You Can't Say That On the Internet 432
hessian writes in with a story about the arbitrary and often outdated online decency standards being imposed by companies."A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A. But its hyper-tolerant facade often masks deeply conservative, outdated norms that digital culture discreetly imposes on billions of technology users worldwide. What is the vehicle for this new prudishness? Dour, one-dimensional algorithms, the mathematical constructs that automatically determine the limits of what is culturally acceptable. Consider just a few recent kerfuffles. In early September, The New Yorker found its Facebook page blocked for violating the site’s nudity and sex standards. Its offense: a cartoon of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Eve’s bared nipples failed Facebook’s decency test."
Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Insightful)
Must.
Not.
Offend.
Anyone.
(unless the target is white males)
Re: (Score:2)
Must.
Not.
Offend.
Anyone.
(unless the target is white males)
You mad!
more like a bad article (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm disappointed with the article headline: acting like you can't say something?
Chick Fil-gay can and absolutely did say what they said. Freedom of speech is still alive and well, even if people don't like it (add NYT to that list for willingly censoring at the behest of the government). They simply deserved what they got in response as the market correctly responded. It's one thing to be against rights (which is repulsive to many, but still free speech), but it's another entirely to do what Apple does and willingly censor.
Why do people start with bullshit headlines when the article is also crap?
Re: (Score:3)
If it's a web site like Facebook, the rule is "must not offend people who earn us revenue".
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Christian, I forgive your hatefulness. That's what we do.
My speech isn't free. I charge for it. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is OK to mock Christians, and anyone else who believes in things they cannot prove.
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Gödel's First Incompleteness theorem [wikipedia.org] proved that there exist true statements that may never be proven. So that suggests a question: Do you disbelieve true things, or is it OK to mock you?
~Loyal
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Insightful)
Christianity does not politicise.
What US conservatives describe as "Christian" often does not fit in with anyones reading of the Bible outside your country.
I recently came across someone stating that he could not support universal health care because he was a Christian. I told him that my being a Christian was a major deciding factor in my working for the NHS in the UK. Stopping people being looked after when they need it is what most Christians in the UK would define as a bad thing.
As a Christian, I also support the universal availability of contraception, social security and welfare. Perhaps this may have confused some people on your side of the pond but your Christians seem to be different from other ones. I am a white male Christian- just not a conservative one. I am also hard to offend (please do not take that a a challenge!)
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Insightful)
Very fitting sig, sir. Tea party? "Render unto Ceasar". Universal health care? Christ did it for free. Welfare? Conservatives hate poor people, "blessed are the poor". Abortion? "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself". Homosexuality? Why do right wingers think gays' sins are any worse than their own? Jesus was not only a liberal, he was executed for his liberalism by the conservative clergy!
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys just need to find a better church. I was going to one about ten years ago, when the preacher prayed for President Bush to have continued wisdom, that was the last time I attended that church, it's like praying for the ocean to have continued dryness.
A good clue is, does the preacher wear a tie? If so BAD CHURCH. The tie is Satan's leash, symbol of wealth and power, things Christ was decidedly against. I've noticed that the tie-wearing preachers don't preach what Christ taught.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Explain.
All you have to do to offend a Christian is question his God.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
At least he won't cut your throat.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Insightful)
At least he won't cut your throat.
And the government won't either. It's a struggle keeping church and state separate, but worth it. For the most part the west has gotten rid of ridiculous blasphemy laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Good pivot there.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Interesting)
No, but they might bomb you if you offend them by being in a nightclub for people with the wrong sexual orientation [religioustolerance.org].
You may also offend them by being poor, in which case they might just steal your recently born baby [bbc.co.uk].
Of course, these are exceptions. But so is your accusation.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I have no doubts that there is much more violence begin carried on today in the name of Islam than any other religion, possibly combined. I just don't like whitewashing.
And there is nothing tenuous about what the Catholic Church did during Franco. They were Catholic priests and nuns - not just the average believer - stealing thousands of babies from their mothers for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually...
Catholic == Christian
&&
Christian != Catholic
Much like:
square == rectangle
&&
rectangle != square
-nb
Re: (Score:3)
One nut job vs. a few million nut jobs.
