, Facebooks attempts to control people like this will make them aware of its untrustworthiness.
TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.
The United States are a great country, but in the topic of censorship, balanced politically correctness and easy to speak about all the topics, I believe that the old Europe has very interesting things to say, so I'm also a bit worried that the technological leadership of US may have an effect on what is believed to be sensible to discuss / post in Europe too. I hope is the other way, that is, we european can in some way mitigate certain extreme positions I see in the US regarding what is appropriate or not.
France in the 18-19th century had many smart people who spoke against this type of stuff (everyone loves to quote Voltaire). But modern France has become the absolute counter-point for wishing to have less censorship and centralized social control. So this problem isn't limited to the United States.
This is an issue in all modern liberal societies. Big government and centralized control has exploded over the last century, nation-states have become bigger than they've been in any time in history. The first half of the book "Fourth Revolution" has a really great history of how the state has massively grown, largely starting after WW2, to the point it becomes embedded in every parts of our lives (whether it's explicit or not). This type of thing always happens through small slivers and cuts, largely promoted via community complaints calling for government to solve issues - much like what Facebook has experienced.
This is the side-effect of a society where the hair-trigger response to every small problem is to look to government to solve it - not just economic but social issues too. Instead of resolving them internally or via community, or just moving on because the solution is sometimes worse than the problem (see: terrorism).
Admittedly I have not read this book you recommend.
However, my experience with such arguments is that they never persuade me "big government" is suddenly intruding into places it didn't previously, since the truth is more often that government was suddenly being deployed in support of people it was traditionally deployed against, and against people it was traditionally deployed in support of.
Even if the government power is smaller than previous authoritarian states/monarchies, the simple fact is that the scope and scale of government has massively grown. We're fortunate to be in the only(?) major industry that isn't heavily regulated. Where you can build a sizable business without having to wrangle with regulations at every step (outside of HR and financial regulations).
The best example in the book is how interior designers need a required 4 yr bachelor diploma, pass a difficult test, and buy a licence, in order to choose what furniture and paint colors will look best in a persons living in Florida. Similar regulations exist for cutting/styling hair. Or cutting nails professionally.
Or look at the 'Burkini' ban happening in France right now.
This wasn't some partisan blanket criticism of 'the welfare state' that US republicans take while simultaneously supporting the 100 different agencies and offices that are now involved in fighting terrorism. It was a serious analysis of how far we've come from being able to solve issues society faces without creating another administrative blackhole.
21 million people are working for the US government alone. That's 16% of employed people and not counting the massive amount of private industry that works directly off of gov contracts (particularily significant in the defense industry). So it's probably closer to ~20%. More than all Fortune 500 companies combined.
How many people do you think worked for the crown in France/England in the 1800s?
The best example in the book is how interior designers need a required 4 yr bachelor diploma, pass a difficult test, and buy a licence, in order to choose what furniture and paint colors will look best in a persons living in Florida. Similar regulations exist for cutting/styling hair. Or cutting nails professionally.
So, would you like to compare to how long an apprenticeship you'd have to serve, or what hoops you'd have to jump through and payments you'd have to make, to get into a skilled-trade guild in the golden old days?
Or look at the 'Burkini' ban happening in France right now.
Sumptuary laws and other regulations on clothing are millennia old.
21 million people are working for the US government alone. That's 16% of employed people and not counting the massive amount of private industry that works directly off of gov contracts (particularily significant in the defense industry). So it's probably closer to ~20%. More than all Fortune 500 companies combined.
In a feudal society 100% of people worked for either the government or the church. 16% is a nice downsize from that.
The state is ubiquitous now, but it also administers with a much lighter hand than it used to--even relatively liberal states in the past regulated public and private morality rather heavily, and even the most authoritarian states rarely police as harshly as the average 19th century government does.
It's absurd to think governments grew because of "community complaints". The rise of nation states happened precisely to benefit the megacorps that now exist - to support massive, centrally planned economies and subsidize megacorps that now rule the planet. The gov (or rather, the public, us) have every right to demand certain basic guarantees from these companies that benefit so much from public investment.
I agree with you that large companies can have a significant influence of policy and legislation. And yes they definately contributed to the problem. But considering the standard approach to everything (including your own comment here) is that 'more centralized control is the solution' it's not surprising that corporations are playing the exact same game to their advantage.
I'm questioning the value of using that approach as a default solution. With the exception of it being the very last resort rather than the go-to solution to every problem. Because the state is good at a few things but it many cases it's heavy handed, expensive, time consuming, and very slow to adapt to change.
Regulation, policy, and agencies should only be used carefully and there should be a culture of constantly re-evaluating the necessity of programs/agencies/policies - which doesn't seem to happen. Once it's set up it stays, scope and legislation only grows in size, government employees are incredibly hard to fire, etc, etc, and that's how a nation-state grows into a massive unwieldly beast.
It's a complicated problem no doubt with many sources. But the status quo of the modern nation-state is very dysfunctional. It's sad that people so passionitely defend it blindly on ideological grounds. Questioning the value of government as the solution to all things brings out people who defend it like a religion. Which is how it ends up functioning in places where it often doesn't belong or worse ends up contributing to societal problems.
This same ideology is the reason why Facebook gets blamed every time there is something posted that makes people uncomfortable. Instead of the person who posts the content.
I think people often forget the other side of the coin.
These companies "cross-pollenate" American morality across the world because they are American companies. Based in America. On American soil. Responsible to America's laws. To ask that these companies not spread American morality (or French morality if they were based in France, or German etc.) is to ask that they not be made to operate under the laws of the country that they're based in. That they hold some status above countries. And one could argue that that is even more dangerous than the situation we have now.
That's the logical definition that I've always known.
From MW:
(1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3)
Offhand, I can't think of one group of people who adhere to customs, practice or rules, that they think are immoral.
That things often continue to be legal (or illegal) well after the consensus on their morality has shifted. And that is to completely put aside those laws that were patently immoral
Well yes. Law's are codified at a certain time. And then the law changes, and morality is codified at the new time. You really can't judge the morality of an action when removed from the instance and context that action happened in...
I guess I should have said codified at a certain time, but I thought that was implied.
I can stand here today and say that chattel slavery in the antebelum was wrong. But I'm saying that today, with today's morals. Time machine back to the 1840's, the moral landscape is much different, and slavery is accepted. There's even moral justification for it. Standing here in 2016 I can see that that justification is bunk, but back then it stood.
It's the same issue that researchers run into when talking about the acceptability of cannablism in native cultures. Once your removed from the act, both in space and time, you've lost the moral context.
To bring us back to our original topic, one of the purposes of codified law is to place a moral stake in the ground that serves as a reference point for everyone. You can judge people by those laws/morals after they were created (and before they are superceded by a new set of laws/morals), but you can't judge those that came before by a moral stake that didn't exist when they acted.
How about legalization of same sex marriages by US Supreme Court in recent years? When "marriage" was referred to in various laws in, say, 19th century, no one would have imagined them to apply to same sex couples given the moral codes of those times. Whereas in 2014, same text was interpreted to support same sex marriages (or at least, not prohibit them). Hard to imagine that decision in 1914.
> I believe that the old Europe has very interesting things to say
If anything European countries are much more deeply invested into censorship than the US. The UK's incredibly short sighted libel laws for example. Or the EU's ridiculous "hate speech" laws. I find it amusing you decry US political correctness in favor or Europe's much more tough legislation.
Also the EU censors items on Facebook all the time, usually in regards to protecting minorities from "hate speech." Facebook is beholden to every government it has a presence in. Lots of examples of how the European system works here:
I totally agree that governments are at least as bad, what I think here is the ability of the average people to be less sensible and more open to the amount of subjects that can be talked / posted / ... About governments, I see US much more able to avoid succumbing to attempts to limit Internet freedom and so forth. However even if the American elite is doing great, Facebook will tend to employ censorship to make happy the average person, so there is the risk of restrictive policies that are not needed or even counter-productive for the rest of the world.
100% agree with you regarding "hate speech", but I can't help but feel the US public have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to libel laws. Seems to be a current issue as Trump brought it up recently.
As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A.
That seems super fair to me and a great idea for other Governments.
Wait until you make a political commentary and spend next 5 years in courts because the person you criticized has a lot of money to spend on lawyers. You may be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt you criticism is true, or maybe not (just read any political argument and see how much of political criticism is provable by law? Is "Trump unfit to be president" provable or "Hillary is corrupt" provable in court? Would you want to risk your life savings and economical well-being of your family on it?)
Now add to it that the court is also held in the country you've never been to, don't know the laws of and don't have the money do go there. How fair is that now?
In fact, the issue of libel tourism got so bad that both UK and US made specific laws to target it. [1]
And that's what the UN HRC has to say about it[2]:
The Committee is concerned that the State party's practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as "libel tourism." The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party's unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.
If the UN says you have problem with freedom of speech, you do have problem with freedom of speech.
All good points and I appreciate you including [2], I had not come across it before. [1] was a good set of laws introduced to curtail some of the issues you have raised.
The libel suits that I have read about tend to be "A publicly claims B is a pedophile", "B is having an affair", "B steals orphans sweets after giving them a slap" etc. In these cases, I think the libel laws are sensible however I do recognise that it can be exploited by the wealthy in an unreasonable way. I suppose we have to introduce new laws to protect against this, or rely on the wisdom of our judges.
That's actually technically the law in the US as well, with the addition that the falsehood has to have caused harm (and I think be malicious or grossly negligent -- sorry my journalism training is super rusty). It's just that we're so biased towards letting people speak that in practical matters the outcome is uncertain for the wronged party and litigation is expensive.
The recent Gawker case should demonstrate that you can successfully sue a media outlet.
> As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A.
That's not the UK, that's a fair description of the libel laws in the US. (Actually, in most cases, actual knowledge of falsity is unnecessary; mere recklessness is sufficient. Knowledge of falsity is only necessary for certain cases, such as where the statements are about public figures and/or matters of public concern, where the Constitutional protection of free speech is held to be at its strongest.)
> I believe that the old Europe has very interesting things to say
Like UK libel laws that are so nice that they created a phenomenon of "libel tourism" where people come into UK to sue others for libel because in other places they'd be laughed out of court?
Or like courts forcing search engines remove pages because some person feels uneasy with true public information about them being out there?
Or criminal penalties for "insulting a public servant" in France, bans on "hate speech" according to day-to-day political considerations in many countries and over EU in general [1], etc. Note that unlike Facebook, which is private company and can only manage its content, these laws would apply to every platform in EU.
Yes, it'd be terrible if something like First Amendment would have an effect in Europe too. That smacks of freedom of speech or something awful like that!
Very solid whataboutism. Yes, Europe is not perfect and has some serious problems with freedom.
That being said, the first amendment (jurisprudence) in the USA suffers from two serious flaws not necessarily suffered by freedom of expression legislation in other countries:
1. The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test.
2. The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor.
Because of the 2nd defect, Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship. Book burning is still book burning. Removal of napalm girl is censorship; the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment (jurisprudence) that the USA refuses to acknowledge. The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment, it was created by the courts because "obscenity" was supposedly always understood as not being actual speech.
> The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor.
I don't consider this a flaw. I wouldn't want government intervening in private websites (like this one) attempts to moderate discussion on the grounds of first amendment rights.
> The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test.
True, that is a problem. I'd say it's smaller problem than "hate speech" ban though - it's quite hard to ban something important to the society under obscenity ban - after all, not a lot in our life depends on being able to see tits (or whatever bits one is personally fascinated with). But it's quite easy to disrupt democratic processes under the guise of fighting "hate speech" - see Russia, for example, with its infamous article 282. I'm not saying US censorship is good - on the contrary, it's despicable. But it's a) less dangerous than European one which has clear political goals of suppressing political opinion and b) clearly goes contrary to a supreme law of the land that states freedom of speech shall not be infringed.
> The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor.
Well, yes. But only government is an actor that is allowed to use force, so if the government is banned from interfering with your speech, that's a big deal. Of course, private citizens can refuse to talk to you or interact with you because of your speech and that'd suck. But at least they can't force you to stop speaking or jail or harm you for that - or, at least, if they try, the state will be on your side.
> Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship
No, labeling is fine - it's just that private censorship is different, as per above. Publishing stuff in other place than Facebook is much easier than moving to another country.
> Book burning is still book burning.
Yes, but if I have bought a book I have the right to burn it. It's my book, I do what I want with it. And anyway, how me burning my own book hurts you? You can buy your own book and not burn it, I don't prevent you from doing it.
