Articles like this make me angry. Suddenly its a big deal because Saudi Arabia was thrust into the news for the Khashoggi murder. It has always been a cultural norm for certain kinds of censorship to occur regularly and the subjects of censorship differ by nation.
I am an American who is currently living in Kuwait and spent about 3.5 years between Kuwait and Afghanistan.
In Kuwait you do not talk negatively about religion. This actually against the law and is largely how Kuwait avoids religious strife that infects other regions. In many nations here you don't talk negatively in public about the current national politics, though the acceptable tone differs by nation. In nearly all the nations here sex does not belong in any form of media. All matters of sex are private and to be kept within the household. Cursing in public is also generally bad. The allowed dress of people in media differs by nation as well.
In many areas they play American movies in public theaters, but will edit out parts that violate the local cultural norms. Remember that Sex In The City 2 was filmed in UAE, but I don't believe it was available in the cinema there.
None of this is new. The cultural challenge that nations face here is how to become modern without losing their unique identify and cultural legacies. The different countries are evolving on this matter at different speeds and prefer to accommodate for various different demands local.
The NYT picks and chooses its targets to further what it thinks is correct cause. I won't wait for them to condemn Venezuelan Censorship or the regime with the same vigor.
>Suddenly its a big deal because Saudi Arabia was thrust into the news for the Khashoggi murder.
Which was only in the news because he was a journalist. Journalists care when other journalists get wronged. If it was you or I that got sawed up it might have been a footnote on some columnist's hobby blog.
Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands. You cannot have both. Just as a private citizen cannot just waltz into one of these countries and do as they please "because I can do this at home" why should we expect a private company to do as such?
Simply put, if our government will not why do we feel we should hold private companies to a higher standard?
> Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands.
Except Netflix isn't "trading with Saudi Arabia". Netflix is trying to sell subscriptions to Saudi individuals, and it is the Saudi government that is trying to enforce censorship. 2 completely distinct groups.
why can’t we have both? why can’t we use our companies to spread proper values? isn’t this the same backlash of google going into china? would netflix also help MBS chop up journalists or oppress women?
I thought the whole rationale of the de-platforming movement was that free speech doesn't apply to private companies and institutions, they are free to host whatever content they want and have whatever political bias they want. If that is the case why shouldn't it apply to Netflix too?
You’re missing the difference between public and private actions. If Netflix decides not to carry a particular film, that’s entirely up to them and their customers and competitors are free to make other decisions. If the government requires something, as in this case, that’s the kind of thing free speech advocates worry about because it has the full weight of the state behind it.
How does it not apply to Netflix? Just because they have the right to censor stuff, doesn't mean that you have to agree with any particular instance of their censorship, does it?
Netflix is GDPR compliant although that almost definitely violates the first amendment. To operate in foreign countries you have to abide by their rules.
I'm much more concerned by Twitter, Facebook, Patreon, et al censoring Americans.
EU is 500M people Saudi Arabia is 40M
Also, GDPR doesn’t ‘almost definitely violates the first amendment’, GDPR wasn’t passed by Congress. A GDPR-like rule might violate the first amendment if you allow a really extensive definition of speech, and even in such a setting there would be a lot of room to argue.
Only if the NYTimes cared as much about the "cost to free speech" in the US. The NYTimes, along with other large media companies, have been the biggest advocates of tech censorship of americans. They forced google, facebook, twitter, etc to censor ordinary americans. Makes it hard for me to take them seriously when it comes to censorship.
And I fully understand the argument of government vs private company. But the outcome is still the same - censorship. Whether content is censored at the behest of the saudis or the nytimes is meaningless to me. It's the spirit of free speech rather than the law.
Saudi Arabia has been censoring for decades. And the NYTimes has been more or less fine with that. Why the sudden change? Because the saudis are supporting Trump and vice versa? In 2008, when obama won, the nytimes and much of the media was hailing social media as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Since 2016, a complete shift. I wonder why?
The biggest disappoint for me is the realization that the NYTimes, just like foxnews and the rest of the major news companies, are politically driven rather than driven by morality or truth. If the saudis had been relentlessly mocking Trump rather than supporting him, I suspect the NYTimes article would be defending the saudis - along the lines of "when in rome..." or more likely, they wouldn't have bother writing anything. Supporting the regime and censorship by omission.
Also, I've noticed a significant drop in zuckerburg or facebook hitpieces by the media ever since his new year's message where he promised to get in line and censor like other major tech companies. I guess that means less anti-facebook spam, but more censorship online.