You know as well as I do that the murder of Dr. George Tiller is, by far, not the only example of Christian extremists taking the lives of others.
Of course, you don't care, since every rebuttal I offer will result in you once again moving the goalposts, as you've done here. Ironically, such behavior is often indicative of the very extremist attitude you're trying oh-so hard to convince us that Muslims exhibit en masse.
Before you try and deny goalpost relocation, allow me to summarize the conversation
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Informative)
You can make all the outrageous claims you want, but without any source citation you're just blowin' in the wind.
When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention. So far you have offered nothing that can't be explained by a random nut jobs.
I know it will do no good as you'll just move the goalposts again, but I'll humor you anyway:
There was the firebombing of a theater in response to a movie Christians didn't like [wikipedia.org]
Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivick were both identified as Christian terrorists. [flaglerlive.com]
The IRA was well known for it's acts of Christian terrorism. [wikipedia.org]
Of course, those are but a few examples of many, up-to-and-including the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects), the KKK's influence in southern America, or any of innumerable examples about the world [wikipedia.org]
Of course, as your original premise was to imply that any and every Muslim would cut a person's throat for offending (in spite of the fact you can't seem to muster even a single source to back your outrageously bigoted claim), but that not a single Christian would, my earlier example of a "random nutjob" suffices to disprove your hypothesis, your lack of agreement notwithstanding.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
When you can offer an example of 3000 instances (to start with) then people might pay attention.
Where are your links to major Christian clerics advocating murder? Where are your links to entire Christian (if you can find any) nations being dedicated to the destruction on non Muslim nations?
Man, can I call 'em, or what?
And the Crusades? Please. Even if you wanted to say that something that happened in the 12th Century is relevant, those were regional power struggles under the guise of religion.
A) Malarkey, you just don't want to admit to being wrong.
B) I take it, then, you didn't even bother to visit the Wikipedia link I provided in that same paragraph, that details many instances of Christian terrorism dating no further back than 60 years? Oh, right - doing so might have shown you facts that counter your pre-conceived notions, I should have known better than to try and taint your worldview with reality.
You want Evidence?
Yes. Preferably, reputable sources such as university studies, but I'll take a random news clip or two provided they aren't supplied by blatantly biased propaganda machines thinly disguised as "journalists," ala InfoWars or FOX news.
Hell, quote FOX if you want, it's a better source than the none whatsoever you've presented so far.
I encourage you to test it as I mentioned previously. Let us know how it turns out.
Sorry, but I'm not one to stir a hornets nest just to see if I get stung. I'm also not so much of a bigoted asshole as to subsequently refer to all hornets as lunatic extremists as a result.
You're welcome to your opinion, bigoted though it may be. What you are not entitled to is your own facts. I have laid out plenty, backed with source citation, whereas all you have offered thus far is vitriol, bigotry, and a complete absence of anything so much as resembling fact. While that may play out well for you at the Wonderland that is the RNC, here it only serves to prove how little you know about the topic at hand.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait a few hours, then read the comments to see just how easy it is to offend a christian.
Re: (Score:3)
You ever tried to offend a christian?
Trust me; you must not offend a christian. It's worse than offending a muslim.
If that is your experience, then the offended person probably wasn't a Christian but only called himself or herself one. (Of course you need to consider that the Christian principle of "love your neighbour as you love yourself" may include teaching your neighbour that offending others may have consequences. But that is the limit of it. )
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one? Remember that the Crusaders, the Inquisition and Fred Phelps call themselves Christian. I am not concerned about the inward doctrine - many intolerant people claim the legal protection and public recognition of being Christian.
I an an atheist, but I honour the teachings of the Gospels (but not the rest of the Bible) as admirable and compassionate. But, in my opinion, nearly all southern republican politicians who claim to be Christian are in deep breach of that loving doctrine. I cannot recognise the teachings of Jesus in anyone, for example, who supports the death penalty. Nor in those who support lifetime benefit caps. But if I insult them, they will wrap their claimed Christianity around them and spit venom at me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because you are intimately familiar with almost all southern Republican politicians.
How's the weather up there on your High Horse?
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?
There is 100% sign: Anyone who calims to know God's will is more subject to hybris than to christian teachings. Christians should take responsibility for their actions and not blame them on "God's will".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or do you have a different definition for 'Christian'?