> the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment
Nope. You seem to be misunderstanding what US Constitution is made for. It's a unique document, and often misunderstood. It describes what Federal Government can and (very important) can't do. But it doesn't - and can't - describe what private citizens can and can't do, because it's citizens establishing the Government, not the other way around. So it's not a defect, it is by design that Constitution can not limit private citizen's actions.
> The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment,
Again, private censorship has nothing to do with First Amendment. The infamous "obscenity exception" and other "exceptions" of the First Amendment invented by various political actors always have one goal - to enable the government to restrict speech. Nobody uses them to make The New Yorker magazine to publish porn - only to ban some other magazine from doing so. First Amendment can't make The New Yorker publish materials they don't want to, but it can protect Penthouse from being shut down by the government for publishing something they do want to.
What old European states are your referring to that have an absolutist right to free speech like the 1st Amendment? Our egregious exception for obscenity has been whittled down to bestiality, the sexual use of urine and fecal matter, and having sex with a person who is physically restrained. And even these are unevenly enforced, with Insex and its successor sites in Kink.com making sex with restrained people a brand.
There are plenty of places in Europe where you can be jailed for political speech. Britain regularly jails for hate speech, and recently jailed Anjem Choudary for 5 1/2 years for his open and public support of ISIS.
Americans are so bought into the idea that "explicit" images are bad that they can't see another viewpoint. Its become "natural". And, as the author pointed out, Americans are so blind to it that you don't even see the problem with censoring nipples but not beheadings.
We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK?
Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.).
Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
And shortly before the internet really took off and started to standardize legal porn (meaning: harmonize to American rules), 16 and 17 year old topless girls were legal on page 3, with harder stuff elsewhere on the European continent. America effectively exported their legal standards here, mostly through credit card companies I expect.
(Not saying commercializing topless schoolgirls is just fine, just that normal used to be different and it has changed due to American influence.)
Where in America is 16 and 17 legal for appearing in pornography? There are places with age of consent laws that low, but often times there's still a band around that age that their partner has to fall into (i.e. if you're 45, 16 is still off limits).
*edit: post I replied to had a typo that significantly changed the meaning. I'll leave this for the record, but it's no longer relevant.
What you just described is even debatable if it should be classified as porn and by what standards. Americans might be outraged, while you can visit any beach in EU and you'll see topless girls while no one giving a fuss. Not to mention Russia or Ukraine.
Not sure this warrants an answer, but my observation was a) tongue-in-cheek, but also b) somewhat pertinent to a discussion on prudish censorship (as many if not most Wikipedia pages have illustrations, but not this one).
Thought this the other day, was watching that Hannibal TV series. Didn't see one nipple but a few people torn to pieces. Intestines hanging out and person cut into slices and displayed in glass are ok.
PG-13 is a lot more restricted than it used to be. You can't have much blood or gore or say more than one bad word. So I don't think that really supports your point.
I believe it applied more in the past, but the point still stands. At some time in recent history, a naked woman was considered worse than a naked woman with holes from being shot, which is just wrong.
Prime time television isn't, though. You may only get only two "shits" a season, but never a nipple. Beheadings, rapes and disembowelings are common, though.
I'm an American, and as far as I can tell, beheadings are at least as controversial as nudity. I wouldn't put much stock in the LA Times either; lots of very biased reporting.
EDIT: There seems to be some confusion as to whether we're talking about actual beheadings (e.g., ISIS videos) or theatrical violence. My previous statement pertains to the former context; I don't dispute that fictitious violence in America is less controversial than in other parts of the world.
>beheadings are at least as controversial as nudity
From one internet stranger to another, and with all due respect: bullshit.
We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice.
To claim differently is to either a) appeal to an exception that does not represent the overall social norm b) be disingenuous (which I don't think is your case, to be clear) or c) not even be aware of the problem, as advanced by the parent comment.
To say the American populace (again, on the aggregate level) is both desensitized to violence and hyper-sensitive to nudity is a massive understatement, one which can be directly traced to our puritanical roots.
Seriously, this is like saying America doesn't have a problem with gun violence. It's so patently and obviously false that it borders on comical.
(I again feel compelled to mention that I mean absolutely no disrespect. I just couldn't disagree with you more.)
The theatrical dimension doesn't change much. That's how strange the US is in this respect. The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent, contrary to the amount of censorship applied to sex, real or otherwise.
Do Americans censor "real" violence more than theatrical violence? Possibly. Do they censor "real" violence less than any form of nudity? Yes.
You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. At the very least, the uproar will be an order of magnitude larger for the boobs as compared to the violence.
And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special.
Fair enough. I was referring to the first world, and specifically the Western world.
The point remains. The US is a very special case in this respect.
I would further argue that even with the middle east involved, such an ascetic rejection of nudity is hardly the norm across the world. But that's still addressing a tangential (and, I think, pedantic) point.
Just because many other cultures have a prudishness about nudity doesn't make our particular prudishness about nudity a universal value, and ours isn't similar at all to the Middle East's. Our censorship arrangement is uniquely our own.
> The amount of censorship for "real" violence is virtually nonexistent
So the ratio of social networks that permit ISIS beheading videos to those which don't is very high in your estimation? How about in the newsmedia--are there very many major U.S. news publications that depict the full gore of these beheadings or no?
For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.
It seems like movies have a monopoly on socially acceptable portrayals of nudity. Nobody raises an eyebrow if you go to a mainstream movie with a nude scene. And actresses can show breasts in movies, but would cause a scandal if a nipple showed happened in real life.
Once I started thinking about how much violence is shown in movies, I realized that it really is a crazy level. Just count the murders in a typical action movie and compare to real life. (Interestingly, rapes are portrayed very very rarely in movies.) I'm not suggesting censorship of violent movies, but doesn't it seem like maybe there's a bit too much?
I would guess that he/she means that if there was sane sex ed in school, then seeing people having sex on tv wouldn't make kids have unprotected sex any more than seeing violence on tv would make them go around killing people.
This is the idiotic prudishness that people are talking about.
Teenagers aren't going to have sex because a movie has boobs in it. They are going to have sex because they want to have sex. It's basic biology. Educate them and encourage them to make good/mature choices.
Calling someone an idiot and a prude for having different values than you isn't going to help.
The difference between the U.S. and many parts of Europe is that in the U.S. you are actually allowed to have different values than whatever mainstream secular society declares. So if you want to cover your head, or raise your child in a sex-negative environment you have the right to do that.
Those things don't reflect my values. I walk around without anything on my head all the time, and if I had a child I would teach them about sex. But I'm glad I live in a country where I have a choice about it. I'll happily defend my "prudish" and "idiotic" neighbors because I have respect, even reverence for what I believe is a sacred responsibility that parents take for their children.
I'll discuss good parenting until I'm blue in the face, but I won't force my values on anyone, beyond protecting children from violence.
Sex is natural, essential to the continuation of the species. You cannot say the same for killing humans. Butchering cattle, well, maybe that's necessary, but slaying a man or a woman definitely is not. People are advocating to ban death sentences, yes?
> For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.
AFAIK, there is at least as strong of a research-demonstrated link between violent behavior in young people and violent media consumption as there is for the same thing with sexual behavior and media.
So, I am skeptical about your claim here, even before we consider the severity of the harms of children deciding to engage in violence and then deciding to engage in sexual activity.
> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen.
Braveheart is rated R.
We did get to see scenes from an R rated movie in grade 10, but it was the opening to saving private ryan while we were studying WW2. I'd argue that violence like that in context is more acceptable. 15 year olds are also much better prepared.
The thing that's really ridiculous is the swearing. The Walking Dead has gratuitous violence, but they can't say fuck because that would hurt advertising revenue. It's ridiculous.
> You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen.
Braveheart has nudity and violence, and we don't allow 8-10 year olds to see it.
A theatrical work that showed a woman wearing one of those "naked lady" t-shirts wouldn't be treated the same as a theatrical work that showed a naked woman.
Violence is bad because of people getting hurt, not because they're getting red liquids all over. Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt. Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.
> Fictional and real nudity are largely the same thing.
Yes - and they are the same as the fictional stuff in your first part. Meaning nobody gets hurt, it's just "there". Nothing breaks or is torn to pieces or shredded or crushed.
> Fictional and real violence have a huge difference in who gets hurt.
Same with fictional violence and nudity - and for the latter it does not matter, as you pointed out. Nobody is going to be hurt in either case.
Theatrical nudity is when someone gets naked in character for the purpose of creating an image. Pornography, modeling, etc.
Actual nudity is when someone gets naked as themselves, for some other purpose than creating media. Sunbathing. Having sex. Trying to get napalm off oneself.
If you're talking about ISIS, I don't see any distinction being made between showing ISIS beheadings or just people who support ISIS talking; both are equally censored. ISIS mass beheadings and burning of people alive are shown on prime time news programs up until the instant of the first cut, and until moment the flame is actually lit, and people speaking in support of ISIS are shown without subtitles, and interpreted by newsreader copy. Talking about ISIS beheadings isnt't the same as talking about beheadings, the fact that it is propaganda being distributed by a force declared as the enemy complicates the matter.
Also, prosthetic nudity and artistic depictions of nudity are censored too, so I'm not sure of the effectiveness of the distinction you're trying to make. If what you're trying to say is that we don't censor special effects violence just as we don't censor special effects nudity, it's simply not true.
Eh? I wasn't let into R rated movies unaccompanied in high school. Most of the time when we snuck in after buying a ticket to another movie we were caught. They'll come around asking for your tickets during the film if they suspect you are underage or didn't pay or whatever.
Where did you grow up, Soviet Russia? I wasn't even one of those "mall rat" kids, and most of the time I went to the movies with friends we switched to a different screen.
Well the suburban malls didn't care for "urban" kids taking the bus to the mall even if they weren't causing trouble. They eventually just flat out banned anyone under 18 from entering the mall without a parent, seriously, the mall cop stands at the entrance and IDs young looking people at the entrance. That was after I turned 18 they started that policy though. When I was about 24 I got IDed at the entrance to the mall and I was so disgusted by it I never wanted to go back (not that I ever want to go to the mall in the first place)
Haha I don't think I've ever been an age at which going to a mall was worth getting IDed. Movie theaters in indoor malls suck anyway, like most things about indoor malls. (In USA, anyway, I once went to a mall movie theater in Philippines and it was awesome.)
Even so I'd say the mall you're describing was particularly authoritarian. Most malls in USA couldn't afford a guard at every entrance.
> No middle school kid is going to get into an R rated movie if they are dropped off and not escorted by and adult.
IME, insofar as that is enforced at multiplexes, its enforced mostly at ticket sales and at multiplex entrances, not entrances to individual screening rooms with the complex; tickets are usually not verified at entrances to individual screening rooms except for special circumstances, e.g., opening weekend for major blockbusters -- which only occasionally even overlap with R-rated films.
So, its not at all impossible for a middle school kid to get into an R-rated movie without escort by theater hopping.
I was replying to "We as a society... drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice."
The average parent isn't going to fill their mini van with a bunch of 12 year olds and drop them off with the instructions to sneek into a film that they won't be otherwise allowed into. That hypothetical parent would be shamed on the evening news if caught. That's all I'm saying, not that it was impossible to sneek into an R rated film.
The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.
>The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.
In it's precise form, maybe, but it's certainly not a fiction insofar as we very much tolerate children being exposed to violence. It might not be at the literal movie theater, but that's completely and utterly beside the point.
The average parent has no qualms about showing violence to children. That is not a complete and total fiction. With respect, you're quibbling over trivia.
Unless its changed drastically since I was a kid (which I admit was a very long time ago) the average parent does not expose their children to violence or violent imagery especially not in middle school. Where the hell do you live where that's the case?
> Unless its changed drastically since I was a kid (which I admit was a very long time ago)
The level of violence in PG-13 rated films has increased drastically since the rating was introduced, so, its quite likely that this has changed drastically since you were a kid if it was "a very long time ago".
Gaaah we're tripping up the anti-flame filters, so I apologize for the slow response.
I think I understand what you're objecting to, so let me try to tackle this from a different angle.
Consider how pissed your average neighbor would be if I showed Inception to one of their kids. Now imagine how pissed they would be if I showed them Eyes Wide Shut. Do you see it now?
Right or wrong, for better or worse, Americans are more enraged by things of sexual nature than violent nature. Ounce for ounce, violence is less shocking than sex and nudity. This is why the principle distinguishing factor between PG-13 and R ratings is sex and nudity, not violence!
Yes, obviously conscientious parents try to shield small children from violence, but here's the thing: I moved to France from Delaware and parents here don't give a flying fuck in a handbasket if their children see nudity. Actual sexual intercourse or lewdness is another issue, but newspaper kiosks show topless women in plain view and nobody cares. Statues have penises and nobody cares.
