12 ms·
Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show in Saudi Arabia
- pscsbs 8y agoNot that it makes it any better, but they only took down the episode in Saudi Arabia, not globally. The headline makes it sound like they took down the episode altogether.
- loueed 8y agoI agree it would be way worse if Saudi Arabia had the power to censor globally. If only Netflix would remove VPN restrictions so people can still access it within the country. It was a great episode!
- RivieraKid 8y ago> Not that it makes it any better That makes it substantially better.
- seppin 8y agoChanges the entire headline.
- inherentFloyd 8y agoHow? It's still censorship.
- dennisgorelik 8y agoYes, it is censorship that respects local traditions.
- oarabbus_ 8y agoThis must be a facetious comment. You don't see how it being only banned in Saudi Arabia is not as bad as Saudi Arabia complaining and having it taken down worldwide? Plus, Saudia Arabia is not known as a bastion of personal liberty. But that's besides the point; they are completely entitled to perform censorship within their own borders. It's simply your opinion (which I happen to agree with, but it is not a fact nonetheless) that it's bad for them to have censored it within their own country.
- wbl 8y agoEieus regio cuius religio has been replaced with individual liberty. Westphalia was a mistake.
- throwaway98121 8y agoI think it’s problematic. The fact it’s only censored inside Saudi Arabia means it doesn’t impact me directly. That being said, as the saudis continue investing in the west, in social media, in other Silicon Valley start ups, I don’t want there to be any chance these traditions (which I consider oppression) could seep up into my or my children’s way of life.
- barrkel 8y agoIt's not unreasonable for a sovereign country to exercise control over legal media in its territory. It might not be just, or fair, for residents of that country, but it is reasonable.
- wbl 8y agoIn the old days people despised the imprimatur and smuggled banned works in. Today?
- prepend 8y agoBittorrent.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoA government exercising control over the media in its country is a very clear-cut violation of the value of free-speech. The moral question is whether American companies should help foreign governments shut down free-speech. Just like google in China. And the consensus seems to be "No."
- barrkel 8y agoAmerica controls the limits of commercial free speech in countries around the world through its control of Visa and Mastercard. American standards (by which I mean limits) on free speech are exported and controlled by limiting what credit card companies are willing to permit to be sold.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoFree speech doesn't make sense if you aren't a democracy. Public speech the government officially disagrees with is incitement of rebellion. In a democracy, there isn't this existential threat to the country. Given that you are a dictatorship, regulating speech to avoid insurrection is morally right. > And the consensus seems to be "No." Consensus is completely irrelevant when answering a moral question, unless it instrumentally affects the moral calculus.
- prepend 8y agoYoutube, Netflix, Amazon frequently take down content for countries. So it’s really nothing new. I mean, I don’t like the 15k takedowns listed in google’s annual report [0] for example. But it’s no longer newsworthy. It’s entirely within companies’ ability to not comply but it means pulling out of the US or Saudi Arabia or whatever country is making demands. In the 90s the dream of Sealand is that it would allow companies to not be forced to do stuff like take down content. That didn’t work out. Mostly because I think companies enjoy making more money the easier way. [0] https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/overview?hl=en https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/ov...
- hd4 8y agoThis doesn't impede the Streisand Effect taking place right now though, which is the real story here. Not sure how many views the video had prior to the takedown but now it's at ~1.2 million and is probably to going to be at 3x that by the end of the week.
- dang 8y agoAlright, we edited the title to clarify that.
- ykevinator 8y agoWhile this is still unflagged, I like when people say the emperor has no clothes. It's obvious that the US has selective policies on human rights.
- gammateam 8y agoWhat does that have to do with a private company removing an episode of a tv show for users in a single country
- opportune 8y agoThis is why Saudi Arabia is trying to buy up tech and especially social media (Snap, Twitter)
- konschubert 8y agoI don’t think that’s why they do it. It this wouldn’t be a viable strategy. I think that they have other reasons.
- opportune 8y agoDefinitely part of it is them trying to latch on to new industries so they don’t go kaput when the oil runs out. But I do think they want seats on boards of tech companies so they can push their agendas too. Aside, I would like to see the actual justification behind how the episode constitutes cyber crime aside from “because we said so”
- baby 8y agotheir agenda seems to be to make more money.
- opportune 8y agoObviously but I’m implying they also want to censor and push their own narratives. Related to Manufacturing Consent, what they’re doing is trying to push their narrative biases in media through ownership
- smacktoward 8y agoData is the new oil.
- Waterluvian 8y agoI think the simplest explanation is likely the right one: the writing is on the wall for oil in this century. Tech is a sensible investment.
- baybal2 8y agoThis is so reprehensible! They must champion political freedom fighters! They should've let their business in Saudi Arabia to go down to make a big statement.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here, and especially not flamebait.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- iandanforth 8y agoQuestion: C-Corp vs Public-Benefit companies in similar situations. As I understand it Netflix really doesn't have the option of taking a principled stand here (let me know if I'm wrong) due its financial responsibilities toward shareholders. If they had incorporated as a public-benefit corporation would they have additional freedom to say "We won't participate in this market on ethical grounds?"
- DKnoll 8y agoThere is no law (in any jurisdiction, as far as I know) that states a corporation must relentlessly pursue profits. An owner is free to stay out of markets for moral or other reasons without any strategic or financial justification. The only thing stopping them would be other shareholders who disagree. Private, public, public-benefit, etc... doesn't matter.
- iandanforth 8y agoHow does this square with the principle of shareholder primacy and Dodge v Ford? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- DKnoll 8y agoThat is very interesting, thank you. I am not a lawyer so anything I say is amateur speculation, but it seems like that case rules mostly on Ford's ability to arbitrarily reduce profit to shareholders by reducing or removing dividends, not necessarily acting in the public interest. This goes back to what I said earlier about a corporation being free to act in the public interest as long as the shareholders don't mind, as then there is no injured party.