Yes. (Well, perhaps not 'different,' but you're missing a key piece.)
A Christian is more than 'one who follows the teachings of Christ.' Lots of non-Christians do that. A Christian also believes the Apostle's Creed.
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was cr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, then the offended person is no true Christian. Maybe a Scotsman?
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I agree with your parent; I've met prickly people of almost every faith and creed who can become unreasonable at the least provocation. That said, your reply is a pretty poor counter. Such a "No True Scotsman" argument can be applied to almost anything: "No true Muslim would be so offended, after all Islam means "peace"", "No true liberal would be so offended, we're all about inclusiveness of ideas", "No true conservative would be so offended, we always argue from a position of logic", No true Buddhist..." etc.
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is only one line from one Testament, from one half of the book. There's plenty of arguments in Christian scripture for being an asshole too, and lots of Christians use those to justify the very behavior you say they shouldn't engage in. There are lots of Christians in the world. There are lots of prickly easily offended people in the world. The intersection of those two sets is also quite large.
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Funny)
git commit -am 'New feature: love thy neighbor. This should permanently fix WorldView.pl bug where eye_for_an_eye function was causing deadlock.'
Re: (Score:3)
Which is fine if you concentrate on the parts of the New Testament that focus on Jesus himself (or at least mostly so, every so often Jesus gets all "I am the Son of God, cower before me!", but I tend to think those might have been later edits), but honestly that's less than half of the New Testament. Once Paul, to a lesser extent Peter, and to great extent John of the Apocalypse, get their say things get a lot murkier. One could certainly argue that since Christianity is about Christ, we should ignore the
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Insightful)
It's your white male privilege to withstand being offended by anything.
ANYONE can learn to withstand being offended by anything. Why, after a time you get so good at it that the offended types look like a bunch of pathetic whiners who only cry about what somebody else said (that they didn't have to listen to) because they've never once faced a real problem.
By the way, who decides this shit? You can show almost all the breast, or lots of cleavage, but not the nipple, and that's okay. If you show the nipple but not most of the breast then that's indecent. But we see male nipples all the time seeing how they have no breasts and go shirtless if they want. Guess nipples aren't a problem there. Maybe being unable to nurse an infant is what makes them non-obscene? I'm confused.
Can the prudes at least learn a little consistency?
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, who decides this shit?
Can the prudes at least learn a little consistency?
Oh that's simply. Facebook decides what is acceptable on facebook, twitter decides what is acceptable on twitter. You neither have to agree with nor use their service. And as you're free to run your own website, this isn't even censorship. The internet is much bigger as facebook, you know?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Interesting)
Decency standards be damned, this is 100% legal to air.
Reminds me of this Xbox 360 ad [youtube.com] that was also barred from airing.
Considering that the advert is far, far more tame than typical prime-time programming, it's beyond logic why the ad would be banned...
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in the UK and for what it's worth I'm a transsexual currently growing her own boobs, (not bad, a bit more than a B cup at the moment :-) )
The situation is interesting though, if I'm in male mode and strip my top off from there in a situation where male bare-chestedness is appropriate (say a normal beach) then that is OK as far as the cops are concerned.
But it's not OK if I strip off from a Skirt and Bra.
I actually find this quite an enlightened attitude. In the rare case that I'm presenting as male I'm treated as one
When I'm presenting as female then I'm treated as one
Which is how it should be. I do find this whole thing about nipples (in the USA ) a bit ridiculous, and to be honest a bit childish, it smacks a bit of giggling in the playground
It is however an insidious way of introducing censorship.
In the UK we treat sexuality ( and nipples ) a bit more seriously, strangely thanks to the murdoch press and the Sun (a low brow, very popular newspaper ) girls on page 3
But we fall down considerably on freedom of speech at the moment ( witness the guy being arrested for a burning poppy on his FB page along with calling squaddies c*nts, as if they would care )
Re:Sounds like a campus speech code (Score:4, Informative)
first point :
Both sexes have 'boobs' Its just that natal females have more developed breast tissue, all oestrogen does is to cause that tissue to develop ( to simplify )
FYI lactation and breastfeeding is even possible in men look (up the Aka tribe)
The second is just an opinion, which I feel free to ignore. although I have to admit to a slight agreement with you on 'fatass's ' but it's my body so I'll do what the f*ck I want with it :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Both sexes have 'breasts' but only women have 'boobs', 'tits' or 'funbags'.
