4 ms·

Somehow this makes me really uncomfortable. I know it seems very reasonable, inviting people to choose what they want to censor for themselves... but it just fe

Somehow this makes me really uncomfortable. I know it seems very reasonable, inviting people to choose what they want to censor for themselves... but it just feels wrong. I'd much rather someone didn't watch my film at all than watch a butchered version. As a separate point, I think it's often more traumatic/damaging to cut away from a scene just as it's getting distressing, and then cut back after the bad thing has happened. I often had this kind of viewing experience imposed on me as a child, and I honestly think it screwed me up a little, sitting there speculating about whatever I'm missing, and generally being taught that when things are getting unpleasant you just skip that part. Not a good attitude for life. It's true there are films that are inappropriate for a young kid, but in that case, choose a different film.

DougN7 11y ago
I don't understand that. Using a chef reference I made below, if you cooked a nice dinner, but someone didn't like the brussel sprouts, should they not have eaten anything and skipped your dinner party? If you listen to some of The Donald's speech, should you not be allowed to skip some of it? Why is art all-or-nothing?
- callumlocke 11y ago
  Those are very good counter examples. I wouldn't want someone to miss a whole dinner because they don't like sprouts :) I still feel like there's a difference though... At least the person can see the sprouts, they have the option, the chef can say "Ah go on, try some, they've got little bits of pancetta in them!" and maybe they try one, and maybe they realise sprouts are great! Or maybe they don't, but at least they considered it. Compare that to (bare with me) someone wearing magic AR goggles that somehow bleep out any mention of sprouts, and automatically pre-warn the chef to not put any sprouts on their plate and not to mention them. Absurdity aside, I think there's something insidious about people setting up automated filter bubbles for themselves and their children
  - DougN7 11y ago
    > filter bubbles for themselves and their children We do that all the time. I don't let my kids watch some content because of their age. I filter their activities (don't let them drive until they're able). I try to filter what they eat (less junk food), and their waking hours (try to get them to go to bed). This is no different. It's all cost/benefit, and if some people think some content of any sort is not appropriate for them and their families, fine. But why not allow them the 95% of the content that they like? What if Netflix said you only got to watch a series if you guaranteed you'd watch every episode? The idea is preposterous.
    - callumlocke 11y ago
      The idea is preposterous. ...and not what I suggested. It feels like you didn't read my comment at all. We are talking about automated content filtering. This is all we are talking about. Not whether it's OK to stop watching a film you're not enjoying (of course it is), not 'rules in general' like driving regulations and bedtime. Just automated content filtering.
      - marco1 11y ago
        You may have misunderstood the project. There is nothing "automatic" in its filtering at all. You do have to adjust the filters precisely, manually, and can switch on or off every single feature.
  - marco1 11y ago
    I feel that we don't have to resolve this issue by taking an even closer look at this analogy. We can instead focus on the pragmatic answers to your original question.
- manachar 11y ago
  Looking at a political speech... just skipping to some of it is an abhorrent idea. That's how you lose context and likely meaning to words. Without condoning or condemning Trump's speeches, skipping to just parts can radically change your impression of the man and his policies. This is a problem journalism faces when covering events. They try to edit down to the meaningful parts while retaining the meaning of the whole. I can't imagine that filtering out certain triggering phrases/words would allow you paint a fair picture of him or his policies.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    You're saying the inverse of the OP's solution. He'd skip over 5%. You're arguing it's not OK to skip over 95%. Skipping 5% of a political speech would probably not be bad, especially if you knew before hand what you specifically didn't want to hear (because you knew what was going to be said). Maybe I've made up my mind on the war on Iraq and I just do not want to hear any more about it. If I don't care about a candidate's position on whether it was right or wrong, don't I have a right to skip that part of their speech?