I don't think things have drastically changed since your childhood. Rather, I think this is a very difficult thing to see if you've grown up in the midst of it without spending significant time abroad (though maybe you have and we simply disagree?)
> I was replying to "We as a society... drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice."
But the R-rated comment was fairly irrelevant to that (or, rather, counterproductive, since it says more about sex than violence.) PG-13 movies aren't less violent than R-rated movies. [0]
> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.
Except that is completely true; heck, arguably "without even thinking once" is more accurate, since imagining that the lack of an R-rating means that a movie isn't violent isn't so much thinking as finding an excuse to avoid thought.
The fact that adult supervision is required doesn't contradict the claim that American parents are willing to expose their children to violence and not nudity.
This literally has nothing to do with anything.
Moreover, I was certainly shown R-rated movies in class at a young age. Sure, all the parents had to sign a permission slip, but the fact that they did it just goes to show I'm not making this up. The phrasing might have been hyperbolic, but the point remains valid: we're by and large okay with kids seeing Terminator but not a nipple.
We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.
Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves. That's our societal values and pretty much everyone agrees with age restrictions in theaters, nobody is protesting in the streets to remove them.
>we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves.
Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity.
Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence!
This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.
> Not besides the point because we as a society don't allow children to be admitted to violent movies by themselves.
You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, is rated R for sexual content. I have seen the movie twice, but the only "sexual content" I can remember is a short humorous flash of a couple having sex. For comparison, the movie is rated between 7 and 15 years in the rest of the world. There is no violence in the movie. It's basically a very sweet and innocent movie, rated R in the US.
> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen.
Yes, it does, and the fact that you think that we don't let them see R-rated movies (which contain more sex but not more violence than PG-13 [0]) means that we don't let them see violence illustrates, rather than contradicts, that point.
That study is designed to find what they wanted to find. There's a big difference between the "gun violence" you find in PG-13 movies and what you find in R movies. The A-Team is not Saving Private Ryan.
You spoiled your point with the hyperbole in the last sentence. The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy. It certainly isn't normal behaviour to call law enforcement about this; a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.
hy·per·bo·le: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
My example is not in any way exaggerated and it is meant to be taken literary.
>The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy.
People have been convicted of crimes for leaving their 8 year olds "unsupervised" because of busy bodies with cell phones. Not charged, convicted! The reason its rare to hear about a case is because its a socially unacceptable for children to be left alone now. [1] Its a rare thing to do so its a rare thing to get in trouble for doing.
>a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.
Absolutely! I sure did when I was a kid! I couldn't imagine being so suffocated by my parents that I wasn't allowed to be away from them to walk to the corner store by myself or ride my bike to the park. My dad sent me to the hardware store on my bike to buy propane, nobody batted an eye. Now if an unaccompanied 10 year old showed up trying to buy propane the parents would be arrested. This is madness, I agree, but the "protect the kids" mantra is terrible, but it is also the reality.
>We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice.
How many people do you know that actually do this? The parents I know that were okay with their kids seeing violent moves were equally okay with their kids seeing nudity.
A beheading in a movie isn't a real beheading. I would venture a guess that most people would be upset if an ISIS beheading video was shown to their children.
America has something like 330 million people in it. I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple.
In this particular instance though, it's worse than your complaint. We're talking about censoring an iconic image captured from an important time in our history. I'd be willing to bet that even among the anti-nipple people, this image gets a pass, hands down. Clearly there are some who object, but the vast majority of people understand the message in this image isn't 'enjoy looking at a naked young girl'.
>I assure you, there are a lot of us who see the basic logic around this and think we should stop worrying about the occasional nipple.
I think the basic problem here is not that there aren't Americans who don't have a problem with seeing a bit of nipple, but that a majority of Americans don't seem to understand that if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be.
Sex wouldn't be a billion-dollar industry if nobody was bothered by seeing it now and then.
The same position, by the way, can be taken with regard to the way Americans view their wars. The average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe - because they don't see the images, the video, the very real facts of the matter, on the ground. And thus, those who profit from such acts, profit.
So far as I know, sex is used to sell the world over. Growing up, I remember there was a fascination with racy European commercials. Depictions of sex are more normalized there, so the ads just get sexier. Sorta like violence in the US.
>with regard to the way Americans view their wars
It's been a long time, but as I recall, the second invasion of Iraq was the most protested war in the history of our country -- before it even started. While we don't see the full brutal detail, we understand perfectly well what it means.
I'd also add that the American military serves as a proxy not just for American interests, but Western interests. We just get to bear the cost and reputation hit for these things. I don't know where you're writing from obviously, but don't be surprised if your own nation / govt has been complicit in, and benefited from American intervention.
Agree. And at the same time Americans have been inundated with "war" and the pro-Nationalist message that we should always, ALWAYS, 1) support our troops no matter what and 2) never forget.
The fear-mongering is rampant and relentless. And everyone is afraid to question it.
1) Leadership should be criticized, particularly political decisions leading to war, but I'd steer away from treating soldiers like shit. In a lot of ways this is punching down. It's mostly people from poorer families that join the military, as some of the benefits are a huge boon to getting out of poverty for them or their children. I don't know if you've ever talked to a recruiter, but...there's some powerful propaganda there for an 18 year old. Once you're signed up, you can't easily leave, and the punishments for disobedience can be severe.
2) Why should you forget? What possible good could that serve? Learn lessons from the past.
Yes the leadership should be criticized. My point it is a brainwashing tool. My comment probably did not properly convey the nuanced and subtle ways of mind control. It goes more like this when expanded:
"You cannot ever criticize our troops, or our military, because they are heroes. If you do, you are not an American. You must never forget that our troops and our military protect you always."
The tautology is that the actions of our military are always justified.
And this supports the parent comment that the average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe, because to question it would be un-American.
I would argue that what propaganda that is there is hardly nuanced or subtle, and certainly doesn't qualify as mind control.
I also think a component of it comes from how poorly vets have been treated in the past by the culture at large as well as the government they served. A lot of us have friends and family members that were hard used by their service and more or less cast aside or forgotten about.
For me, the propaganda, and double-think is more around the idea of drumming up support for our troops even though, frankly, we fall pretty short of that. Granted it also gets wrapped up in patriotism, etc., but I think it's a pretty blunt tool in that regard. If anything, you could call it a right-wing version of virtue signalling I guess.
Nothing wrong with supporting the troops. Marion Le Pen was questioned on his regarding French military action a long time ago. Her correct response was to point out that the French soldiers did their job, did what they were supposed to. If apologies and shame are appropriate, it needs to be aimed at the leadership.
The attitude towards Vietnam vets was disgusting, right? Drafted people forced into a pointless war. Support the people not the leaders...
That depends on what you mean by "supporting the troops." I actually have no definition or even a clear idea of what this means and I'm certain no one else does either. It's just a generic motto used for brainwashing. Does it mean that I support the individuals not dying? Because if so, then yes, I support the troops very much and I hope none of them die. Does it mean that I support what they do? Fuck no! It's atrocious and criminal. They are murdering and raping people. I would never support that. And of course, it also could mean every single nuance in between. So it's a meaningless saying that seems to exist for the solve purpose of controlling the people who refuse to question basic things. The mere fact that it can mean that I support the troops' actions (murder, rape, and even wasting trillions of dollars of our money) is reason enough for anyone to not "support the troops," and is certainly why I would never utter such an ambiguous and clearly manipulative phrase.
Sorry if the previous response was overly terse, but it seemed easiest to point out what you were doing with your own words. Namely, demonstrating the behavior you're decrying.
Also, how is showing you sentences from different parts of your post being unable to process more than one sentence at a time? If you just wanted to match snark with snark, then fair enough, but as a refutation, it's a bit lacking. Rather, you seem to be making a veiled appeal to authority via having a readership / cult of personality based around you.
If you question "the troops" including why they were sent there to begin with, then you are easily labeled "unpatriotic" and your ideas are immediately dismissed.
It is a very easy way to implement self-culling behavior among the masses. The "powers" do not have to black bag the dissidents, if they are never able to achieve any viable mind-share.
Nah, just go ahead and criticize. You are going to be fighting an uphill battle, but as someone who spent over a decade criticizing the military while in the military, I can tell you that the bark has no bite, as is often the case with things like this. You'll actually find a lot of people that agree with you, even though they won't add their voice to yours.
BTW, I am supportive of the troops, and I think that the total cost of war is not calculated. If we are not prepared to shoulder the burden of our military troops after they return, then we did not have the capital to go to war in the first place.
> if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be.
This is brilliant, I've never thought about it this way, but it makes huge sense.
We're not talking about censoring the image in any meaningful sense; FB told them it was cool if they blurred out the nudity. From FB's perspective, they want to draw a hard line against child nudity so they don't have to deal with the slippery slope between child porn and "art", even though no one thinks this is the former. Personally, I think blurring out the nudity is a pretty reasonable compromise.
Today Zuck censors for America, tomorrow it's the royal saudi family. This isn't a reasonable compromise. Reasonable is having the offended disconnect their internet and resign from society so they can live in their curated bubble of an existence.
Nobody seems to be thinking that they are forcing Facebook to be an arbiter deciding on when a picture that would be indecent by itself is culturally significant enough to allow showing it. What happens when they misjudge and courts disagree?
I think our definitions of meaningful are significantly different. I try to picture what the image would be like with a girls head atop a blurry body, and it seems to me a totally different thing. Her being naked is a key part of planting the disgust and horror in you that the photographer was aiming for.
Granted, seeing it censored might prompt you to go and look up the original image, prompting you to leave Facebook. So maybe I've changed my mind on the issue :)
If you're trying to lead me to a specific idea, I'm not following, sorry.
To answer you literally: Serious injury or mutilation, wearing some kind of propaganda the censor didn't want you to see, bawdy tattoos. Probably a million other things, but it would probably still be obvious it was because she was naked.
Maybe, depends on how you did it. Like I initially thought of doing her whole body, but I guess you could just do the parts of her that makes it nudity, so it would be a censorship bikini. That would probably make it more obvious that she was naked, and I'm not really sure what that solves.
Not all the way through, but just wanted to say thanks for the link. Interesting, and a great summary of how something like the photo in question could get censored. The majority doesn't see it as child pornography, but who's going to fight against the person decrying this as lewd and harmful to children?
Although in this case, the answer might be: Everybody.
This issue is beyond simple American prudish tendencies. Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual.
This exact photo was on the front page of the NYTimes when it was first taken.
This issue is more about the hyper paranoia about child abuse and child porn. Then again something like 1/8 children are sexually abused. So maybe it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
This seems to be also something that got pushed into mainstream over the world with the widespread of the Internet and probably as a boogeyman term to police it. Also to stop millions of dollars of unpaid tax money in purchase of this merchandise online, which was fine before.
Can you give a source on the 1/8? I am wondering what counts as 'sexual abuse'. Eg. If a mother or father kissing her or his kid on the mouth is sexual abuse, the number does not surprise me.
Maybe depends on where you come from in the US. Where I come from I totally believe it. But then, I am fairly open about my childhood abuse, and it makes other people feel okay about opening up, so I could just hear about an inordinate amount of it.
>Because America has always been a bit weird about sex, this reaction about sexualizing children is very new. Before the 80s or 90s nobody thought of child nudity as sexual.
Confusingly enough, child beauty pageants originates from the US, and are mostly still a US-only thing. This contradiction really boggles the mind.
Is this really censure though? You'd think it's Facebook applying certain policy mechanically and not Facebook being very pro Vietnam war by trying to curtail others' speech which I would count as censure.
Sure it's censure. The motivation doesn't change the act, at least not in this case. I don't think anybody finds Facebook to be taking a stance on the Vietnam War here.
There really isn't a problem with seeing beheadings either. I was obsessed with seeing just how evil IS were (spoiler: nazi level) so for a time I watched all the videos the press talked about. Some of them did make me feel bad, but none of them harmed me.
American here. As always there can be a middle ground. I 100% agree that the female body (or male body for that matter) is not the end of civilization but there's still a line to be drawn with regards to what children see. You never see the human body depicted in media as simply the vessel we exist in. It's always sexualized almost always with the aim of selling a product. My kids don't need to be seeing that until they're a certain age.
By the same token, violence is a part of human nature and we shouldn't go around acting like everyone is holding hands singing kumbaya but again, kids probably shouldn't be exposed to ridiculous levels of that at an early age.