Huh. I thought because Netflix is a private company what they do isnt censorship. So Google, Facebook, Twitter can moderate content as they see fit, be it to please a market or local sensibilities. I’m happy to see thr NYT see content moderation as a curb on speech though.
As others said, if you’re okay with abiding by GDPR, then you’re okay with abiding by laws and regulations of other locales like China, Russia and Saudi.
Well, it against the (Saudi) law, so Netflix can't show it in Saudi Arabia. I hope they draw a line in the sand when it comes to other countries, i.e., remove the episode worldwide, but I think for individual countries the battle is lost.
Even Germany has laws curtailing what we, in USA call "Free speech" (for obvious reasons they are sensitive about Nazi propaganda.) In USA you can say virtually all things, but you'll lose your job or sponsors, er...your paycheck. So censorship is done by private entities.
As a German I want to write exactly this. By all means we are a country with good laws and everything. But we have restrictions on free speech. For very good reasons. We are proud of this and see it as something positive (when you ignore the 1% who are actually restricted).
Netflix and other global companies have these kind of challenges. They are pretty used to it (imagine food
or drug regulations). There is just a group of media/digital companies who grew their business niche too fast and are now surprised that local laws and regulations show up. The GDPR, free speech limitations, different social systems, SJW incompatibilities, etc are just samples of all of this.
And I want to highlight, that I do neither like consequences like this. I like my movies uncut, healthy discussion (eg about the monarchy) and equal right for minorities.
It is real easy. When they want to limit your product with censorship and other evil things, do not do business there. Perhaps they will come around when their people starts screaming for these kind of services.
If all companies just adhere to their rules, well the population will probably never require the change that they should because it will be good enough so the dangerous path of complaining is not worth it.
Whatever "true diversity" is it's not worth having unless _people_ can choose their own values to some extent, IMO.
Fascist cultures should not be tolerated, fascist people should (inasmuch as their fascism does not impact others against those other's own wills, of course).
Demanding SA allow freedom for individuals to exercise their own conscience would be supporting a morally defensible notion of diversity.
One major problem is that some religions (eg Islam) and religious groups (eg Mormons) have central ideologies that are antithetical to freedom of conscience; making them incompatible with many freedoms associated with democratic societies (speech, thought, association).
That's just another way of saying "you should tolerate intolerance", and the fallacy is the same.
Saudi Arabia and China are not cultural monoliths. Their ruling classes may have a cultural value of stamping out dissenting values, but their subcultures so targeted would certainly disagree.
I don't understand this article. If Saudi Arabia does not have free speech how is Netflix suppose to up hold it there? Also Free Speech is a right/protection from the government it doesn't have anything to do with private companies like Netflix. Finally the author acts like free speech is universal, "As America’s new media overlords grow at a stunning rate, expanding into every nook and cranny of the globe where governments will let them in, are they compelled to defend universal values like free speech that their home country was founded on?" The majority of countries don't have free speech like the United States does, so I wouldn't call it a universal value.
Freedom of speech is a concept, in USA there is a specific protection to prevent government from inhibiting free speech in certain ways. That doesn't mean that non-government persons are unable to inhibit free speech.
It's curious that USA's media corporations' [gamut of] values do get promoted through their productions. In more open societies they're just presented as is.
[+] [-] austincheney|7 years ago|reply
I am an American who is currently living in Kuwait and spent about 3.5 years between Kuwait and Afghanistan.
In Kuwait you do not talk negatively about religion. This actually against the law and is largely how Kuwait avoids religious strife that infects other regions. In many nations here you don't talk negatively in public about the current national politics, though the acceptable tone differs by nation. In nearly all the nations here sex does not belong in any form of media. All matters of sex are private and to be kept within the household. Cursing in public is also generally bad. The allowed dress of people in media differs by nation as well.
In many areas they play American movies in public theaters, but will edit out parts that violate the local cultural norms. Remember that Sex In The City 2 was filmed in UAE, but I don't believe it was available in the cinema there.
None of this is new. The cultural challenge that nations face here is how to become modern without losing their unique identify and cultural legacies. The different countries are evolving on this matter at different speeds and prefer to accommodate for various different demands local.
[+] [-] mc32|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bfhp|7 years ago|reply
That's really interesting, can you provide a source on this causal relationship?
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
Which was only in the news because he was a journalist. Journalists care when other journalists get wronged. If it was you or I that got sawed up it might have been a footnote on some columnist's hobby blog.