  - marco1 11y ago
    Nobody says you should apply this to political speeches, or sources where the context can be lost due to the cutting in general.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Why can't it just be fun? Here's Trump voiced in an East London accent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0
- npsimons 11y ago
  I consider both of those bad examples; in the first case, adults shouldn't be so picky. In the second, no, you shouldn't skip part of a candidate's speech, as you would then not be an informed voter.
  - marco1 11y ago
    Thank you very much! I do also think that these two examples are not the best examplse we could come up with. And in no way do they demonstrate why the complete project should be useless for every use case. The only thing that they show (correctly, I have to say), is that there are some sources where filters and cuts can be harmful.
baddox 11y ago
I think the only way to reasonably expect people to not do whatever they please with content that you create is to never release the content.
- npsimons 11y ago
  This is another reason I had forgotten about in favor of this project: information transgesses boundaries, and whether people like it or not, it will be modified, and it is wrong to attempt to subvert that capability. I still think it's wrong to cripple oneself by limiting ones exposure to things that may make one uncomfortable, but it should be a right to choose what we view.
  - baddox 11y ago
    I don't really see much of a distinction between choosing which media you view (which everyone necessarily does) and choosing which parts of a particular work you view.
    - npsimons 11y ago
      It's about how media is perceived; if I try to have a conversation with you, but ignore you saying words I don't like, it changes the meaning of our conversation, and one could argue we haven't really had a conversation at all.
toyg 11y ago
It's the media equivalent of adblockers, greasemonkey scripts or custom css: the realization that digital content can be manipulated client-side. Nothing wrong with that.
- marco1 11y ago
  Exactly :) Thank you! And, in addition to that, not only can content be filtered, but it is filtered for you all the time already. This is a chance to take the filtering away from the producers and choose what you want to see yourself. Don't let others decide. Because that is real censorship.
brightball 11y ago
It's all very subjective. For example, most of Top Gun is perfectly suitable for a 5 year old...except some of the swearing and the sex. Sure I can find something else to watch with my son (and I do) but I'm not asking for anything more than the version they'd show on NBC. I'm sure some people may have different uses in mind but that's their business.
- callumlocke 11y ago
  Fair enough, that's an example that wouldn't worry me one bit. You're right it's other people's business, I'm not saying this kind of tool should be banned! I'm just voicing a concern that it might be unhealthy for people to set up automatic filters for stuff they find offensive, across all their film and TV. I think people should be offended sometimes. Not that anyone should try to offend people for the sake of it, but I think occasionally seeing stuff that challenges your sensibilities (in the context of good literature, ideally) probably helps people to be more tolerant and less reactionary.
  - marco1 11y ago
    > I'm just voicing a concern that it might be unhealthy for people to set up automatic filters for stuff they find offensive, across all their film and TV. And this has never been the intention or intended use case of this tool. So I guess we've figured out the misunderstanding.
- aeontech 11y ago
  > most of Top Gun is perfectly suitable for a 5 year old...except some of the swearing and the sex It's fascinating to consider the cultural differences that make sex the thing most unacceptable in a movie largely concerned with gigantic flying death machines. And I'm not saying jets are not awesomely cool, they are indeed... But is the movie significantly different from an air force/navy recruiting advertisement?
manachar 11y ago