- wgerard 8y agoThis is going to sound condescending but I really don't mean it to be, I just couldn't think of a better way to phrase this: Did you read the bottom half of the entry's summary or the entry itself? Specifically: > In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly > The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole. and quotes from a number of law journals: > Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. > the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases.
- charlieflowers 8y agoFirst time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good. The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with humor.
- tracker1 8y agoI think it's much more entertaining than Samantha B myself.
- tptacek 8y agoIt's Samantha Bee. That's her name.
- hydrox24 8y ago> political commentary sprinkled with humor. I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
- danso 8y agoBecause much of the best comedy is about real life, which often involves politics.
- docbrown 8y agoBeing neutral on any spectrum, Richard Pryor and George Carlin are socially accepted as two of the greatest comdeians of this time and they spoke on politics often. If doing so does anything, it accomplishes bringing awareness to bigger issues to an audience who it may not normally be exposed to.
- toyg 8y agoUnder the harshest rulers, very often the only person allowed to speak truth to power is the buffoon.
- rco8786 8y agoThe same reason we trust it to anyone else. I’ve never understood the “he/she is a comedian therefore unfit to comment on serious matters.
- gondo 8y agosimillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-plan-around-britains-censorship-satirical-use-parliament-footage https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
- dogma1138 8y agoThat’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Commons but due to a 1743 law we can’t so here it is reenacted with sock puppets...” This would’ve been even better in my book.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- raverbashing 8y agoIs the law really from 1743? I mean, it can make sense, but I would find it interesting if the law was really that old
- mhh__ 8y agoBritish democracy is brilliant, moronic, childish and wise: Many laws are indeed that old
- mr_toad 8y agoThey have laws going back over 700 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough “The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267),[10] which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267),[11] which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of.”
- Pica_soO 8y agoStreisand avalanche. Makes you wish negative reputation could propagate through social networks.
- mandeepj 8y agoNow, Minaj should not visit any consulate in Middle East even if he have to
- notmyaccount 8y agoI hadn't watched it but thanks to this I am gonna watch it now.
- unixhero 8y agoAhhh, the old Streisand Effect.
- nvo 8y agoThey don't care if you watch it, they care if people in Saudi Arabia watch it.
- mattigames 8y agoThat's only partially true, in a world so communicated a lot of people are going to contact their friends living in Saudi Arabia and tell them what they think about the film, a lot will see this news on reddit or elsewhere and realize its being censored.
- newen 8y agoI'm pretty sure a lot more than that one show is censored in Saudi Arabia..
- throwaway98121 8y agoI’m sure they care more than that. Global opinion matters, especially if it can influence policy makers, particularly citizens in the western developed countries.
- nvo 8y agoSaudi Arabia is 100% backed by Israel and Israel controls the media and most politicians through AIPAC and so on, so good luck with that.
- dingoegret 8y ago
- aaron695 8y ago> Netflix Takes Down Episode of Hasan Minhaj’s Show After Saudi Arabia Complains (huffingtonpost.com) huffingtonpost.com is regurgitated misleading crap. Fin times which doesn't have to resort to shitty click bait titles and broke the story has the correct title "Netflix pulls episode of comedy show in Saudi Arabia" It wasn't a "Complains" it was a legal request of sorts. Do we seriously expect by default for Netflix to "break the law"? Netflix is not to blame here, but you'd need the proper news article to get the real story I guess, not misleading inciteful huffpo babble. I'll add Soap Operas are consider by some studies as amazingly empowering for women. I have no idea if there is an equivocal for men, but the people don't need political shows to move forward, this isn't the hit we think it is. Netflix in Saudi Arabia is what's empowering and can create change.
- glibgil 8y agoI’m canceling my Netflix account
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoAre you also going to renounce your citizen ship and leave the planet?
- glibgil 8y agoI renounce you at least. Bye
- IE6 8y ago"Thank you, next"
- dang 8y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- glibgil 8y agoCoward
- closeparen 8y agoThis is the only natural conclusion in a world where sovereign countries legislate the internet according to their values and tech companies follow local laws. Regulatory backlash isn't always going to be GDPR. Sometimes it's going to be this.
- CoolGuySteve 8y agoLet's also remember "regulatory backlash" can mean something that threatens the personal safety and freedom of a company's employees in that country. When talking about censorship in these places, we should consider the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance... Given recent events vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that something a whole lot worse than being 'disappeared' happens to you. I hear the authorities there are not above using chainsaws to resolve the differences they might have with you.
- kbenson 8y agoGiven that 'disappeared' is a euphemism for 'killed and disposed of', that depends on how much worse it is given in the end you still cease to exist on the most meaningful level. Put another way, is it better if they feed you an exceptional mean before they kill you? In the end, focusing on the how's instead of the why and the concrete fact they did is just a way for others to to manipulate people into feeling one way or another (or more of either) instead of just taking the hard line that it's unacceptable in any and every form. Edit: to be clear, I'm not accusing you of manipulating people, just stating that it's just a common tactic in general.
- dandare 8y agoChainsaws will be your least problem in Saudi torture den (state prison). See Confessions of an Innocent Man: Torture and Survival in a Saudi Prison
- MasterYoda 8y agoThis usually just gives a streisand effect For those who want to see the episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUhbZdvtzcw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUhbZdvtzcw
- AzzieElbab 8y agoThis is very predictable. What I find strange is how the episode "aired" in Saudi Arabia in the first place. From what I've heard they censor all the media.