To take Sweden as a historical example, it used to be quite common that Swedish movies had nudity in them. Sweden has a lot of lakes and shores, and the capital is built on top of cluster of islands, so swimming nude during the summer was a very common scene in movies made before 2000 (sometimes with children among the adults), as would comedian pieces with people running in the street naked. The neck spirit was also a fairly common figure, used in similar style as ghosts or faeries. In each case, the human body depicted was just that of people (or made up people).
Violence was however very limited and the state censor was active in protecting children from it. A famous case was that of darkwin duck that got removed mid season. Swedish media blamed movie violence for increase gang violence in cities, with examples like "kids learn how to jump kick other children in the head".
Then American movies and tv shows over took both the market and mind share. With that, those aspect of Swedish movies went away, and much of the culture with it. Violence censoring went away, and much of media started to self-censor against nudity.
It did. I remember that there were plenty of studies, however, the collective conclusive has always been negative on the correlation. I even recently saw a museum event on the subject, which draw some strong parallels between current debate about violent video games and the old debate about violent movies.
Personally, I believe there is enough evidence that show that children and young adults that is under major stress and unhealthy social environment will sometimes lash out at society, and they will pick what ever method that is socially unaccepted to do so. Society as such can effect that, but censorship generally has the opposite of the desired effect.
What cultures, outside Europe, think it's ok to display sexualized body parts?
Even in an advanced/industrialized nation like Japan, typical women don't even show cleavage, because it's considered indecent. Typical TV dramas hardly show kissing scenes.
Twitter is just as bad, if not worse. Take yesterday for instance. The Hillary health issue EXPLODED on Reddit and other places within 2h. And I saw single tweets with multiple thousand retweets on Twitter as well. But not single trending topic on Twitter about the incident the whole day.
There's NO WAY none of those hashtags weren't eligible for trending. Twitter has been caught doing it before, but I think yesterday was far worse than anything they've done before. They've must've told everyone to be on the lookout of any Hillary-related topic becoming a trend, or just automatically banning anything that may be been about it from trending.
Only today you see the body double thing trending, which I'm sure has far fewer tweets and at a much lower speed than yesterday's incident had.
I know Trump looks to be a terrible human being and likely an even worse president, but it really scares me to see that not only the mainstream media actively try to side with Hillary, but now also tech/social platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google, etc. I think if Hillary is president, you'll see the US succumb to the same media censorship and self-censorship that you see in Russia.
As someone standing on the outside looking in you're definitely letting conspiracy theories get the best of you. BBC had an article up while she was still in her daughters house and had a video of her fainting not long after. As did most 'main stream media' sources. I can't speak for Twitter's trending system but mainstream media had the facts up very quickly.
There's actually probably an interesting bigger point here. Why is this image the content that sparked so much outrage? As you point out, they ban a lot of things on behalf of other countries. There's been complaints of conservatives getting censored (who knows how accurate those are). And of course, the hot mic gaff of Zuckerberg talking with Angela Merkel about censoring migrant crisis criticism on Facebook.
So is this just the event that caused sentiment to hit critical mass? Or did it touch a deeper nerve that's got people stirred up?
The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.
> The photo is held to be historical documentary of war, like tank man & saigon execution. Those kinds of photos are valued & defended, and it's probably totally unthinkable to a great many people that they should be censored.
No, it's more like the person who has been censored has an ego so big he thinks it shouldn't happen to him. This outrage was ridiculous.
It's the specific context around this photo. Vietnam was defined by media presence which was what drove public outrage against the war.
Essentially the thesis is this: if Facebook were the dominant media platform during Vietnam, we never would've seen these images; we probably would have continued committing atrocities against civilians and our own soldiers.
Seeing as we are now involved in several wars around the world, if our media cannot publicize the realities of war because a child's clothes got blown off with her legs, then someone (i.e. Facebook) has a stranglehold on public opinion.
Sure but Facebook isn't preventing the media from showing this, sure if Facebook was our only forum for journalism censorship of things like this would be atrocious. But I don't think facebooks argument is this shouldn't exist but that Facebook isn't a news station and isn't the right forum to share those kind of things. One easy reason is news stations warn about graphic content and are usually watched by adults whereas any 10 year old with an internet access can find it on this guy's Facebook page. I think this article, and the outrage in general, treats Facebook as too powerful of a social institution. It undeniably is but I feel it's influence is overstated, and that Facebook trying to maintain itself as a forum for socializing is fine, it owns the website it can decide what to put on it. If the thing you need to say is so important there are many other forums to express that idea, even within the internet. That said I think if this truly is Facebook is trying to make a policy that truly promotes what their trying to do it should be stricter. Videos of beheadings belong on deeper webs imho.
I believe it's 14 now iirc(i don't use so I might not) . Started out as needed a .edu email but Im pretty sure it's advertised to high school kids now too
I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react.
From my European perspective:
This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light.
While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of as unimportant this one makes it blatantly clear that an american corporation is trying to interfere in our democracy, something that is going to annoy a lot of people to the degree where they are going to at-least complain loudly about it.
Thanks for that, it's an interesting difference from my own opinion, and totally understandable. I don't like it because it clearly (to me) is a censorship of art, and famous art at that. It violates principles of free speech as I understand it (from the US).
But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture's portrayal of America so much as the simple fact that it's a naked child.
There seems to be a fine line between diplomacy and meddling that hasn't been going too well lately.
yes, I don't think that facebook cares so much about the america perspective of the picture, nor do I think that it's the major point for most people complaining about the censorship, but it is that little extra twist.
Compared to if they had censored the photo of the man in front of the tanks on tiamen square in china; it would still technically be as bad, but I would guess that fewer people would complain as it would _feel_ less politically motivated.
It's actually is one of the rare instances I've seen "do a 360" used appropriately. Facebook revamped their policy around the issue while ending up at exactly the same place: you have to use your real name.
I think it's a matter of context and time-frame. If the end up pointing the same way they started, that's 360 degrees. That might entail two 180 flips at different points, and if talking about one of those specifically, it would be appropriate to say they did a 180 when referring to that specific situation.
1. This won't last as people will want their own cultural and legal rules to apply on Facebook.
2. Facebook is not just a private company anymore. It's cool to have success, but that comes with bigger public scrutiny, and possibly a lot more obligations than a normal startup who would have only a few users.
3. Don't think this is minor. Facebook will need to evolve, even in the US. This is a matter of Free Speech and Freedom of Thought.
In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct.
Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter, linkedin, tumblr etc...). There are numerous examples of change.org petitions asking for kickstarter or some other platform to change how they do business.
Sorry I interpreted the idea of "private" in this sense in comparison to governmental - not publicly traded - given the context of "censorship" and other comparisons to government type services.
You could be right. Reading the original comment again, they might have meant that Facebook has a level of influence that is exceptional for a private-sphere entity, rather than that they aren't privately-held.
Step 1) become facebooks majority shareholder. Step 2) do whatever you want with their censorship policy. Publicly traded companies are still private in the sense of ownership, their publicly traded because anyone can buy that private ownership, but until you do (and a lot of it) Facebook doesn't have any obligation to put what you want or don't want on their site. I still agree that their censorship policy is ridiculous, but they get to decide what kind of forum they are. I suggest you find a better forum cause imho fb just sucks in general
In the past when talking about free speech, it commonly meant talking on the street corners. Since the roads were public property the government could not censor you there.
What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
It is more like people wanting to live in that city because it is hip. They moved there although they knew it is privately owned and they had to put up with the owners rules(which includes in spying on them for his own profit).
People are more apt to move to a city because there are jobs there. Much like facebook, before its time it was very difficult to communicate with a wide range of people reliably. Facebook gave a way for people to talk, and now they take it away and the peasants grow irritable.
They didn't give that. They asked you to agree to their terms of services, eventually gave away some of you personal data in exchange for a, I admit it, practical mean of communication. But thy sure didn't give anything. That's what so many forget...
If one loves the facebook world, then he has to understand the facebook rules. Ignoring them is a mistake on the user side, not FB.
And it follows that when 99% percent of the billion users will have just ignored the rules, then they will soon understand what it means. So they'll scream and ask governemnt to help them. Then the government will regulate 50% of facebook activities, and well, FB rules will be weakened a bit but officially enforced. People like me will say that society has one more problem, others will say that it's progress... And I'll be sad once again.
Much like the dichotomy between violence and obscenity which is the subject of the article, the public and private distinction on the ethics of censorship is extremely American.
Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color.
The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no longer strictly speaking a "private" organization: you open yourself up to be regulated by the governments of those people you invite into your service. When you operate what can be argued is very close to a natural monopoly, you have even more duties.
Companies shouldn't be regulated for their speech or censorship policies. Enough with regulations. If you disagree with Facebook policies stop using it and use a competing service. Period. Enough with entitlement.
> The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no longer strictly speaking a "private" organization:
So Facebook should ban any display of meat cause India, any display or criticism of Islam cause Saudi Arabia, anything related to homosexuality cause Russia ?
Facebook is still a private organization and will continue to censor as it sees fit. The only reason why this idiocy became big is that a prime ministrer from Norway has been censored. That's all. Facebook isn't a democracy.
That might be true, but imagine you phone company or E-Mail provider is ploughing through the content of your messages or even actively filtering your phone calls and is deciding what you can communicate and assumes control over whom you are able to reach.
It might be perfectly legal, you still would not want that to happen and people expressing their concerns should never be shrugged off with the simplistic attitude of "but they are allowed to do that".
A lot of things which are allowed for a company is still not the right thing and should be called out.
That (essentially libertarian) defence doesn't hold a lot of water.
Even an American COMPANY is subject to rules, which in turn are designed/evolved to satisfy objectives - they're not immutable natural law.
Even Milton Friedman conceded that government intervention was justified in the case of externalities or natural monopolies. Social networks are, by virtue of the network effect, arguably natural monopolies, and in that sense, could be considered a utility. As such, they might have to be regulated more tightly than ordinary small companies.
Ah ok, fully agree on that people should explore alternatives... (I'm trying to get people on Signal and Wire, instead of Skype/Whatsapp/FacebookMessenger/Viber/...)
As someone has highlighted above, though - there is the coordination problem, that everyone (or at least most people) would have to migrate. (But then - it's happened: Friendster, orkut, ...)
It's not like you can't run two social networks concurrently. That's how Facebook replaced its competition, they weren't the first one. And thus far having Facebook account is not really a necessity so why should government intervene?
So I guess censorship is not something American companies are forced to avoid. They can use it if they wish (newspapers don't show all the information they haven they regularly hides some of it)
Since when is it normal for a mainstream COMPANY (since you feel it's worth shouting about this must be the crux of your argument) to interfere with how people use its products based on fundamentalist ideologies?
It's not something people should expect the happen, and in most civilized countries, we protect consumers against such unreasonable interference. Because we live in actual democracies, not in someones libertarian wet dream.
If Facebook promoted itself as the platform for Christian fundamentalist conservatives, fine. At least that would be honest, and give people a clear choice up front.
Apologies for the shouting, I just wanted to put emphasis on the company. Maybe asterisks would have been more appropriate.
I think I didn't put my point across very well, I by no means meant to defend FB. My point was really that problems like this will always arise when the people give so much power to a single company. Hence my suggestion to switch to an open alternative.
"You need to subscribe to read this article". Well, then, I guess there are forces more powerful than censorship that can be applied to this problem ..
In writing some replies to a couple of comments, I think that the article is referring to cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture, Facebook comes from an educated, technological, rich, American, culture and cannot see others that with less power should have some of influence in how a global culture can be. Also, as with most forms of privilege it's not common at all that those at the top need to compromise with those below and characteristic is that those with the most priviledge cannot see their own position at the top and inability to acknowledge their issues of others.
What the article is showing is the privilege of American culture interacting with other cultures and peoples.
edits: I think it's actually a great time for the Internet - I am seeing this as the growing pains of a new global culture - a new global way of looking at the world. We are seeing the makers and police of the rich west seeing that the world is more complex and diverse than they are comfortable with, and the result will be interesting to say the least, and glorious and rich if all cultures can be supported in a global way.
Not sure how the 'flag' system works but based on the two examples (famous news photo and famous work of art), you could easily circumvent wrong flagging (wrong = deleting famous and important photos) by generating a 'similar photo search' in the system and giving context. That would help the over-ambitious flagger to recognize this.
347 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 318 ms ] threadI don't agree with Facebook's privacy policies and thus have deleted my account and use other platforms. This isn't difficult. This article is tantamount to saying "Woe is me, NYT won't publish my op-ed." and expecting anyone to take you seriously.
I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
Facebook has no more obligation to allow you to write whatever you want on their site than the New York Times has to publish your op-ed piece.
With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness).
I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly.
