

Is US prudishness ruining the internet? - bensummers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/12/international_censorship/

======
lotharbot
This is a pretty weak complaint.

What it comes down to is the observation that certain very large US companies
(Google, Facebook) believe "no boobs" and "no drugs" policies are best for
their bottom line. They've made the guess that fewer people will leave over
"not being able to show boobs" than will leave over "getting spammed by
boobs". So they enforce the policy they think will make them rich.

If you think they've made a mistake, go get rich by making a website with a
different policy, and quit whining about how prudish Americans are ruining the
internet.

~~~
barrkel
I think you're not seeing the mechanics of tyranny of the majority. US
companies can reach scale because of the wealth of the market and its relative
cultural and linguistic homogeneity. Non-US companies find it very hard to
compete against those economies of scale. Meanwhile, US companies inherit the
mores of their native culture, the obsessions of their elites, and not to
mention the practical implication of laws for content hosted in and served to
the US.

~~~
astine
Nonsense. If the only Jew in Buenos Aires can't find a kosher deli, that is
not 'Tyranny of the Majority.' Tyranny of the Majority is when a majority
actively pursues legislation that is harmful or marginalizing to a minority.
If a Jew in 1938 Berlin can't find a kosher deli because the Nazi government
outlawed them, then that is Tyranny of the Majority. The situation you
describe is just a market difficulty.

Not being able to post topless photos of oneself on Facebook is hardly
oppression.

~~~
abalashov
_Not being able to post topless photos of oneself on Facebook is hardly
oppression._

It is a arguably a matter of degree, not kind.

~~~
astine
I disagree. Oppression is a loaded term. At he very least it implies a certain
unreasonableness. For example it is not unreasonable to expect me, when
visiting Italy for example, to realize that certain hand signs are offensive
and to avoid them. In the same way, it is not unreasonable to expect that
Europeans, when visiting an American website, understand that Americans have
particular sensibilities and respect that. The fact that many Americans don't
realize that this is a two way street makes them jerks. The fact that
Americans are a majority on the Internet and most successful sites target them
is an inconvenience to non-Americans. But none of this is oppression. To claim
otherwise is melodrama and hyperbole at best.

Letting different website set their own rules about what is appropriate on
their pages, is no more oppression than forcing to have to look at your ugly
torso whenever we look you up on Facebook.

~~~
stretchwithme
exactly. It is not oppression when I don't let you use MY printing press. It
is oppression when I don't let you use YOUR printing press.

------
wccrawford
No. Unless you define the internet as 'a certain few US-based sites'.

Facebook is not the internet. It is just one site. If facebook were based in
Australia, they'd be following Australia's laws and morals more closely. And
the same for any other country.

~~~
alextingle
Um, what about those gambling companies which operated quite legally from
Europe, yet whose executives were basically kidnapped by US authorities and
tried for violating US law.

Apparently US laws governs the whole world, but everyone else's laws are only
local?

~~~
hga
" _basically kidnapped_ "???

More like "foolishly placed themselves in the jurisdiction of a country who's
laws they were breaking". They had two choices if they wanted to avoid this:
don't accept money from US citizens residing in the US or keep themselves out
the reach of US law by staying outside of the US.

And do you really think the US has no legitimate interests in what non-
citizens do with US citizens in other countries?

~~~
tomjen3
>And do you really think the US has no legitimate interests in what non-
citizens do with US citizens in other countries?

I would say they don't, since it happens on another states soil.

~~~
hga
To take an extreme example, if a non-citizen kills an American on foreign
soil, America has _no_ interest in the matter?

I'm not implying they have the primary interest, just trying to ascertain if
you think they have no legitimate interest.

ADDED: To take one iconic example, " _Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead_ "....

------
kingkawn
don't worry, chinese prudishness will make this seem like the era of boobs.

~~~
sliverstorm
And Islamic prudishness will make the chinese era seem like a cornucopia of
smut

------
sudonim
In New York, both women and men are allowed to be topless in public. Fewer
women do it, but it's still legal. The fact that the market demands social
sites to be the moral police on boobs is disappointing.

National boobs on facebook day anybody?

~~~
lotusleaf1987
Same as in Portland, OR actually and at some college...like Reed you will see
it.

------
stretchwithme
yeah, I went on the Internet today and found it completely ruined. It was fine
when I tucked it in last night.

------
ugh
The web outside of Facebook and the like? I don’t think so. It seems to me
that the US have one of the more liberal laws with regard to that.

I’m also not sure whether stricter rules on Facebook and similar sites ruins
anything. If you want to there are always ways to get nude pictures of
yourself on the web. Use tumblr or Blogger or Flickr or whatever else.

------
tbrownaw
Isn't 4chan hosted in / run from the US?

~~~
hga
Yes, or at least a traceroute of boards.4chan.org resulted in a destination of
as29761.ae1-320.ar1.lax1.us.nlayer.net for me. One hop from dfw1 (Dallas/Fort
Worth) got me to lax1 (Los Angeles) which according to their network map is
their western most core node after the Bay Area.