A man can only have 'moobs'.
Re: (Score:3)
filters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:filters (Score:5, Funny)
How about technical terms! (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps if we could set our own content filters this would solve the problem? I'm uncomfortable with others deciding whose nipples I can and can't see.
I can't tell you how many times I have tried to post something only to have it marked "[Censored]"
Words like: "orifice", "petcock", and other words that are used everyday in polite company.
I don't know what software these websites are using (ericthecarguy.com, finehomebuilding.com) but their forums block the most innocuous shit. And it's not like automechanics and construction workers are known for their delicate sensibilities!
And if anyone is offended buy words like that, they really need to get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is not "online culture" (Score:5, Interesting)
Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A
Eve’s bared nipples failed Facebook’s decency test
LOL facebook is for middle aged women to check every 15 seconds for new pixs of their friends kids or pix of their "fur babies" aka over pampered dogs, and teenage girls to sling insults at each other and compete about friend counts. Guys mostly post "blackmail pixs" for fun of their buddies throwing up, getting high, or getting it on with a landwhale.
"tits or GTFO" is not going to work on FB. Its middle aged woman / teen girl culture not online or whatever.
Now if you posted a nice rack on a "internet culture" area like 4chan or maybe a link here on /., that would more or less work.
Re:Facebook is not "online culture" (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, it's not just that. Me and my friends use FB for organizing social events - parties, performances, etc. The fire performance troupe I'm involved with does most of our organizing on Facebook too - we have jobs, and kids, and school, and live all over the area, so having quick discussions there makes life much easier.
Look, I go to Burning Man. I've seen more people naked than anyone short of a doctor or a nudist tour guide, and I have to say the ban on nudity on Facebook is a good thing. There are creepers out there who post pictures of people having a nude stroll. Without the subject's consent.
Being able to complain about it means that they get taken down.
Facebook is for real life, and some people (myself included) like having an area where there isn't soft-core porn all over the place. See, if I had to deal with that, I'd return fire with some of the better pictures from /r/gaybears - not everyone is into the same thing, and you get rather tired of being shown something you're NOT IN TO.
If you don't like it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
go use some other internets! Oh wait, you mean to say it's not the internets that is being censored? It's actually company or privately-owned websites that are accessed using the internet? And these companies and people who own these sites are able to set the bar for what is allowed on their site? There are many wonderfully open sites out there that will gladly let you post whatever you want despite you not being owed anything by them. Why is this a problem? And kerfuffle? Seriously?
Because everyone knows that there are no alternatives to Facebook .... at least where your 1010 friends can discuss "Big Brother" and "Pop Idol" (but not "Big Brothel" and "Pop your blow-up doll")
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only ten friends? How sad :(
Wait, you have friends?!? Good for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are these companies censoring their sites? Because they don't want to offend their customers. But I find censorship offensive, and I might want to be their customer. If they care about avoiding offense to their customers, shouldn't I at least let them know?
Yes, they're well within their rights to censor anything they want on their websites. That doesn't mean it makes sense for them to do so, and it doesn't mean we can't complain about it.
Re: (Score:3)
especially since more and more public spaces are actually commercial ventures.
And THAT'S the root problem.
If moderators wouldn't have the possibility to enforce some board rules by deleting off-topic or banning trolls, every single forum would become 4chan. And whoever sets up a board gets to choose the topic, the netiquette and how strict it is enforced. It's a simple trade-off between not-censoring but still keeping signal-to-noise ratio high.
That's perfectly fine and it won't be a problem as there are _real_ public spaces where the rules allow for open discussion and are not the r
Re:If you don't like it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy isn't saying that these companies are violating the law, or that they should be somehow forced to change their algorithms. He's simply pointing out the hypocrisy of their advocating for free access to information while simultaneously directly and indirectly censoring the content they present. Whether the hypocrisy is a problem or not probably depends on who your are, what your goals are, and what level of censorship the company is presenting you with. Google for instance doesn't censor its results (except in rare cases where it's required to by law), but does censor indirectly through blocking certain search terms in auto-complete. Arguably that's a pretty mild and indirect form of censorship (you can after all simply type the your search terms out completely), and it may not bother many people. Facebook is more explicit in its censorship, but also arguably has a greater legal compliance requirement.
