4 ms·

I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective censorship + plausibile deniability.

I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective censorship + plausibile deniability. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawker-tim-cook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawk..., they are quite open about censoring things.

slg 6y ago
It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship" recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing excuse. Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20 for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons. If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime is because the price tag would have been too high to justify purchasing exclusivity.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Who said Censorshsip must be about the government? People do misuse "first amendment violation" but that unlike the concept of censorship, that is a very specific thing. Don't confuse the two.
  - slg 6y ago
    Apple TV isn't censoring this movie. It is still available on their platform. They simply aren't buying exclusive distribution rights to this movie. That isn't censorship anymore than them turning down purchasing a movie I just filmed in my basement is censorship.
  - lazide 6y ago
    The most common issues and concerns around censorship are specifically government mandated or enforced censorship for many reasons, as it helps hide abuses, can explicitly support abusive regimes, and generally doesn't allow 'the people to think for themselves' - enforced by jail time or other traumatic penalties (getting shot, in some places) The underlying issue around using it as a term for things like platforms choosing what they do or do not want to publish, or private companies or actors choosing what they want to publish in their name (and taking the economic consequences for that) - is that a mandate that they CAN'T do that is it's own form of censorship, as it will by it's very nature have to proscribe what is and is not allowed to be said, and will restrict that entities ability to choose their own options.
- kbelder 6y ago
  I think it's like the term 'prejudiced'. There's all sorts of prejudice, and some of it's not illegal, or even bad. But in normal usage, it's understood to be referring to unsavory prejudices against sex, race, etc. Every publisher censors, and it's fine. That's part of their job. Censorship by the government, without or without the backing of law, is abhorrent (and I think that's what the term is normally understood to mean). The muddied part are these huge enterprises that aren't part of the government, and yet whose actions against the public _feel_ like government dictates to the common man. Not decisions made between two people, like a publisher and an author... but a rule enforced by a faceless entity of overwhelming power. I'm torn on the matter. I despise Twitter to the degree that I think negatively of anybody defending their behavior. However, I also don't want the government making laws controlling what Twitter is forced to host on their own servers. Pox on both their houses.

slg 6y ago

It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship" recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing excuse. Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20 for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons. If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime is because the price tag would have been too high to justify purchasing exclusivity.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Who said Censorshsip must be about the government? People do misuse "first amendment violation" but that unlike the concept of censorship, that is a very specific thing. Don't confuse the two.
- slg 6y ago
  Apple TV isn't censoring this movie. It is still available on their platform. They simply aren't buying exclusive distribution rights to this movie. That isn't censorship anymore than them turning down purchasing a movie I just filmed in my basement is censorship.
- lazide 6y ago
  The most common issues and concerns around censorship are specifically government mandated or enforced censorship for many reasons, as it helps hide abuses, can explicitly support abusive regimes, and generally doesn't allow 'the people to think for themselves' - enforced by jail time or other traumatic penalties (getting shot, in some places) The underlying issue around using it as a term for things like platforms choosing what they do or do not want to publish, or private companies or actors choosing what they want to publish in their name (and taking the economic consequences for that) - is that a mandate that they CAN'T do that is it's own form of censorship, as it will by it's very nature have to proscribe what is and is not allowed to be said, and will restrict that entities ability to choose their own options.
kbelder 6y ago
I think it's like the term 'prejudiced'. There's all sorts of prejudice, and some of it's not illegal, or even bad. But in normal usage, it's understood to be referring to unsavory prejudices against sex, race, etc. Every publisher censors, and it's fine. That's part of their job. Censorship by the government, without or without the backing of law, is abhorrent (and I think that's what the term is normally understood to mean). The muddied part are these huge enterprises that aren't part of the government, and yet whose actions against the public _feel_ like government dictates to the common man. Not decisions made between two people, like a publisher and an author... but a rule enforced by a faceless entity of overwhelming power. I'm torn on the matter. I despise Twitter to the degree that I think negatively of anybody defending their behavior. However, I also don't want the government making laws controlling what Twitter is forced to host on their own servers. Pox on both their houses.