I agree. I am uncomfortable at the idea that people feel compelled to sanitize their realities so they only see the narratives they want to see. Social media already makes this far too easy. For art, this can make a movie have a very different meaning. Violence and sexuality can be very critical to the message of a movie, and editing it to make it mean something else just feels disingenuous to the original art. This is like people covering statues of naked people because they're uncomfortable around nudity. Still, I think individuals have a right to do this, whether for themselves or for their kids. I just view it like people's right to smoke cigarettes or go tanning. This is an inherently dangerous approach to life.
- marco1 11y ago
  Wow, I feel your approach, just like the parent's one, is way too focused on moral, ethical and abstract concepts in general. This project doesn't try to create a huge filter bubble and introduce a dangerous approach to education and life. No, it's just a simple utility to help you make some simple cuts so that you can enjoy the movie without watching the few scenes that were inserted for shock value.
reedlaw 11y ago
As soon as I saw this tool I predicted this kind of response. The idea is not just in the parent post but echoed throughout these comments. That is, nothing should be filtered. This is the prevailing sentiment in our culture with regards to entertainment. And frankly I'm tired of the hypocrisy. We see on the one hand movements to protect and empower women. On the other hand exploitation is loudly defended. I agree with the parent: skip these films. I'm happy this tool exists but I'd rather not give any kind of support to those who demoralize women.
- marco1 11y ago
  Well, personally, I didn't predict that kind of response. So let's try to resolve the misunderstandings. > I'd rather not give any kind of support to those who demoralize women. This is not what this tool is about. Movies are filtered already. Not always, of course. But depending on where you watch them, they are. Stop others from censoring the movies for you. Get the full uncensored version and decide yourself what you want to see. This is not more filtering, but less filtering, usually.
  - reedlaw 11y ago
    I think I understand the intent. I was responding to the parent's idea that we should simply not watch movies with questionable content. I agree with that but also am glad this tool exists. I'm not sure under what circumstances it would be used for less filtering. Are you suggesting movie studios release uncut films and let the audience pick the rating? That's a novel idea.
    - marco1 11y ago
      > Are you suggesting movie studios release uncut films and let the audience pick the rating? Yes, that was the intent, actually. It's also included in the repository's documentation. But I see that it has been poorly communicated.
marco1 11y ago
Uncomfortable? Definitely not, I'd say. Your judgement may be too harsh because it tries to focus on quite abstract aspects. What about a practical example instead? There are quite a few (historic) films that I like very much. I'd love to show those to my younger sister or brother. But that one scene where somebody has their throat cut -- there's no way I can show that. But without that scene, it makes a great movie, even for younger audiences. Moreover, your criticism states that skipping things is always bad. That's not true, of course. In practice, you can make good cuts and bad cuts. And to achieve good results, one has to make reasonable cuts that preserve all the important parts and don't hurt the film. If this is done, it can be a wonderful experience.
- callumlocke 11y ago
  I agree with you there's nothing wrong with cutting out a violent bit of a film so you can share it with your younger sister. I think what I'm uncomfortable with is the idea of set-it-and-forget-it automated filtering. Not censorship in general. Moreover, your criticism states that skipping things is always bad. I definitely never said that.
  - marco1 11y ago
    > I think what I'm uncomfortable with is the idea of set-it-and-forget-it automated filtering. You see, this is not the point of this project and has never been intended or supported in any way. > I definitely never said that. What about this? > I know it seems very reasonable, inviting people to choose what they want to censor for themselves... but it just feels wrong. I'd much rather someone didn't watch my film at all than watch a butchered version. [...] Not a good attitude for life.

