5 ms·

Protest song vanishes from Spotify, Apple Music ahead of government ban

94 points by reaperducer 3y ago

mensetmanusman 3y ago
Apple would comply with a Chinese takedown request of American content if the threat was 'do this, or we destroy you.' People don't realize how close this is to actually happening, I'm surprised it's not priced in on Apple stock. Xi is a true believer.
ravenstine 3y ago
This is a reason why I believe piracy and DRM evasion are in fact morally correct by default. Imagine if this took place before streaming and record stores pulled CDs because some foreign nation demanded it. The fact that there are multiple avenues to find a particular song today doesn't change the fact that your culture and way of life are being violated. Save your own local copies of everything that matters to you, share with friends, and remember that none of these corporations or countries care about you; you're an ant in their ant farm.
- LightBug1 3y ago
  100 upvotes. I don't care if I get 100 downvotes for saying so.
pcdoodle 3y ago
Here's a link to the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yRDOLCy4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yRDOLCy4Y
onetokeoverthe 3y ago
[dead]
mock-possum 3y ago
I don’t think there can ever be a legitimate case for banning a piece of media - a video, a body of text, a photo, audio or music - I don’t think that anything like that should ever be banned.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hulitu 3y ago
  Are you from outher space ? /s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media... https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/texas-book-bans/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/texas-book-bans/
  - Dig1t 3y ago
    The Texas "book ban" you posted is not a ban at all. Removing a pornographic book from a school library is not banning it. They are still available at public libraries, book stores, online, and literally anywhere else one obtains books. Here's a picture of inside one of the "banned" books: https://theiowastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/6.jpg https://theiowastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/6.jpg Why do you want this to be shown to children?
    - everforward 3y ago
      "Pornographic" is a big stretch there. It doesn't appear to intend to be arousing, so I have a hard time calling it pornography. The subject matter combined with the art style is a little jarring, but less pornographic than half of Instagram or Tiktok. > Why do you want this to be shown to children? Because our sex ed is terrible to the point of being useless, and this seems better than "sex ed brought to you by PornHub". From the bits of the book I saw (Let's Talk About It, if I'm not mistaken), it actually talks about how to have positive sexual experiences and includes non-cis and non-straight folks. You know, all the stuff that people normally have to figure out (or not) by trial and error over years. It's worth bearing in mind that the average age of virginity loss in the US is 17, so ~ half of the students in a high school would have had sex already. The average age for someone to first see pornography is 11-12 in the US. This book is likely not the first place someone would see a penis or vagina, and I would prefer that children had some reference other than literal porn for what healthy sexual activity is.
yieldcrv 3y ago
any plain reading of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the name of their constitution, shows it was always had a backdoor for Beijing control so I can understand why people then defer to the Sino-British declaration, which has no legal force after the subsequent Basic Law was codified. They defer to it out of desperation because there is no framework for their beliefs but I cant play pretend that the corporations are bowing down arbitrarily, or that Beijing is violating the 50 year agreement enshrined in law, the Basic Law is not a form of sovereignty aside from just acting like one until the last few years, legally it just puts one administrative step in front of Beijing shoehorning any preference it wants into that SAR in accordance with the legal method already proscribed if anything, the blame should always be put squarely on the UK for leaving the residents without any hope but false promises
- pauldenton 3y ago
  This was a continuation of post WW2 humiliation for the former British Empire. It's like Suez all over again

94 points by reaperducer 3y ago

Apple would comply with a Chinese takedown request of American content if the threat was 'do this, or we destroy you.' People don't realize how close this is to actually happening, I'm surprised it's not priced in on Apple stock. Xi is a true believer.

ravenstine 3y ago

This is a reason why I believe piracy and DRM evasion are in fact morally correct by default. Imagine if this took place before streaming and record stores pulled CDs because some foreign nation demanded it. The fact that there are multiple avenues to find a particular song today doesn't change the fact that your culture and way of life are being violated. Save your own local copies of everything that matters to you, share with friends, and remember that none of these corporations or countries care about you; you're an ant in their ant farm.

LightBug1 3y ago
100 upvotes. I don't care if I get 100 downvotes for saying so.

pcdoodle 3y ago

Here's a link to the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yRDOLCy4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yRDOLCy4Y

onetokeoverthe 3y ago

[dead]

mock-possum 3y ago

I don’t think there can ever be a legitimate case for banning a piece of media - a video, a body of text, a photo, audio or music - I don’t think that anything like that should ever be banned.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hulitu 3y ago
Are you from outher space ? /s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media... https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/texas-book-bans/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/texas-book-bans/
- Dig1t 3y ago
  The Texas "book ban" you posted is not a ban at all. Removing a pornographic book from a school library is not banning it. They are still available at public libraries, book stores, online, and literally anywhere else one obtains books. Here's a picture of inside one of the "banned" books: https://theiowastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/6.jpg https://theiowastandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/6.jpg Why do you want this to be shown to children?
  - everforward 3y ago
    "Pornographic" is a big stretch there. It doesn't appear to intend to be arousing, so I have a hard time calling it pornography. The subject matter combined with the art style is a little jarring, but less pornographic than half of Instagram or Tiktok. > Why do you want this to be shown to children? Because our sex ed is terrible to the point of being useless, and this seems better than "sex ed brought to you by PornHub". From the bits of the book I saw (Let's Talk About It, if I'm not mistaken), it actually talks about how to have positive sexual experiences and includes non-cis and non-straight folks. You know, all the stuff that people normally have to figure out (or not) by trial and error over years. It's worth bearing in mind that the average age of virginity loss in the US is 17, so ~ half of the students in a high school would have had sex already. The average age for someone to first see pornography is 11-12 in the US. This book is likely not the first place someone would see a penis or vagina, and I would prefer that children had some reference other than literal porn for what healthy sexual activity is.

yieldcrv 3y ago

any plain reading of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the name of their constitution, shows it was always had a backdoor for Beijing control so I can understand why people then defer to the Sino-British declaration, which has no legal force after the subsequent Basic Law was codified. They defer to it out of desperation because there is no framework for their beliefs but I cant play pretend that the corporations are bowing down arbitrarily, or that Beijing is violating the 50 year agreement enshrined in law, the Basic Law is not a form of sovereignty aside from just acting like one until the last few years, legally it just puts one administrative step in front of Beijing shoehorning any preference it wants into that SAR in accordance with the legal method already proscribed if anything, the blame should always be put squarely on the UK for leaving the residents without any hope but false promises

pauldenton 3y ago
This was a continuation of post WW2 humiliation for the former British Empire. It's like Suez all over again