It's a discussion that's worth having, even if the most we can do about it is avoid or support companies that either support or reject our own opinions on the matter. It's certainly not as important a subject as some others, but it's not trivial either. It's worth looking at.
But it does get counterproductively silly (Score:3)
(Although, if you spell it "aftèr" you can get through t
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
That's because digital wang comes along free with most searches. It is like the parsley of Internet search results.
Who orders parsley?
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
That's because digital wang comes along free with most searches. It is like the parsley of Internet search results.
Who orders parsley?
For more conjectures on the Parsley/Wang metaphor please ask Parsley Wang [facebook.com].
don't really or she'll be justifiably pissed at Slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google knows the bad PR that would come with a kid looking up information on penicillin being presented with penis as a possibility. Of course, it wouldn't offend the kid (who would probably see it as reasonable), it would offend their PTA office-holding parents (who would probably just see dollar signs).
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
You can show any type of violence. You can't show any kind of nudity. And it's not the "digital culture" in general that imposes anything. It's the religious fundamentalists of the USA who are responsible. I think the world would be a better place if we allowed children to watch porn and didn't allow them to watch violence.
Captcha: morale
Re:Simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Logged in to say this. The 'moral majority' (which is neither) has decided that they know what's best for the rest of us. They terrorize politicians into implementing 'decency' rules that reinforce this belief. They pay hordes of lawyers to sue media companies that don't toe their line.
They're a bunch of fundamentally insecure white males (and their chattel) that are so terrified of the concept of female sexuality that they move to oppress any expression of it outside of... well, actually, any expression of it at all.
Fundamentalist Evangelical "Christians" are a plague on the United States. Hopefully the drubbing their meat puppets took in the last election will disarm them a bit; if the politicians know they can no longer win elections just by pandering to the fundies, they'll stop doing it.
Eve's bared nipples (Score:2, Funny)
Here's all I wanted to see: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/cartoonists/stevens-cartoon%201.jpg
Re: (Score:2)
... *facepalm*
You think this is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, Francis Ford Copolla's Apocalypse Now!
What about sexualised imagery (not just the videos; Some of the lyrics are plainly obscene) in pop music, when showing just a boob gets a show an adult cert in the US. Not a problem seeing real boobs at the beach, though!
Re:You think this is new? (Score:4)
"If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG." Jack Nicholson
What's particularly disturbing is that the prudism is getting worse over time. A good example is the original Andromeda Strain. It has a G rating on it, but features (briefly) a naked woman in it. Were it to come out today, it would get an instant R rating for that scene alone.
Re: (Score:2)
The rating system was wildly different when the first Andromeda Strain was released. The film was released to theaters in 1971, but I'd be willing to bet that the MPAA applied its 'G' rating the year before in 1970 when the only choices were G(eneral audiences), M(ature audiences), R(estricted), X. And the nudity in Andromeda Strain is fleeting and utterly non-sexual, even today it wouldn't force the movie out a PG rating. At absolute worst Andromeda Strain would land a PG13 rating today (a rating that s
Re: (Score:3)
What's particularly disturbing is that the prudism is getting worse over time. A good example is the original Andromeda Strain. It has a G rating on it, but features (briefly) a naked woman in it. Were it to come out today, it would get an instant R rating for that scene alone.
Or Walt Disney's G-Rated Fantasia:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/night-on-bald-mountain?before=1337222899 [tumblr.com] (the furies in Night on Bald Mountain were bare-chested, as were the centaurettes in the opening of the Pastoral Symphony).
Re: (Score:3)
I have a problem with claiming that the Colonists were Christians, mostly because of the whole Pilgrims mythology that ignores the more profit-oriented attitudes in Virginia and the other plantation colonies. Most of those coming to the Americas were more interested in making a pile of cash, not in the vaunted religious freedoms. I would have to go do some research again, but IIRC this elevation of the New England colonists over the Virginians came with the US Civil War, bringing with it the reinvention of
Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when? (Score:5, Informative)
A bastion of openness and counterculture, Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A.