DougN7 11y ago

I don't understand that. Using a chef reference I made below, if you cooked a nice dinner, but someone didn't like the brussel sprouts, should they not have eaten anything and skipped your dinner party? If you listen to some of The Donald's speech, should you not be allowed to skip some of it? Why is art all-or-nothing?

callumlocke 11y ago
Those are very good counter examples. I wouldn't want someone to miss a whole dinner because they don't like sprouts :) I still feel like there's a difference though... At least the person can see the sprouts, they have the option, the chef can say "Ah go on, try some, they've got little bits of pancetta in them!" and maybe they try one, and maybe they realise sprouts are great! Or maybe they don't, but at least they considered it. Compare that to (bare with me) someone wearing magic AR goggles that somehow bleep out any mention of sprouts, and automatically pre-warn the chef to not put any sprouts on their plate and not to mention them. Absurdity aside, I think there's something insidious about people setting up automated filter bubbles for themselves and their children
- DougN7 11y ago
  > filter bubbles for themselves and their children We do that all the time. I don't let my kids watch some content because of their age. I filter their activities (don't let them drive until they're able). I try to filter what they eat (less junk food), and their waking hours (try to get them to go to bed). This is no different. It's all cost/benefit, and if some people think some content of any sort is not appropriate for them and their families, fine. But why not allow them the 95% of the content that they like? What if Netflix said you only got to watch a series if you guaranteed you'd watch every episode? The idea is preposterous.
  - callumlocke 11y ago
    The idea is preposterous. ...and not what I suggested. It feels like you didn't read my comment at all. We are talking about automated content filtering. This is all we are talking about. Not whether it's OK to stop watching a film you're not enjoying (of course it is), not 'rules in general' like driving regulations and bedtime. Just automated content filtering.
    - marco1 11y ago
      You may have misunderstood the project. There is nothing "automatic" in its filtering at all. You do have to adjust the filters precisely, manually, and can switch on or off every single feature.
- marco1 11y ago
  I feel that we don't have to resolve this issue by taking an even closer look at this analogy. We can instead focus on the pragmatic answers to your original question.
manachar 11y ago
Looking at a political speech... just skipping to some of it is an abhorrent idea. That's how you lose context and likely meaning to words. Without condoning or condemning Trump's speeches, skipping to just parts can radically change your impression of the man and his policies. This is a problem journalism faces when covering events. They try to edit down to the meaningful parts while retaining the meaning of the whole. I can't imagine that filtering out certain triggering phrases/words would allow you paint a fair picture of him or his policies.
- DougN7 11y ago
  You're saying the inverse of the OP's solution. He'd skip over 5%. You're arguing it's not OK to skip over 95%. Skipping 5% of a political speech would probably not be bad, especially if you knew before hand what you specifically didn't want to hear (because you knew what was going to be said). Maybe I've made up my mind on the war on Iraq and I just do not want to hear any more about it. If I don't care about a candidate's position on whether it was right or wrong, don't I have a right to skip that part of their speech?
- marco1 11y ago
  Nobody says you should apply this to political speeches, or sources where the context can be lost due to the cutting in general.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Why can't it just be fun? Here's Trump voiced in an East London accent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cA0NM5RAY0
npsimons 11y ago
I consider both of those bad examples; in the first case, adults shouldn't be so picky. In the second, no, you shouldn't skip part of a candidate's speech, as you would then not be an informed voter.
- marco1 11y ago
  Thank you very much! I do also think that these two examples are not the best examplse we could come up with. And in no way do they demonstrate why the complete project should be useless for every use case. The only thing that they show (correctly, I have to say), is that there are some sources where filters and cuts can be harmful.

baddox 11y ago

I think the only way to reasonably expect people to not do whatever they please with content that you create is to never release the content.

npsimons 11y ago
This is another reason I had forgotten about in favor of this project: information transgesses boundaries, and whether people like it or not, it will be modified, and it is wrong to attempt to subvert that capability. I still think it's wrong to cripple oneself by limiting ones exposure to things that may make one uncomfortable, but it should be a right to choose what we view.
- baddox 11y ago
  I don't really see much of a distinction between choosing which media you view (which everyone necessarily does) and choosing which parts of a particular work you view.
  - npsimons 11y ago
    It's about how media is perceived; if I try to have a conversation with you, but ignore you saying words I don't like, it changes the meaning of our conversation, and one could argue we haven't really had a conversation at all.

toyg 11y ago

It's the media equivalent of adblockers, greasemonkey scripts or custom css: the realization that digital content can be manipulated client-side. Nothing wrong with that.

marco1 11y ago
Exactly :) Thank you! And, in addition to that, not only can content be filtered, but it is filtered for you all the time already. This is a chance to take the filtering away from the producers and choose what you want to see yourself. Don't let others decide. Because that is real censorship.

brightball 11y ago

It's all very subjective. For example, most of Top Gun is perfectly suitable for a 5 year old...except some of the swearing and the sex. Sure I can find something else to watch with my son (and I do) but I'm not asking for anything more than the version they'd show on NBC. I'm sure some people may have different uses in mind but that's their business.

callumlocke 11y ago
Fair enough, that's an example that wouldn't worry me one bit. You're right it's other people's business, I'm not saying this kind of tool should be banned! I'm just voicing a concern that it might be unhealthy for people to set up automatic filters for stuff they find offensive, across all their film and TV. I think people should be offended sometimes. Not that anyone should try to offend people for the sake of it, but I think occasionally seeing stuff that challenges your sensibilities (in the context of good literature, ideally) probably helps people to be more tolerant and less reactionary.
- marco1 11y ago
  > I'm just voicing a concern that it might be unhealthy for people to set up automatic filters for stuff they find offensive, across all their film and TV. And this has never been the intention or intended use case of this tool. So I guess we've figured out the misunderstanding.
aeontech 11y ago
> most of Top Gun is perfectly suitable for a 5 year old...except some of the swearing and the sex It's fascinating to consider the cultural differences that make sex the thing most unacceptable in a movie largely concerned with gigantic flying death machines. And I'm not saying jets are not awesomely cool, they are indeed... But is the movie significantly different from an air force/navy recruiting advertisement?

