6 ms·

Not 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

by pscsbs 8y ago

Not 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Changes the entire headline.
- inherentFloyd 8y ago
  How? It's still censorship.
  - dennisgorelik 8y ago
    Yes, it is censorship that respects local traditions.
  - oarabbus_ 8y ago
    This 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 ago
      Eieus regio cuius religio has been replaced with individual liberty. Westphalia was a mistake.
    - throwaway98121 8y ago
      I 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 ago
It'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 ago
  In the old days people despised the imprimatur and smuggled banned works in. Today?
  - prepend 8y ago
    Bittorrent.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  A 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 ago
    America 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 ago
    Free 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 ago
Youtube, 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 ago
This 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 ago
Alright, we edited the title to clarify that.

by pscsbs 8y ago

Not 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 ago

I 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 ago
Changes the entire headline.
inherentFloyd 8y ago
How? It's still censorship.
- dennisgorelik 8y ago
  Yes, it is censorship that respects local traditions.
- oarabbus_ 8y ago
  This 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 ago
    Eieus regio cuius religio has been replaced with individual liberty. Westphalia was a mistake.
  - throwaway98121 8y ago
    I 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 ago

It'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 ago
In the old days people despised the imprimatur and smuggled banned works in. Today?
- prepend 8y ago
  Bittorrent.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
A 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 ago
  America 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 ago
  Free 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 ago

Youtube, 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 ago

This 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 ago

Alright, we edited the title to clarify that.