This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK).
Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so.
(Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
"The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it.
At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy.
I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.
Because we can see it's essential for democracy for public discourse to be structured in a certain way, specifically that it not disproportionately represent one person or organisations views.
I can see that in principle people can choose not to use Facebook, but in practice we see that it is very dominant, and so, if a society perceives that a very dominant platform curtails freedom of speech, it's absolutely right to do something about it.
In principle, we might imagine, a newspaper that prints lies will go out of business. But, maybe it won't? In practice, all developed countries have laws against printing untruths.
It's clearly a balance, but if we look at other mediums and the way we've chosen to regulate them, Facebook is a clear outlier. If that's the case we should find the least intrusive way to ensure a single company doesn't have so much control over public discussion.
The idea that everyone freely selects Facebook for their communications because they love its moderation policy doesn't pass the common sense test.
The amount of bandwith for tv stations is limited, the internet is effectivly limitless.
>print media
We don't really. Print media is extremely off limits because it's protected by the First Amendment. Try passing regulation requiring a newspaper to print an image just because you deem it worthy.
>Why do we have libel or defamation law, even?
We don't really, the bar is very high. Also, these laws to apply to things written online, just ask Gawker.
As a consequence, I'm arguing, it would be a good idea to apply a similar approach to Facebook. I'm saying the lightest touch would be to make moving your social network off Facebook easier. Maybe there are other better ideas.
On the topic of print media being off limits... not so. I'm from the UK, I'm not sure exactly about media laws in the US, but the First Amendment does not mean that any publishing company can run just how it likes. Having just Googled I see that there are indeed cross-ownership laws for newspapers in the US. I expect there are many other regulations on print media.
Just as I'm arguing for Facebook, these are not laws about what might ultimately be said - either online or in print - they are laws about how much power a single company can have over the discourse.
It literally does. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government can not make any impositions on print media, save for extreme cases of national security and libel, which also has a very high bar.
Cross ownership is only a thing because they can apply it to the TV half, which again, regulations on TV are made on the justification of their scarcity.
There simply is no equivalent in the US to placing such draconian rules on websites.
I can see your point that Facebook, and the web more generally, does not represent a 'natural' monopoly in the sense that it's not a physical feature of the technology that it is inevitably going to be dominated by a few companies. We could argue that Metcalfe's law actually does make it a natural monopoly.
Either way, it's an empirical fact that Facebook is tremendously dominant, and it seems to me that is the basis for intervention, though of course the intervention should be minimal respect and liberty as much as possible.
I also understand that views on this topic will reflect your wider views on liberty and legislation more generally, but those views ought to be consistent. I think the position that an effective national discourse can be expected to occur exclusively from market forces is extremely dubious, maybe you think differently.
Again, I do think you are mistaken about print media in the US. It seems to me cross-ownership laws do apply to print media, however justified. Much more clearly, copyright laws are applied everywhere.
I think some of these laws are wrong, but there are many precedents for regulating print and the web.
Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion).
And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.
I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw).
Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though.
Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities.
If I really care, I call.
Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere.
The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.
That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.
Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does.
It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that.
And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?
The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large.
In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed.
Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
Which were equally bullshit.
In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies.
>Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right.
So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren.
[1]http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-sues-german-rival/
Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace.
You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking.
How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one.
Facebook isn't stopping you from doing anything.
This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court.
>Build your own system or come up with your own great idea.
Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence.
>There's no patent on social networking.
This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
Has anything like that ever happened? Someone starts a business and a competitor with a completely unrelated name wipes them out with a trademark battle?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-reddys-blocked-from-selling-p...
Don't be a dick. We're having a conversation here. Lots of people in this very thread don't use Facebook.
Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply.
I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.
People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.
e.g. Yes the "nipple double standards" can be criticized but given current cultural norms, when this limit doesn't exist, you end up hosting a lot of explicit images like Tumblr or MySpace. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They could enact some level of content control so underage users are limited on what pages they can see or something, and tag explicit pages, but the existing ability to hide/block pages and posts related to them seem like a good enough place to start building on to.
You literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body could.
Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.).
Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
As far as beheadings, I'm not sure but I'd assume Facebook is not trying to be a 'gore' destination either. It's the same problem, whether it comes to limits on sex or violence, if you allow any type of media you create havens for that type of content and then it changes the contours of your product. It's all subjective of course, and different companies set different limits--Apple's app store is well known to be more restrictive than Google play, Facebook more restrictive than Twitter, etc.
Then you have a German freak out over even talking about Nazis.
Almost every country has some hang up or another. Suggesting that 'Americans' have a fear of nipples is short sighted. Every culture has something that causes a collective freakout.
It's why, for example, they are often puzzled when abroad and note that "some people don't like us Americans" and cannot find out why.
I have noticed this particular way of looking at the world with many Americans when working in global collaborative tech projects - it's a kind of imperialism - a built in sense that their way of looking at the world is the only way. It seems to be a common thing, and not everywhere. It also has the characteristic that those with that mindset are unaware about it.
There are many exceptions of course, and the most successful people are able to work with people from other cultures. But I believe this is what the article and mgleason_3 is trying to say.
If you'd like another metaphor to explain the theory: Privilege. Americans have a privilege as the "top" culture which makes them blind to others below them.
Americans tend to live near other like-minded people and are afraid of those with other views - both in our own country and outside.
Facebook pushes this filter bubble which we gobble up. It's not an accident, and it has a scientific basis. It's also better for advertisers.
Regarding sex and violence and censorship - I agree it's a little odd. The only thing I can think of is that there are more laws and regulations regarding sexual photos than violent photos. Also, our media also has a history of pushing violent stories. If it bleeds it leads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
There's plenty of laws that only apply on certain companies, after n employees or x revenue. Should be pretty feasible to devise a law that applies to sites with more than n active users such as Facebook and twitter and the likes and not to your neighborhood forum.
In related news, guess why my internet is fast and affordable.
Regulations like this are in stark opposition to free speech values. They are a band-aid that does more harm than good. The correct solution is to change mass perception that using these services for news consumption is a bad idea.
Facebook (and Twitter) want to have a particular narrative, and one that's ultimately to make their advertisers happier. If you don't agree with that (and, imho, you should take issue with that) then choose an actually free platform. One controlled by an American for-profit company will never be a truly free platform.
Is this real life?
There literally thousands of existing social sharing and networking sites in existence right now that serve as alternatives to facebook.
One of the arguments is that they are "controlling the dialogue," yet here were, having dialogue but not on Facebook.
At any rate, I doubt that you seriously believe your own arguments. For example, I doubt that you support Facebook being for to host white supremacy groups.
If Facebook allowed nudity it would become a massive porn site over night. I actually understand their nudity censorship, just censor anything with naked people, to avoid complaints about differential treatment.
Facebook would go out of business if anyone could post anything. It wouldn't be a place most average people could enjoy or feel safe in.
There is no such thing as free speech on a social network, nor should there be.
I stopped using Facebook about five years ago, no complaints. Wish I had deleted my account sooner.
I use GNU Social a lot, but there is not as much interesting material to read there.
Last week I wished that Facebook screened violent pictures better: someone I know posted a picture of someone receiving 200 lashes, in way too much detail. That picture still disturbs me, just remembering it.
Reddit uses a NSFW filter over videos that you have to click through to see the video first... that would also be up to the user to mark as NSFW... or you unfriend them. Or even a downvote button is community-based.
The reason heavy-handed centralized control systems get put in place is because of statements like that "I wished that Facebook screened x better". The consequence of wishing for minimalist centralized control is depending more on community/social-based control systems aka not having your cake and eating it too (being friends with someone while expecting a 3rd party to filter their content to your tastes).
Because Facebook have already said that some content is not allowed on their platform.
For a while women who'd had breast cancer and had reconstructive surgery were posting images of their new breasts, or of their now nipple-less breast with tattoos. Or breast-feeding mothers were posting images of their feeding children. Facebook said that those images were not allowed, and removed a bunch of them. But at the same time Facebook was doing nothing about beheading videos. It was weird to see a mother being banned for posting a photo of a feeding child, and someone else not get banned for posting terrorist propaganda.
If facebook is saying "anything goes, as long as it's legal" that's one thing, but as soon as they start to control what's allowed it's reasonable for users to say what content should be more tightly controlled.
They should (or at a minimum could) have taken a hard-line early on against policing content and built tools to let people regulate themselves. Now they seemed to always be cursed if they do and cursed if they don't.
Sadly most people seem to prefer it this way instead of taking moral positions against the regulation of language - which was popular a century ago. Or maybe people have always been this way, with the exception of the progressive intellectuals who wrote the early bills of rights in the 19th century.
I don't see why you should be embarrassed to use Facebook et cetera. As I've discovered to my personal cost, there can easily be very real social consequences for opting out of these services, Facebook especially. I think you'd have to be Richard Stallman to blame someone for choosing not to suffer those consequences over a point of principle. And I don't think very highly of him for so doing, given the nomadic and largely asocial sort of life he's chosen. That such a life suits him is clear, and he's welcome to it, of course. But his judgment of those who find it not so easy to make the same choice is harshly contemptuous and utterly lacking in nuance, and I find that impossible to respect.
If you have to use Facebook because of the consequences on your social life from not using it, that's understandable, but then there's nothing the FSF can do for you aside from recommending a few addons. This doesn't mean "to hell with you", it literally means "there's nothing we can do for you".
As for Stallman, has he really been showing contempt for users of non-free software? He dislikes proprietary software and actively campaigns against it, and this involves writing about their problems without holding back, but I've never gotten the sense that he has contempt for the users.
Even when he uses the word "useds" to refer to Facebook users, I've never gotten the sense that he has actual contempt for users of Facebook. I get that it can be insulting, but I don't think it was meant that way. It's just Stallman trying to get his point about Facebook across and ending up being abrasive about it.
Also Stallman is not uncompromising. He believes in freedom and is working to maximise it, but along the way he's used non-free software when there were no alternatives (the most recent example being BIOS some number of years ago), has promoted non-strict free licenses in some cases, allowed the LGPL/GPL/AGPL instead of just making everything maximally protected with the AGPL, etc. He compromises a lot less than most on the issue, that's true, but that's because it's literally his mission.
Neither had I, until I attended his talk at HOPE XI this year. I found his rhetoric in person to differ markedly from that in his writings. The full video of his talk and the following Q&A session is online [1]; I encourage anyone interested in the subject to hear the man out and form your own opinion.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uckLT7mPPIw&list=PLfcAmpILMM...
Facebook never claimed to be a news organization nor part of the 5th estate (which, pretty much doesn't exist). So that being the case, I would never expect fb to be a partner for democracy.
Just because some recent revolutions were helped by fb and twitter doesn't mean that these for profit corporations are for freedom of expression and 1st amendment rights.
People need to remember this whenever they post something on these sites. Especially since they outright claim to own the content (last time I checked).
They aren't illogically petitioning the government to force them to stop censoring, they are making the public service announcement at other private corporations and may actually be successful in getting the private corporation to stop censoring.
It was successful a few days ago with Napalm girl, so why stop there.
[1] I should note Facebook already does provide lots of ways to filter people from your feed without unfriending them if you don't like what they post.
What is morally acceptable to see on a feed for an American is not the same for a Norwegian, a Japanese or a Sudanese. The author mentions sexuality/nudity content here, which is a blatant cultural difference between Europe and the US, but there are so many more regional variations among the hundred of countries where Facebook operates.
Facebook is definitely entitled to censor content as they see fit, but we are also entitled to criticize their policy. Here, it seems that the main criticism is the americano-centric view of what is inadequate content.
Maybe Facebook should look into developing local content rules instead of relying on a guideline written in California by Californians for Californians?
How would such a thing work? Would a user register as a resident of a particular country? Or, IP-based checks of location? I'm a Scot living in America, with Dutch friends - do I see the US, UK, or Euro content? Does the content I see (on the same feed) change based on which country I happen to be in today?
I also think that the policy should apply to the poster, not to the viewers. What makes our world great is its wide range of cultures, and we should not isolate ourselves in little silos. Conversely, we should not allow a single culture to dictate to everybody else what is acceptable or not.
To be fair, I don't think any policy is necessary besides moderating and reporting illegal content. But since Facebook seems quite inclined to go the extra mile to make its platform less offensive, I think this would be a good compromise.
So they really can't have it both ways. If they want to be a source of news, they're going to get flack if they hide stories, even if it was done by an algorithm.
And all of us here know that Facebook is a private company and they can do anything they want, but for the majority of people that use the Internet, Facebook and Google are the Internet to them. So for a lot of people, this feels like Facebook is "censoring the Internet."