When has Chick-fil-A ever called for censorship? Last I checked, progressives were abusing government power [washingtonpost.com] to silence Chick-fil-A, not the other way around.
Re:Chick-fil-A is pro-censorship? Since when? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go tell that to 4chan. (Score:2)
Go ahead. I'll wait right here.
Related webcomics [duelinganalogs.com]
The "un-Chick-fil-A" (Score:5, Funny)
But no, really - I see what's going on here. "We're tolerant of everything - unless it's something we don't find culturally acceptable." Yep, that passes liberal scrutiny.
We the People killed free speech. (Score:5, Insightful)
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.
Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.
This blurred the line between important speech and everyday raging around with emotions through words.
Now, we the people see all speech as a matter of flavor. Don't harsh my buzz with your unkind words, man.
As a result, the free markets are responding and are removing words that generate expensive customer complaints.
They're removing them whether there's validity to them or not.
Good work, We the People.
Re: (Score:2)
The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.
Actually, it seems like the basic goal of the anti-Federalist faction (led by Thomas Jefferson, although James Madison was also involved) was to prevent a government from attempting to control thought. Of any kind. That's why freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly go together: The idea is that a free person should be able to think what they will, believe what they will, and spread their ideas around by written word or speaking privately and publicly.
Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.
Who gets to decide what kind of statement qualif
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We the People killed free speech. (Score:4, Informative)
Also 'we the people' was a public letter to a king.
Wrong document: The Declaration of Independence was the entire Continental Congress flipping off George III (which should be pointed out, came over a year after the fighting started). The Constitution (which starts of "We the People") was written 11 years later for the benefit of the then-bickering states.
Interesting cultural bias issue (Score:5, Insightful)
In parts of the Middle East, a woman showing her hair is considered harlotry, while in parts of Polynesia a woman going topless is not. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa, women going topless is ok, but showing her thighs is obscene. If you're operating globally, who's cultural norms do you use for censorship? Because about the only pictures of women that are universally acceptable would have everyone in burqas.
It gets even more complicated than that: Do you allow Eve topless, but not the Virgin Mary? Do you allow Venus de Milo or Michaelangelo's David, but not modern nude art? If you allow nude sculptures or paintings, do you censor nude photographs? If you allow nude photographs, what's the line between works of art and porn?
Re:Interesting cultural bias issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I find burqas obscene.
Re: (Score:3)
I was already going to respond by pointing out that there are plenty of racist cunts out there who'd bitch about burqa's; thanks for providing a well placed example. For the sake of avoiding indignant responses, I appreciate that some people object to burqa's on idealogical grounds to do with oppression of women and not because of it's link to Islam.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, somebody says they find burqas obscene, and you acknowledge that oppression to women may be a valid reason, but then you immediately assume its racism. The problem is with you, not the parent post.
I find burqas dehumanizing and repulsive. The human face is one of the fundamental instruments of society, allowing both expression and identification.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone here seems to think this is a bad thing. I disagree. Facebook et. al. are just applying what the majority THINK is their moral code, strictly. Most parents don't want pictures of boobies posted where their children can see them. Fine - no pictures of topless women, drawings of Adam and Eve, or the Venus de Milo ( Aphrodite de Milos). Oh wait, that's not what you meant?
The summary says the policies are arbitrary. They're not. Just the opposite. And it exposes the ridiculousness of our double
Re: (Score:2)
Not algorithmic (Score:5, Insightful)
That bared nipple in a cartoon thing? Not an algorithm (at least not one implemented on a computer) -- that was censored by a plain ol' minimum-wage human.
"Water" and "I don't know" (Score:4, Funny)
Those are the things you can't say. Not without getting soaked, anyway.
Cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Many more people will complain about offences to their Victorian sensibilities than will complain about removing cartoon nipples. So, these policies keep their administrative costs lower. If you want this to change, attack their cost assumptions. Complain about their intolerance. I'm not typically one to advocate for being a complainer, but if these companies are putting in systems based on complainers, then those are the rules as constructed. Worst case: the rules about complainers are decommissioned.
The main problem with that strategy is that tolerant people tend to not be complainers. You won't find a Million Moms against Intolerance marching on the Capitol. But as the saying goes, "only be intolerant of intolerance."
