6 ms·

US consumers become subject to Chinese censorship policies under services, media, and entertainment provided by US companies too.

by dv_dt 7y ago

vkou 7y ago
The same is said for non-US consumers, who consume US-made media (Which is consumed world-wide, and has in many places, displaced local media.)
- dv_dt 7y ago
  While the US doesn't hard censor media like China, I'd agree there is something of a soft censorship/ignoring of many topics. And, if you think about US based hard restraints, there are certainly onerous restrictions with rules attached to financial services imposed by the US into foreign nations.
  - kmonsen 7y ago
    The censorship is completely different though, if you want to write "Fuck Donald Trump", or give a detailed account of his crimes on a US platform, it will not be censored. Try the same in a Chinese owned platform about f.ex. something as obvious as Tianmen. There are some things such as porn that is censored in many areas.
    - dv_dt 7y ago
      It is certainly different, that's why I was drawing a distinction between hard and soft censorship. No hard censorship in the US, but the soft censorship is maybe more pervasive then you first realize. E.g. I think of the MPAA as a form of soft censorship, and one whose rating system was constrained at times by fairly conservative groups. Are there ways around it, yes, especially today, but not not as much historically. Major media coverage in the US also practices a soft censorship of attention and depth of coverage of certain topics too.
    - sol_remmy2 7y ago
      In America speech is censored by American private companies all the time. Racial or anti-semitic speech is often censored thanks for pressure from civil rights groups (i.e. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-after-pressure-civil-rights-groups-n987991 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-white-n...) and from lawsuits (i.e. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47705904 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47705904) Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures: "Twitter will now hide — but not remove — harmful tweets from public figures" (https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-t...)
      - modulos 7y ago
        It is not reasonable compare a company choosing not to host content that hurts marginalized people, with a company being forced not to host content critical of the most powerful people.
      - cblades 7y ago
        I think there's a pretty wide gulf between that and government-enforced censorship, to the point that comparing the two seems a bit disingenuous. "Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures" vs "The FBI will require Twitter to censor political speech from public figures" I think those two scenarios are eons apart.
        modulos 7y ago
        It is also disingenuous to refer to hate speech that breaks Twitter's rules as "political speech".
        lmm 7y ago
        I disagree; I'd even say this is a peculiar blind spot in US political culture. Practically, it's probably easier to have a similar life in a non-US country than to have a similar life while avoiding these big platforms. Yes theoretically the US government has the ability to use violence against you while Twitter doesn't, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the practical impact - people are more worried about the government ruining their livelihood than locking them up, and that's something that Twitter can do just as well.
  - hnuser77 7y ago
    Some teachable moments about the soft censorship system are when 1) it misfires, like when a teenager stands around on video with a smile in the general vicinity of a Native American man and has his reputation immediately smeared by multiple national networks and thousands of other highly credentialed professionals, 2) when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period, or 3) when snippets or leaks come out that demonstrate levers of political control, like the "YouTube Controversial Query Blacklist", or when the Chancellor of Germany asks Mark Zuckerberg on a hot mic to censor certain topics and he agrees.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period This is a weird complaint. One site bans Alex Jones (after a major news event covered internationally). Media gets wind (likely due to him complaining very loudly about it) and starts asking the other major social networks why they aren't following suit. No conspiracy required, for the same reasons multiple independent news sites writing about Fitbit today doesn't require collusion.
      - hnuser77 7y ago
        Bingo; well, I'm not talking about one person in particular, but it goes like this: "Hey [person at platform company], I'm [person whose social network slightly overlaps with yours but who has more reputation], a journalist at [publication that can instantly shape public opinion on any topic]. I'm doing an article on [bad person], who once said [worst interpretation of anything person has ever said] and has been called [threat to public safety and order] by [prestigious NGO] and is also associated with [tenuously connected group that is even worse]. Are you aware your website is [assumption that company endorses bad person's content]? There has been [mention of thousands of angry and unstable people, implication of social and economic damage] on [social media platform where I myself and my friends have considerable influence] about this." It's also interesting to think about why something becomes a "news event" in the first place, as if it were something that simply falls from the sky.
    - 7y ago
  - haecceity 7y ago
    Soft censorship is more effective than hard censorship as censors. For people who think soft censorship is better, I'd becareful what you wish for.
r00fus 7y ago
30 years ago people were scared that questionable US values like puritanism/racism would be exported and enforced via media imperialism. Shoe's now on the other foot.