No one is surprised a private company censors content, it's the cultural homogenisation on a global service that can grate, even though it's no surprise. A global service that tries very hard to be the global platform for everything, including news publication (that may have been unsuccessful). No surprise after many years of this most people's networks are on Facebook.
No doubt to an American some of the things I, as a Brit, think and do will be plain weird yet Brits are quite close compared to some nations. For all us outsiders, FB (and other US sites) and US attitudes to nudity and violence are, well, interesting. Usually just amusing, sometimes it can be annoying like in the case of this globally famous photo. Don't forget none of us foreigners have a first amendment or rights under it - so that's not even relevant to us.
It wouldn't be that hard to have regional appropriate guidelines for censorship, acceptable behaviour and what have you. Then Americans could have American mores, Norwegians theirs, and we can be confused, amused or fascinated when something goes viral enough to overlap.
I'd like to preserve more of the global differences - it's what makes the world interesting. We might find others do some things better.
Even within a country you can have strongly divided opinions on what's appropriate or inappropriate to be hosted on social media, now not only do you need some way to document these (including refining them as norms change), but you also need to implement a system that can "know it when it sees it" so to speak and filter on the fly. That's either going to be a large number of humans filtering the content more-or-less by hand (already got FB into trouble when the humans filtered stories they didn't agree with) or build an automatic screening process that can make the appropriate decisions on the edge cases, which would be difficult to say the least.
Additionally, you run into the problem that many social groups overlap. How many German users need to be friends with a French user before they're covered in the same filter? What about an American vs Iranian? Ultimately you need some way to decide how to break ties and at the moment they're all breaking on the side of the US because that's where FB is based. Unless that changes, I don't see a shift to fragment what's considered acceptable on the platform.
Note that other big American social media services (Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr for a start) are fine with some various degree of NSFW nudity. Yes, I think Americans overall tend to be a bit more squeamish towards nudity than Europeans, and it shows in our content policies to some degree. But a pretty wide spectrum of opinion exists here; the country Facebook was created in is also the country 4Chan was created in.
I do agree with you that preserving global differences is important, hence why ensuring the web remains "decentralized" is important. Facebook's content policies aren't a big problem as long as there are compelling alternative social media platforms to switch to if you don't like what's going on.
If people are no longer happy with this deal, they are free to look for alternatives, but instead prefer to complain about censorship. It's like going on vacation to England and complaining about the rain.
Does everyone think the Aftenposten posts whatever stories it's writers come up with?
I think this was a particularly stupid use of their editorial discretion, but it's their right.
TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.
edits: I think it's cultural privilege. Americans have the privilege as being the most powerful western culture and literally cannot see others that with less power should have some of that influence.
I just dislike it when Liberalism, which I believe in whole-heartedly pretty much exactly as I think Mill intended, is dragged into this debate about censorship, when it was about what should be illegal not what was moral or immoral. (Indeed, it is a way for people who disagree with each other about what is immoral to live in the same country under the same law and feel safe.)
Violence censorship often comes from the left. Democrats used to lead the way on banning violent video games, etc.
"Hate speech" censorship comes from the left too.
Whoever is in power tends to seek to bad seditious speech.
And the right usually wants to censor blasphemous speech.
It's a mixed bag.
You may have already seen the political compass[1], which shows a 2D view of political theory (which is still too small a dimensionality, but illustrates the point about considering more than just left/right.)
In the UK, Liberal Democrats are often advocates of the political compass approach, as a defence against the stereotype that we "sit on the fence" between the two largest parties.
[1] https://www.politicalcompass.org/
TBH this is an area very prime for disruption, the "next Facebook" is right around the corner, but it will bear less relationship to The Facebook than The Facebook did to Myspace.
This is an issue in all modern liberal societies. Big government and centralized control has exploded over the last century, nation-states have become bigger than they've been in any time in history. The first half of the book "Fourth Revolution" has a really great history of how the state has massively grown, largely starting after WW2, to the point it becomes embedded in every parts of our lives (whether it's explicit or not). This type of thing always happens through small slivers and cuts, largely promoted via community complaints calling for government to solve issues - much like what Facebook has experienced.
This is the side-effect of a society where the hair-trigger response to every small problem is to look to government to solve it - not just economic but social issues too. Instead of resolving them internally or via community, or just moving on because the solution is sometimes worse than the problem (see: terrorism).
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revolution-Global-Reinvent-Sta...
However, my experience with such arguments is that they never persuade me "big government" is suddenly intruding into places it didn't previously, since the truth is more often that government was suddenly being deployed in support of people it was traditionally deployed against, and against people it was traditionally deployed in support of.
The best example in the book is how interior designers need a required 4 yr bachelor diploma, pass a difficult test, and buy a licence, in order to choose what furniture and paint colors will look best in a persons living in Florida. Similar regulations exist for cutting/styling hair. Or cutting nails professionally.
Or look at the 'Burkini' ban happening in France right now.
This wasn't some partisan blanket criticism of 'the welfare state' that US republicans take while simultaneously supporting the 100 different agencies and offices that are now involved in fighting terrorism. It was a serious analysis of how far we've come from being able to solve issues society faces without creating another administrative blackhole.
21 million people are working for the US government alone. That's 16% of employed people and not counting the massive amount of private industry that works directly off of gov contracts (particularily significant in the defense industry). So it's probably closer to ~20%. More than all Fortune 500 companies combined.
How many people do you think worked for the crown in France/England in the 1800s?
So, would you like to compare to how long an apprenticeship you'd have to serve, or what hoops you'd have to jump through and payments you'd have to make, to get into a skilled-trade guild in the golden old days?
Or look at the 'Burkini' ban happening in France right now.
Sumptuary laws and other regulations on clothing are millennia old.
21 million people are working for the US government alone. That's 16% of employed people and not counting the massive amount of private industry that works directly off of gov contracts (particularily significant in the defense industry). So it's probably closer to ~20%. More than all Fortune 500 companies combined.
In a feudal society 100% of people worked for either the government or the church. 16% is a nice downsize from that.
I agree with you that large companies can have a significant influence of policy and legislation. And yes they definately contributed to the problem. But considering the standard approach to everything (including your own comment here) is that 'more centralized control is the solution' it's not surprising that corporations are playing the exact same game to their advantage.
I'm questioning the value of using that approach as a default solution. With the exception of it being the very last resort rather than the go-to solution to every problem. Because the state is good at a few things but it many cases it's heavy handed, expensive, time consuming, and very slow to adapt to change.
Regulation, policy, and agencies should only be used carefully and there should be a culture of constantly re-evaluating the necessity of programs/agencies/policies - which doesn't seem to happen. Once it's set up it stays, scope and legislation only grows in size, government employees are incredibly hard to fire, etc, etc, and that's how a nation-state grows into a massive unwieldly beast.
It's a complicated problem no doubt with many sources. But the status quo of the modern nation-state is very dysfunctional. It's sad that people so passionitely defend it blindly on ideological grounds. Questioning the value of government as the solution to all things brings out people who defend it like a religion. Which is how it ends up functioning in places where it often doesn't belong or worse ends up contributing to societal problems.
This same ideology is the reason why Facebook gets blamed every time there is something posted that makes people uncomfortable. Instead of the person who posts the content.
These companies "cross-pollenate" American morality across the world because they are American companies. Based in America. On American soil. Responsible to America's laws. To ask that these companies not spread American morality (or French morality if they were based in France, or German etc.) is to ask that they not be made to operate under the laws of the country that they're based in. That they hold some status above countries. And one could argue that that is even more dangerous than the situation we have now.
It also operates with some weird time lags.
From MW:
(1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3)
Offhand, I can't think of one group of people who adhere to customs, practice or rules, that they think are immoral.
> It also operates with some weird time lags.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
That things often continue to be legal (or illegal) well after the consensus on their morality has shifted. And that is to completely put aside those laws that were patently immoral
I guess I should have said codified at a certain time, but I thought that was implied.
Sure you can. Rape, murder, slavery, that sort of thing.
I can stand here today and say that chattel slavery in the antebelum was wrong. But I'm saying that today, with today's morals. Time machine back to the 1840's, the moral landscape is much different, and slavery is accepted. There's even moral justification for it. Standing here in 2016 I can see that that justification is bunk, but back then it stood.
It's the same issue that researchers run into when talking about the acceptability of cannablism in native cultures. Once your removed from the act, both in space and time, you've lost the moral context.
To bring us back to our original topic, one of the purposes of codified law is to place a moral stake in the ground that serves as a reference point for everyone. You can judge people by those laws/morals after they were created (and before they are superceded by a new set of laws/morals), but you can't judge those that came before by a moral stake that didn't exist when they acted.
If anything European countries are much more deeply invested into censorship than the US. The UK's incredibly short sighted libel laws for example. Or the EU's ridiculous "hate speech" laws. I find it amusing you decry US political correctness in favor or Europe's much more tough legislation.
Also the EU censors items on Facebook all the time, usually in regards to protecting minorities from "hate speech." Facebook is beholden to every government it has a presence in. Lots of examples of how the European system works here:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8189/social-media-censors...
I'm not even going to go into eastern Europe's epidemic of murdered journalists and other basic human rights issues that Europe can't or won't fix.
As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A.
That seems super fair to me and a great idea for other Governments.
Wait until you make a political commentary and spend next 5 years in courts because the person you criticized has a lot of money to spend on lawyers. You may be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt you criticism is true, or maybe not (just read any political argument and see how much of political criticism is provable by law? Is "Trump unfit to be president" provable or "Hillary is corrupt" provable in court? Would you want to risk your life savings and economical well-being of your family on it?) Now add to it that the court is also held in the country you've never been to, don't know the laws of and don't have the money do go there. How fair is that now?
In fact, the issue of libel tourism got so bad that both UK and US made specific laws to target it. [1]
And that's what the UN HRC has to say about it[2]:
The Committee is concerned that the State party's practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as "libel tourism." The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party's unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest.
If the UN says you have problem with freedom of speech, you do have problem with freedom of speech.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#Laws_addressing_...
[2] http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/hrcommittee/ireland2008.html
The libel suits that I have read about tend to be "A publicly claims B is a pedophile", "B is having an affair", "B steals orphans sweets after giving them a slap" etc. In these cases, I think the libel laws are sensible however I do recognise that it can be exploited by the wealthy in an unreasonable way. I suppose we have to introduce new laws to protect against this, or rely on the wisdom of our judges.
The recent Gawker case should demonstrate that you can successfully sue a media outlet.
That's not the UK, that's a fair description of the libel laws in the US. (Actually, in most cases, actual knowledge of falsity is unnecessary; mere recklessness is sufficient. Knowledge of falsity is only necessary for certain cases, such as where the statements are about public figures and/or matters of public concern, where the Constitutional protection of free speech is held to be at its strongest.)
Like UK libel laws that are so nice that they created a phenomenon of "libel tourism" where people come into UK to sue others for libel because in other places they'd be laughed out of court?
Or like courts forcing search engines remove pages because some person feels uneasy with true public information about them being out there?
Or criminal penalties for "insulting a public servant" in France, bans on "hate speech" according to day-to-day political considerations in many countries and over EU in general [1], etc. Note that unlike Facebook, which is private company and can only manage its content, these laws would apply to every platform in EU.
Yes, it'd be terrible if something like First Amendment would have an effect in Europe too. That smacks of freedom of speech or something awful like that!
[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1873_en.htm
That being said, the first amendment (jurisprudence) in the USA suffers from two serious flaws not necessarily suffered by freedom of expression legislation in other countries:
1. The first amendment has the egregious exception for obscenity with an absurdly subjective community standards test. 2. The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor.
Because of the 2nd defect, Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship. Book burning is still book burning. Removal of napalm girl is censorship; the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment (jurisprudence) that the USA refuses to acknowledge. The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment, it was created by the courts because "obscenity" was supposedly always understood as not being actual speech.
I don't consider this a flaw. I wouldn't want government intervening in private websites (like this one) attempts to moderate discussion on the grounds of first amendment rights.
True, that is a problem. I'd say it's smaller problem than "hate speech" ban though - it's quite hard to ban something important to the society under obscenity ban - after all, not a lot in our life depends on being able to see tits (or whatever bits one is personally fascinated with). But it's quite easy to disrupt democratic processes under the guise of fighting "hate speech" - see Russia, for example, with its infamous article 282. I'm not saying US censorship is good - on the contrary, it's despicable. But it's a) less dangerous than European one which has clear political goals of suppressing political opinion and b) clearly goes contrary to a supreme law of the land that states freedom of speech shall not be infringed.