[+] [-] Shivetya|7 years ago|reply
Simply put, if our government will not why do we feel we should hold private companies to a higher standard?
[+] [-] jstanley|7 years ago|reply
Except Netflix isn't "trading with Saudi Arabia". Netflix is trying to sell subscriptions to Saudi individuals, and it is the Saudi government that is trying to enforce censorship. 2 completely distinct groups.
[+] [-] atomical|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkibiades|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2187|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acdha|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bfhp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ng12|7 years ago|reply
I'm much more concerned by Twitter, Facebook, Patreon, et al censoring Americans.
[+] [-] krstf13|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulcole|7 years ago|reply
Can you explain what you mean by this point? AFAIK the First Amendment is a US thing and GDPR is something Europeans wanted.
[+] [-] porpoisely|7 years ago|reply
And I fully understand the argument of government vs private company. But the outcome is still the same - censorship. Whether content is censored at the behest of the saudis or the nytimes is meaningless to me. It's the spirit of free speech rather than the law.
Saudi Arabia has been censoring for decades. And the NYTimes has been more or less fine with that. Why the sudden change? Because the saudis are supporting Trump and vice versa? In 2008, when obama won, the nytimes and much of the media was hailing social media as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Since 2016, a complete shift. I wonder why?
The biggest disappoint for me is the realization that the NYTimes, just like foxnews and the rest of the major news companies, are politically driven rather than driven by morality or truth. If the saudis had been relentlessly mocking Trump rather than supporting him, I suspect the NYTimes article would be defending the saudis - along the lines of "when in rome..." or more likely, they wouldn't have bother writing anything. Supporting the regime and censorship by omission.
Also, I've noticed a significant drop in zuckerburg or facebook hitpieces by the media ever since his new year's message where he promised to get in line and censor like other major tech companies. I guess that means less anti-facebook spam, but more censorship online.
[+] [-] adamc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mc32|7 years ago|reply
As others said, if you’re okay with abiding by GDPR, then you’re okay with abiding by laws and regulations of other locales like China, Russia and Saudi.
[+] [-] lordfoom|7 years ago|reply
I mean, if they do it at the behest of the government, it very definitely is?
[+] [-] 5555624|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|7 years ago|reply
Even Germany has laws curtailing what we, in USA call "Free speech" (for obvious reasons they are sensitive about Nazi propaganda.) In USA you can say virtually all things, but you'll lose your job or sponsors, er...your paycheck. So censorship is done by private entities.
[+] [-] oaiey|7 years ago|reply
Netflix and other global companies have these kind of challenges. They are pretty used to it (imagine food or drug regulations). There is just a group of media/digital companies who grew their business niche too fast and are now surprised that local laws and regulations show up. The GDPR, free speech limitations, different social systems, SJW incompatibilities, etc are just samples of all of this.
And I want to highlight, that I do neither like consequences like this. I like my movies uncut, healthy discussion (eg about the monarchy) and equal right for minorities.
[+] [-] tanilama|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devwastaken|7 years ago|reply
It's either censor certain episodes, or there's no Netflix at all.
[+] [-] mscasts|7 years ago|reply
If all companies just adhere to their rules, well the population will probably never require the change that they should because it will be good enough so the dangerous path of complaining is not worth it.
[+] [-] _bfhp|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 21|7 years ago|reply
Tying to impose it on the rest of the world is yet another colonization.
True diversity is allowing other cultures to live by different values.
[+] [-] adamc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|7 years ago|reply
Fascist cultures should not be tolerated, fascist people should (inasmuch as their fascism does not impact others against those other's own wills, of course).
Demanding SA allow freedom for individuals to exercise their own conscience would be supporting a morally defensible notion of diversity.
One major problem is that some religions (eg Islam) and religious groups (eg Mormons) have central ideologies that are antithetical to freedom of conscience; making them incompatible with many freedoms associated with democratic societies (speech, thought, association).
[+] [-] tangent128|7 years ago|reply
Saudi Arabia and China are not cultural monoliths. Their ruling classes may have a cultural value of stamping out dissenting values, but their subcultures so targeted would certainly disagree.
[+] [-] yakshaving_jgt|7 years ago|reply
Are you saying that “true diversity” is allowing small girls to have their clitorises cut off?
[+] [-] zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2trill2spill|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|7 years ago|reply
It's curious that USA's media corporations' [gamut of] values do get promoted through their productions. In more open societies they're just presented as is.