The other approach is to accept that these services will reflect the Xth percentile opinion and the only way to change that is to change the X position in society. I can't see kids raised on today's Internet being particularly offended by cartoon nipples when they're in their 50's.
My hope is that we can move to a society where posting a war photo of a blown up baby isn't more socially acceptable than posting a picture a baby being born.
The world doesn't revolve around the geek. (Score:5, Insightful)
Silicon Valley imagines itself as the un-Chick-fil-A. But its hyper-tolerant facade often masks deeply conservative, outdated norms that digital culture discreetly imposes on billions of technology users worldwide.
Silicon Valley is tech. It enables. But it is not in control. There is no such thing as a unified "digital culture."
Online communities --- like any other --- form around people who share the same interests and values. The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.
Re: (Score:3)
The geek is not always going to like what he finds out there.
In related news, the city of San Francisco, a mere 40 miles from Silicon Valley, is considering a ban on public nudity [ap.org] in reaction to the infamous (minimally pixilated, but still may be NSFW) San Francisco naked protests [pjmedia.com].
San Francisco's Congressional representative, Nancy Pelosi [house.gov], has made no comment.
Yes We Can (Score:2)
That
There I just did.
un Chick-fil-A? (Score:3, Insightful)
The un- Chick-fil-A?? Who did that company try to silence? No one at all.
"Digital Culture" has nothing to do with it... (Score:2)
The example in TFS is stupid. In what sense is technology or Silicon Valley responsible for the way in which information or opinion is suppressed?
Individual companies set their own content standards, tune their own algorithms and make their own bad decisions. There's no digital conspiracy here.
TFA complains about Google's selective autocomplete. What's the big deal? It doesn't actually stop you from searching for terms that will potentially turn up material that some people might find offensive. It simply m
wtf is ... (Score:2)
wtf is un-Chick-fil-A some American cultural assumption and why is it so un-American?
Silicon Vally is not problem ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The New York Times got caught in the same filter that catches everyone else while posting in corporate forum. Their problem is that, for some misguided reason, they, being the NYT, believe that they have some sort of free speech rights in a private space. Facebook is not a public space - it's corporate-owned and controlled. It's private space, open to some members of the public to post in, but with whatever restrictions FB feels like applying.
"Algorithms" my pixelated ass (Score:5, Interesting)
"Dour, one-dimensional algorithms" didn't decide cartoon nipples are taboo in Texarkana. People did.
Don't like it? Start making as much noise when something is censored as the prudes do when they see a bare boob on the boob tube.
Censorship's only a problem when (Score:5, Insightful)
...it happens to a New York media person, instead of by them like God intended.
The author has three examples for his "censorship" arguement: Facebook blocking a page containing cartoon nipples (but it was the New Yorker's page, so that's bad!), Apple asterixing out some letters in the name of a book, and various autocorrects not helpfullying filling out dirty words for you. That's it.
The first two are pretty damn obvious. iTunes and Facebook operate walled gardens. Monolithic control of the content, whether you like it or not, is exactly the problem with such systems. The only thing annoying about this is that Evgeny and his buddies at the Times saw no problem with this until it inconvienenced other New York media types like themselves. The obivious solution here, which I and a good portion of the rest of us here on Slashdot implement, it don't use them.
The third is just plain sillyness. Of course you don't want autocompletion software to fill out explitives for you. You have to look at how things fail here. Autocomplete is a prediction, but it isn't perfect, and the last thing you want is the damn thing changing innocuous words to one of the Carlin 7 when you are texting your family or employer. Duh.
If I want a "bad" word, I'll go through the effort to manually spell it. It's typically only 4 letters anyway. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
nipples should be allowed on the grounds that their images are teaching materials in interface design learning.
"The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned"
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like the world took a wrong turn somewhere: Showing violent acts, blood, gore, murder and suffering is totally acceptable (movies, tabloids etc.), but if half a butt, boob or nipple is visible, it's deemed unmoral, wrong, destructive, offensive and so on...
I'd rather have my children gaze upon some exposed skin, or two (or more) people in a loving embrace/sexual situation, rather than a orgy of dismembered bodies, blood and gore.
It's an upside-down world we live in, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Who then applies their local norms.