> The first amendment is only applicable to the government as an actor.
Well, yes. But only government is an actor that is allowed to use force, so if the government is banned from interfering with your speech, that's a big deal. Of course, private citizens can refuse to talk to you or interact with you because of your speech and that'd suck. But at least they can't force you to stop speaking or jail or harm you for that - or, at least, if they try, the state will be on your side.
> Americans are all too willing to refuse to label censorship by parties that are not the government as censorship
No, labeling is fine - it's just that private censorship is different, as per above. Publishing stuff in other place than Facebook is much easier than moving to another country.
> Book burning is still book burning.
Yes, but if I have bought a book I have the right to burn it. It's my book, I do what I want with it. And anyway, how me burning my own book hurts you? You can buy your own book and not burn it, I don't prevent you from doing it.
> the whole reason for that censorship is this one defect in the first amendment
Nope. You seem to be misunderstanding what US Constitution is made for. It's a unique document, and often misunderstood. It describes what Federal Government can and (very important) can't do. But it doesn't - and can't - describe what private citizens can and can't do, because it's citizens establishing the Government, not the other way around. So it's not a defect, it is by design that Constitution can not limit private citizen's actions.
> The irony being that the exception isn't even in the first amendment,
Again, private censorship has nothing to do with First Amendment. The infamous "obscenity exception" and other "exceptions" of the First Amendment invented by various political actors always have one goal - to enable the government to restrict speech. Nobody uses them to make The New Yorker magazine to publish porn - only to ban some other magazine from doing so. First Amendment can't make The New Yorker publish materials they don't want to, but it can protect Penthouse from being shut down by the government for publishing something they do want to.
There are plenty of places in Europe where you can be jailed for political speech. Britain regularly jails for hate speech, and recently jailed Anjem Choudary for 5 1/2 years for his open and public support of ISIS.
It's not a defect.
We literally cant see that noone should be injured by seeing a womans breast, but seeing a beheaded body - thats OK?
Its interesting to see this story come out so soon after the LA times story about libel and the fight against court ordered take-down of posts critical of companies (think Yelp, etc.).
Maybe the point is that censorship shouldn't be allowed?
(Not saying commercializing topless schoolgirls is just fine, just that normal used to be different and it has changed due to American influence.)
*edit: post I replied to had a typo that significantly changed the meaning. I'll leave this for the record, but it's no longer relevant.
I don't know who said it, if anyone, but it's true.
EDIT: There seems to be some confusion as to whether we're talking about actual beheadings (e.g., ISIS videos) or theatrical violence. My previous statement pertains to the former context; I don't dispute that fictitious violence in America is less controversial than in other parts of the world.
From one internet stranger to another, and with all due respect: bullshit.
We as a society positively freak out over nudity and drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice.
To claim differently is to either a) appeal to an exception that does not represent the overall social norm b) be disingenuous (which I don't think is your case, to be clear) or c) not even be aware of the problem, as advanced by the parent comment.
To say the American populace (again, on the aggregate level) is both desensitized to violence and hyper-sensitive to nudity is a massive understatement, one which can be directly traced to our puritanical roots.
Seriously, this is like saying America doesn't have a problem with gun violence. It's so patently and obviously false that it borders on comical.
(I again feel compelled to mention that I mean absolutely no disrespect. I just couldn't disagree with you more.)
Do Americans censor "real" violence more than theatrical violence? Possibly. Do they censor "real" violence less than any form of nudity? Yes.
You can show Braveheart or a video of a street mugging to a bunch of 8-10 year old kids at school but you can't show them a movie where (god forbid) a pair of tits appears on screen. At the very least, the uproar will be an order of magnitude larger for the boobs as compared to the violence.
And once again, this is not the norm around the world. The US is special.
Really? Have you been to the Middle East, or is your definition of "the world" a handful of western European countries?
The point remains. The US is a very special case in this respect.
I would further argue that even with the middle east involved, such an ascetic rejection of nudity is hardly the norm across the world. But that's still addressing a tangential (and, I think, pedantic) point.
So the ratio of social networks that permit ISIS beheading videos to those which don't is very high in your estimation? How about in the newsmedia--are there very many major U.S. news publications that depict the full gore of these beheadings or no?
For teens, it sort of makes sense in a way to restrict portrayals of sex more than violence. The average teen isn't going to decide to murder someone after watching a movie, but very possibly could decide to have sex.
It seems like movies have a monopoly on socially acceptable portrayals of nudity. Nobody raises an eyebrow if you go to a mainstream movie with a nude scene. And actresses can show breasts in movies, but would cause a scandal if a nipple showed happened in real life.
Once I started thinking about how much violence is shown in movies, I realized that it really is a crazy level. Just count the murders in a typical action movie and compare to real life. (Interestingly, rapes are portrayed very very rarely in movies.) I'm not suggesting censorship of violent movies, but doesn't it seem like maybe there's a bit too much?
Oh the horror. Perhaps if sane sex ed was wide spread[1], that would be a non issue. Like in EU.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requi...
This is the idiotic prudishness that people are talking about.
Teenagers aren't going to have sex because a movie has boobs in it. They are going to have sex because they want to have sex. It's basic biology. Educate them and encourage them to make good/mature choices.
The difference between the U.S. and many parts of Europe is that in the U.S. you are actually allowed to have different values than whatever mainstream secular society declares. So if you want to cover your head, or raise your child in a sex-negative environment you have the right to do that.
Those things don't reflect my values. I walk around without anything on my head all the time, and if I had a child I would teach them about sex. But I'm glad I live in a country where I have a choice about it. I'll happily defend my "prudish" and "idiotic" neighbors because I have respect, even reverence for what I believe is a sacred responsibility that parents take for their children.
I'll discuss good parenting until I'm blue in the face, but I won't force my values on anyone, beyond protecting children from violence.
Perhaps because I'm Spanish, but that doesn't make any sense for me.
I prefer that my son sees a tit in TV than a shooting or murder.
Seriously. Sex is normal. Killing is not.
I love the US, I really do, but the level of prudishness is just... insane.
AFAIK, there is at least as strong of a research-demonstrated link between violent behavior in young people and violent media consumption as there is for the same thing with sexual behavior and media.
So, I am skeptical about your claim here, even before we consider the severity of the harms of children deciding to engage in violence and then deciding to engage in sexual activity.
Braveheart is rated R.
We did get to see scenes from an R rated movie in grade 10, but it was the opening to saving private ryan while we were studying WW2. I'd argue that violence like that in context is more acceptable. 15 year olds are also much better prepared.
The thing that's really ridiculous is the swearing. The Walking Dead has gratuitous violence, but they can't say fuck because that would hurt advertising revenue. It's ridiculous.
Braveheart has nudity and violence, and we don't allow 8-10 year olds to see it.
Actual nudity is when someone gets naked as themselves, for some other purpose than creating media. Sunbathing. Having sex. Trying to get napalm off oneself.
Also, prosthetic nudity and artistic depictions of nudity are censored too, so I'm not sure of the effectiveness of the distinction you're trying to make. If what you're trying to say is that we don't censor special effects violence just as we don't censor special effects nudity, it's simply not true.
Even so I'd say the mall you're describing was particularly authoritarian. Most malls in USA couldn't afford a guard at every entrance.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/09/teens-must-be-with-parent...
http://www.wdrb.com/story/30856303/6-things-you-should-know-...
http://www.panamacity-mall.com/security/
http://www.mallatstonecrest.com/pip
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-ford-city-youth-es...
It's not that expensive, I imagine you are only paying the mall cop around minium wage.
We didn't have any movie theaters that weren't at the mall.
IME, insofar as that is enforced at multiplexes, its enforced mostly at ticket sales and at multiplex entrances, not entrances to individual screening rooms with the complex; tickets are usually not verified at entrances to individual screening rooms except for special circumstances, e.g., opening weekend for major blockbusters -- which only occasionally even overlap with R-rated films.
So, its not at all impossible for a middle school kid to get into an R-rated movie without escort by theater hopping.
The average parent isn't going to fill their mini van with a bunch of 12 year olds and drop them off with the instructions to sneek into a film that they won't be otherwise allowed into. That hypothetical parent would be shamed on the evening news if caught. That's all I'm saying, not that it was impossible to sneek into an R rated film.
The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.
In it's precise form, maybe, but it's certainly not a fiction insofar as we very much tolerate children being exposed to violence. It might not be at the literal movie theater, but that's completely and utterly beside the point.
The average parent has no qualms about showing violence to children. That is not a complete and total fiction. With respect, you're quibbling over trivia.
The level of violence in PG-13 rated films has increased drastically since the rating was introduced, so, its quite likely that this has changed drastically since you were a kid if it was "a very long time ago".
I think I understand what you're objecting to, so let me try to tackle this from a different angle.
Consider how pissed your average neighbor would be if I showed Inception to one of their kids. Now imagine how pissed they would be if I showed them Eyes Wide Shut. Do you see it now?
Right or wrong, for better or worse, Americans are more enraged by things of sexual nature than violent nature. Ounce for ounce, violence is less shocking than sex and nudity. This is why the principle distinguishing factor between PG-13 and R ratings is sex and nudity, not violence!
Yes, obviously conscientious parents try to shield small children from violence, but here's the thing: I moved to France from Delaware and parents here don't give a flying fuck in a handbasket if their children see nudity. Actual sexual intercourse or lewdness is another issue, but newspaper kiosks show topless women in plain view and nobody cares. Statues have penises and nobody cares.
I don't think things have drastically changed since your childhood. Rather, I think this is a very difficult thing to see if you've grown up in the midst of it without spending significant time abroad (though maybe you have and we simply disagree?)
I remember seeing saving private ryan around that time too.
The only movie that ever really bothered me for violence was the passion of the christ.
But the R-rated comment was fairly irrelevant to that (or, rather, counterproductive, since it says more about sex than violence.) PG-13 movies aren't less violent than R-rated movies. [0]
> The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction.
Except that is completely true; heck, arguably "without even thinking once" is more accurate, since imagining that the lack of an R-rating means that a movie isn't violent isn't so much thinking as finding an excuse to avoid thought.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...
The fact that adult supervision is required doesn't contradict the claim that American parents are willing to expose their children to violence and not nudity.
This literally has nothing to do with anything.
Moreover, I was certainly shown R-rated movies in class at a young age. Sure, all the parents had to sign a permission slip, but the fact that they did it just goes to show I'm not making this up. The phrasing might have been hyperbolic, but the point remains valid: we're by and large okay with kids seeing Terminator but not a nipple.
The idea that we "drop our middle-school kids off to see violent movies without even thinking twice" is a complete and total fiction. Doesn't happen.
Hell, if you have a younger looking 12 year old and let them walk to school by themselves expect a busy body to call the cops on you.
We absolutely do expose them (willingly) to violent imagery. Whether it's done by dropping them off at a movie theater or at a friend's house is irrelevant.
Where the hell do you live?
Please stop focusing on admittance to theaters. It's not the point. The point is that young children are disproportionately exposed to violence relative to nudity.
Your point about theaters is taken, but again, it's an auxiliary point. I've seen plenty of violent movies in school for instnace, but never any nudity. Never. We had parents complain over a sex scene in Romeo and Juliet (not the Di Caprio one, one from the 60s) that amounted to people moving under some sheets. The fact that theaters are required by law to enforce age restrictions has nothing to do with the general pattern of preferring that our children see stabbing over tits. And as others have pointed out, the difference between PG-13 and R ratings is one of sex and nudity, not violence!
This was in Delaware, but it's a pretty standard attitude across most of the US. Compare this to most of Western Europe and the difference is stark.
You are confusing "violent movies" with "R-rated movies". The we don't admit children to R-rated movies, but we do admit them to PG-13 movies (which have as much violence, but less sex) illustrates, rather than rebuts, the greater tolerance for violence than sex.
Yes, it does, and the fact that you think that we don't let them see R-rated movies (which contain more sex but not more violence than PG-13 [0]) means that we don't let them see violence illustrates, rather than contradicts, that point.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pg-13...
My example is not in any way exaggerated and it is meant to be taken literary.
>The reason you know about the one or two instances of cops being called because a ten year old is walking on their own is because it is rare and hence newsworthy.
People have been convicted of crimes for leaving their 8 year olds "unsupervised" because of busy bodies with cell phones. Not charged, convicted! The reason its rare to hear about a case is because its a socially unacceptable for children to be left alone now. [1] Its a rare thing to do so its a rare thing to get in trouble for doing.
>a child of seven or eight is quite capable of navigating city streets to walk to school, and has been for a very long time.