US consumers become subject to Chinese censorship policies under services, media, and entertainment provided by US companies too.

by dv_dt 7y ago

US consumers become subject to Chinese censorship policies under services, media, and entertainment provided by US companies too.

vkou 7y ago

The same is said for non-US consumers, who consume US-made media (Which is consumed world-wide, and has in many places, displaced local media.)

dv_dt 7y ago
While the US doesn't hard censor media like China, I'd agree there is something of a soft censorship/ignoring of many topics. And, if you think about US based hard restraints, there are certainly onerous restrictions with rules attached to financial services imposed by the US into foreign nations.
- kmonsen 7y ago
  The censorship is completely different though, if you want to write "Fuck Donald Trump", or give a detailed account of his crimes on a US platform, it will not be censored. Try the same in a Chinese owned platform about f.ex. something as obvious as Tianmen. There are some things such as porn that is censored in many areas.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    It is certainly different, that's why I was drawing a distinction between hard and soft censorship. No hard censorship in the US, but the soft censorship is maybe more pervasive then you first realize. E.g. I think of the MPAA as a form of soft censorship, and one whose rating system was constrained at times by fairly conservative groups. Are there ways around it, yes, especially today, but not not as much historically. Major media coverage in the US also practices a soft censorship of attention and depth of coverage of certain topics too.
  - sol_remmy2 7y ago
    In America speech is censored by American private companies all the time. Racial or anti-semitic speech is often censored thanks for pressure from civil rights groups (i.e. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-white-nationalism-after-pressure-civil-rights-groups-n987991 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-bans-white-n...) and from lawsuits (i.e. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47705904 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47705904) Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures: "Twitter will now hide — but not remove — harmful tweets from public figures" (https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-trump-rules-violation-tweet-hide-remove-political-figures https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/27/18761132/twitter-donald-t...)
    - modulos 7y ago
      It is not reasonable compare a company choosing not to host content that hurts marginalized people, with a company being forced not to host content critical of the most powerful people.
    - cblades 7y ago
      I think there's a pretty wide gulf between that and government-enforced censorship, to the point that comparing the two seems a bit disingenuous. "Twitter has even begun censoring political speech from public figures" vs "The FBI will require Twitter to censor political speech from public figures" I think those two scenarios are eons apart.
      - modulos 7y ago
        It is also disingenuous to refer to hate speech that breaks Twitter's rules as "political speech".
      - lmm 7y ago
        I disagree; I'd even say this is a peculiar blind spot in US political culture. Practically, it's probably easier to have a similar life in a non-US country than to have a similar life while avoiding these big platforms. Yes theoretically the US government has the ability to use violence against you while Twitter doesn't, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to the practical impact - people are more worried about the government ruining their livelihood than locking them up, and that's something that Twitter can do just as well.
- hnuser77 7y ago
  Some teachable moments about the soft censorship system are when 1) it misfires, like when a teenager stands around on video with a smile in the general vicinity of a Native American man and has his reputation immediately smeared by multiple national networks and thousands of other highly credentialed professionals, 2) when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period, or 3) when snippets or leaks come out that demonstrate levers of political control, like the "YouTube Controversial Query Blacklist", or when the Chancellor of Germany asks Mark Zuckerberg on a hot mic to censor certain topics and he agrees.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > when a dozen major online platforms and infrastructure services "independently" ban the same person in a 72 hour period This is a weird complaint. One site bans Alex Jones (after a major news event covered internationally). Media gets wind (likely due to him complaining very loudly about it) and starts asking the other major social networks why they aren't following suit. No conspiracy required, for the same reasons multiple independent news sites writing about Fitbit today doesn't require collusion.
    - hnuser77 7y ago
      Bingo; well, I'm not talking about one person in particular, but it goes like this: "Hey [person at platform company], I'm [person whose social network slightly overlaps with yours but who has more reputation], a journalist at [publication that can instantly shape public opinion on any topic]. I'm doing an article on [bad person], who once said [worst interpretation of anything person has ever said] and has been called [threat to public safety and order] by [prestigious NGO] and is also associated with [tenuously connected group that is even worse]. Are you aware your website is [assumption that company endorses bad person's content]? There has been [mention of thousands of angry and unstable people, implication of social and economic damage] on [social media platform where I myself and my friends have considerable influence] about this." It's also interesting to think about why something becomes a "news event" in the first place, as if it were something that simply falls from the sky.
  - 7y ago
- haecceity 7y ago
  Soft censorship is more effective than hard censorship as censors. For people who think soft censorship is better, I'd becareful what you wish for.

r00fus 7y ago

30 years ago people were scared that questionable US values like puritanism/racism would be exported and enforced via media imperialism. Shoe's now on the other foot.