manachar 11y ago

I agree. I am uncomfortable at the idea that people feel compelled to sanitize their realities so they only see the narratives they want to see. Social media already makes this far too easy. For art, this can make a movie have a very different meaning. Violence and sexuality can be very critical to the message of a movie, and editing it to make it mean something else just feels disingenuous to the original art. This is like people covering statues of naked people because they're uncomfortable around nudity. Still, I think individuals have a right to do this, whether for themselves or for their kids. I just view it like people's right to smoke cigarettes or go tanning. This is an inherently dangerous approach to life.

marco1 11y ago
Wow, I feel your approach, just like the parent's one, is way too focused on moral, ethical and abstract concepts in general. This project doesn't try to create a huge filter bubble and introduce a dangerous approach to education and life. No, it's just a simple utility to help you make some simple cuts so that you can enjoy the movie without watching the few scenes that were inserted for shock value.

reedlaw 11y ago

As soon as I saw this tool I predicted this kind of response. The idea is not just in the parent post but echoed throughout these comments. That is, nothing should be filtered. This is the prevailing sentiment in our culture with regards to entertainment. And frankly I'm tired of the hypocrisy. We see on the one hand movements to protect and empower women. On the other hand exploitation is loudly defended. I agree with the parent: skip these films. I'm happy this tool exists but I'd rather not give any kind of support to those who demoralize women.

marco1 11y ago
Well, personally, I didn't predict that kind of response. So let's try to resolve the misunderstandings. > I'd rather not give any kind of support to those who demoralize women. This is not what this tool is about. Movies are filtered already. Not always, of course. But depending on where you watch them, they are. Stop others from censoring the movies for you. Get the full uncensored version and decide yourself what you want to see. This is not more filtering, but less filtering, usually.
- reedlaw 11y ago
  I think I understand the intent. I was responding to the parent's idea that we should simply not watch movies with questionable content. I agree with that but also am glad this tool exists. I'm not sure under what circumstances it would be used for less filtering. Are you suggesting movie studios release uncut films and let the audience pick the rating? That's a novel idea.
  - marco1 11y ago
    > Are you suggesting movie studios release uncut films and let the audience pick the rating? Yes, that was the intent, actually. It's also included in the repository's documentation. But I see that it has been poorly communicated.

marco1 11y ago

Uncomfortable? Definitely not, I'd say. Your judgement may be too harsh because it tries to focus on quite abstract aspects. What about a practical example instead? There are quite a few (historic) films that I like very much. I'd love to show those to my younger sister or brother. But that one scene where somebody has their throat cut -- there's no way I can show that. But without that scene, it makes a great movie, even for younger audiences. Moreover, your criticism states that skipping things is always bad. That's not true, of course. In practice, you can make good cuts and bad cuts. And to achieve good results, one has to make reasonable cuts that preserve all the important parts and don't hurt the film. If this is done, it can be a wonderful experience.

callumlocke 11y ago
I agree with you there's nothing wrong with cutting out a violent bit of a film so you can share it with your younger sister. I think what I'm uncomfortable with is the idea of set-it-and-forget-it automated filtering. Not censorship in general. Moreover, your criticism states that skipping things is always bad. I definitely never said that.
- marco1 11y ago
  > I think what I'm uncomfortable with is the idea of set-it-and-forget-it automated filtering. You see, this is not the point of this project and has never been intended or supported in any way. > I definitely never said that. What about this? > I know it seems very reasonable, inviting people to choose what they want to censor for themselves... but it just feels wrong. I'd much rather someone didn't watch my film at all than watch a butchered version. [...] Not a good attitude for life.