Absolutely! I sure did when I was a kid! I couldn't imagine being so suffocated by my parents that I wasn't allowed to be away from them to walk to the corner store by myself or ride my bike to the park. My dad sent me to the hardware store on my bike to buy propane, nobody batted an eye. Now if an unaccompanied 10 year old showed up trying to buy propane the parents would be arrested. This is madness, I agree, but the "protect the kids" mantra is terrible, but it is also the reality.
[1] http://www.freerangekids.com/eureka-breakthrough-study-expla...
How many people do you know that actually do this? The parents I know that were okay with their kids seeing violent moves were equally okay with their kids seeing nudity.
Too many to count. FFS, you're responding to an article about Facebook censoring nipples! ;)
More seriously, I envy you. Where do you live? I might move there.
Really, really astonished that in some circumstances someone compares a beheading with nudity
In this particular instance though, it's worse than your complaint. We're talking about censoring an iconic image captured from an important time in our history. I'd be willing to bet that even among the anti-nipple people, this image gets a pass, hands down. Clearly there are some who object, but the vast majority of people understand the message in this image isn't 'enjoy looking at a naked young girl'.
*edit: spelling typo
I think the basic problem here is not that there aren't Americans who don't have a problem with seeing a bit of nipple, but that a majority of Americans don't seem to understand that if you censor this kind of thing from people, it makes them a lot more reactive to it when they do in fact encounter it - that is to say, by removing from society any acceptance of sex as a positive thing, American society has become far more malleable and reactive to sex - and thus can be sold more things using sex - than it should be.
Sex wouldn't be a billion-dollar industry if nobody was bothered by seeing it now and then.
The same position, by the way, can be taken with regard to the way Americans view their wars. The average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe - because they don't see the images, the video, the very real facts of the matter, on the ground. And thus, those who profit from such acts, profit.
>with regard to the way Americans view their wars
It's been a long time, but as I recall, the second invasion of Iraq was the most protested war in the history of our country -- before it even started. While we don't see the full brutal detail, we understand perfectly well what it means.
I'd also add that the American military serves as a proxy not just for American interests, but Western interests. We just get to bear the cost and reputation hit for these things. I don't know where you're writing from obviously, but don't be surprised if your own nation / govt has been complicit in, and benefited from American intervention.
The fear-mongering is rampant and relentless. And everyone is afraid to question it.
1) Leadership should be criticized, particularly political decisions leading to war, but I'd steer away from treating soldiers like shit. In a lot of ways this is punching down. It's mostly people from poorer families that join the military, as some of the benefits are a huge boon to getting out of poverty for them or their children. I don't know if you've ever talked to a recruiter, but...there's some powerful propaganda there for an 18 year old. Once you're signed up, you can't easily leave, and the punishments for disobedience can be severe.
2) Why should you forget? What possible good could that serve? Learn lessons from the past.
"You cannot ever criticize our troops, or our military, because they are heroes. If you do, you are not an American. You must never forget that our troops and our military protect you always."
The tautology is that the actions of our military are always justified.
And this supports the parent comment that the average American has no clue what it actually means to let their military-industrial complex run rampant across the globe, because to question it would be un-American.
I also think a component of it comes from how poorly vets have been treated in the past by the culture at large as well as the government they served. A lot of us have friends and family members that were hard used by their service and more or less cast aside or forgotten about.
For me, the propaganda, and double-think is more around the idea of drumming up support for our troops even though, frankly, we fall pretty short of that. Granted it also gets wrapped up in patriotism, etc., but I think it's a pretty blunt tool in that regard. If anything, you could call it a right-wing version of virtue signalling I guess.
The attitude towards Vietnam vets was disgusting, right? Drafted people forced into a pointless war. Support the people not the leaders...
That depends on what you mean by "supporting the troops." I actually have no definition or even a clear idea of what this means and I'm certain no one else does either. It's just a generic motto used for brainwashing. Does it mean that I support the individuals not dying? Because if so, then yes, I support the troops very much and I hope none of them die. Does it mean that I support what they do? Fuck no! It's atrocious and criminal. They are murdering and raping people. I would never support that. And of course, it also could mean every single nuance in between. So it's a meaningless saying that seems to exist for the solve purpose of controlling the people who refuse to question basic things. The mere fact that it can mean that I support the troops' actions (murder, rape, and even wasting trillions of dollars of our money) is reason enough for anyone to not "support the troops," and is certainly why I would never utter such an ambiguous and clearly manipulative phrase.
>I would never utter such an ambiguous and clearly manipulative phrase.
Pick one.
Also, how is showing you sentences from different parts of your post being unable to process more than one sentence at a time? If you just wanted to match snark with snark, then fair enough, but as a refutation, it's a bit lacking. Rather, you seem to be making a veiled appeal to authority via having a readership / cult of personality based around you.
If you question "the troops" including why they were sent there to begin with, then you are easily labeled "unpatriotic" and your ideas are immediately dismissed.
It is a very easy way to implement self-culling behavior among the masses. The "powers" do not have to black bag the dissidents, if they are never able to achieve any viable mind-share.
This is brilliant, I've never thought about it this way, but it makes huge sense.
Control of the masses in Edward Bernays style.
Granted, seeing it censored might prompt you to go and look up the original image, prompting you to leave Facebook. So maybe I've changed my mind on the issue :)
What else might pixelation or blurring mean in this context besides that she is naked?
To answer you literally: Serious injury or mutilation, wearing some kind of propaganda the censor didn't want you to see, bawdy tattoos. Probably a million other things, but it would probably still be obvious it was because she was naked.
http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
Although in this case, the answer might be: Everybody.
This exact photo was on the front page of the NYTimes when it was first taken.
This issue is more about the hyper paranoia about child abuse and child porn. Then again something like 1/8 children are sexually abused. So maybe it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
Confusingly enough, child beauty pageants originates from the US, and are mostly still a US-only thing. This contradiction really boggles the mind.
It's why America refuses nipples on TV, but we go hog wild for huge tits.
Is this really censure though? You'd think it's Facebook applying certain policy mechanically and not Facebook being very pro Vietnam war by trying to curtail others' speech which I would count as censure.
By the same token, violence is a part of human nature and we shouldn't go around acting like everyone is holding hands singing kumbaya but again, kids probably shouldn't be exposed to ridiculous levels of that at an early age.
Violence was however very limited and the state censor was active in protecting children from it. A famous case was that of darkwin duck that got removed mid season. Swedish media blamed movie violence for increase gang violence in cities, with examples like "kids learn how to jump kick other children in the head".
Then American movies and tv shows over took both the market and mind share. With that, those aspect of Swedish movies went away, and much of the culture with it. Violence censoring went away, and much of media started to self-censor against nudity.
Personally, I believe there is enough evidence that show that children and young adults that is under major stress and unhealthy social environment will sometimes lash out at society, and they will pick what ever method that is socially unaccepted to do so. Society as such can effect that, but censorship generally has the opposite of the desired effect.
Even in an advanced/industrialized nation like Japan, typical women don't even show cleavage, because it's considered indecent. Typical TV dramas hardly show kissing scenes.
There's NO WAY none of those hashtags weren't eligible for trending. Twitter has been caught doing it before, but I think yesterday was far worse than anything they've done before. They've must've told everyone to be on the lookout of any Hillary-related topic becoming a trend, or just automatically banning anything that may be been about it from trending.
Only today you see the body double thing trending, which I'm sure has far fewer tweets and at a much lower speed than yesterday's incident had.
I know Trump looks to be a terrible human being and likely an even worse president, but it really scares me to see that not only the mainstream media actively try to side with Hillary, but now also tech/social platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Google, etc. I think if Hillary is president, you'll see the US succumb to the same media censorship and self-censorship that you see in Russia.
So is this just the event that caused sentiment to hit critical mass? Or did it touch a deeper nerve that's got people stirred up?
No, it's more like the person who has been censored has an ego so big he thinks it shouldn't happen to him. This outrage was ridiculous.
Essentially the thesis is this: if Facebook were the dominant media platform during Vietnam, we never would've seen these images; we probably would have continued committing atrocities against civilians and our own soldiers.
Seeing as we are now involved in several wars around the world, if our media cannot publicize the realities of war because a child's clothes got blown off with her legs, then someone (i.e. Facebook) has a stranglehold on public opinion.
From my European perspective:
This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light.
While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of as unimportant this one makes it blatantly clear that an american corporation is trying to interfere in our democracy, something that is going to annoy a lot of people to the degree where they are going to at-least complain loudly about it.
But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture's portrayal of America so much as the simple fact that it's a naked child.
There seems to be a fine line between diplomacy and meddling that hasn't been going too well lately.
http://glavnoe.ua/news/n255558
A 360 would be embarrassing as it places you back to the same road. Perhaps it was an "embarrassing 180" instead.
2. Facebook is not just a private company anymore. It's cool to have success, but that comes with bigger public scrutiny, and possibly a lot more obligations than a normal startup who would have only a few users.
3. Don't think this is minor. Facebook will need to evolve, even in the US. This is a matter of Free Speech and Freedom of Thought.
In what sense? Legally they are, they act like one so I am not sure in practice what makes that distinct.
Perhaps you mean that user expectations makes them not "just a private company." In which case I see no reason why that doesn't also extend to pretty much any other much smaller platform in which users complain about moderation or opaque governance (reddit, twitter, linkedin, tumblr etc...). There are numerous examples of change.org petitions asking for kickstarter or some other platform to change how they do business.
Facebook, Inc. is a publicly traded company. An example of a private company would be Dell Technologies.
"Better", for what I use Facebook for, is equivalent to "has more people that I know". I don't expect much from it, and I get what I expect.
It is not a utility, it is not a non-profit organization. People choose to use it, and hence they have to put up with their rules.
If they don't like it, they should stop using it and start using the open alternatives.
What we have occurring in the modern world would be the same if a city sold all of it's roads to a private company and told its citizens their are no longer public spaces.
I cannot feel any sympathy for them.
If one loves the facebook world, then he has to understand the facebook rules. Ignoring them is a mistake on the user side, not FB.
And it follows that when 99% percent of the billion users will have just ignored the rules, then they will soon understand what it means. So they'll scream and ask governemnt to help them. Then the government will regulate 50% of facebook activities, and well, FB rules will be weakened a bit but officially enforced. People like me will say that society has one more problem, others will say that it's progress... And I'll be sad once again.
Consider, a "privately" owned company that opens its doors to the public is absolutely not allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their skin color.
The fact is that when you open your service to the general public then you are no longer strictly speaking a "private" organization: you open yourself up to be regulated by the governments of those people you invite into your service. When you operate what can be argued is very close to a natural monopoly, you have even more duties.
A much better solution is switching to an open alternative.
By this logic facebook should also ban gay pride symbols because Russians use facebook...
So Facebook should ban any display of meat cause India, any display or criticism of Islam cause Saudi Arabia, anything related to homosexuality cause Russia ?
Facebook is still a private organization and will continue to censor as it sees fit. The only reason why this idiocy became big is that a prime ministrer from Norway has been censored. That's all. Facebook isn't a democracy.
It might be perfectly legal, you still would not want that to happen and people expressing their concerns should never be shrugged off with the simplistic attitude of "but they are allowed to do that".
A lot of things which are allowed for a company is still not the right thing and should be called out.
Even an American COMPANY is subject to rules, which in turn are designed/evolved to satisfy objectives - they're not immutable natural law.
Even Milton Friedman conceded that government intervention was justified in the case of externalities or natural monopolies. Social networks are, by virtue of the network effect, arguably natural monopolies, and in that sense, could be considered a utility. As such, they might have to be regulated more tightly than ordinary small companies.
PS: I just meant to put emphasis on the company, not shout.
As someone has highlighted above, though - there is the coordination problem, that everyone (or at least most people) would have to migrate. (But then - it's happened: Friendster, orkut, ...)
It's not something people should expect the happen, and in most civilized countries, we protect consumers against such unreasonable interference. Because we live in actual democracies, not in someones libertarian wet dream.
If Facebook promoted itself as the platform for Christian fundamentalist conservatives, fine. At least that would be honest, and give people a clear choice up front.
I think I didn't put my point across very well, I by no means meant to defend FB. My point was really that problems like this will always arise when the people give so much power to a single company. Hence my suggestion to switch to an open alternative.
What the article is showing is the privilege of American culture interacting with other cultures and peoples.
edits: I think it's actually a great time for the Internet - I am seeing this as the growing pains of a new global culture - a new global way of looking at the world. We are seeing the makers and police of the rich west seeing that the world is more complex and diverse than they are comfortable with, and the result will be interesting to say the least, and glorious and rich if all cultures can be supported in a global way.