
Netflix's Bow to Saudi Censors Comes at a Cost to Free Speech - jmsflknr
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/business/media/netflix-saudi-arabia-censorship-hasan-minhaj.html
======
austincheney
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.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>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.

~~~
parthdesai
Just look at the situation in Yemen. Nobody cared enough to talk about even
though what it looks like is one of the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st
century. 1 journalist was tortured and murdered, and suddenly everyone was up
in arms about it.

------
Shivetya
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?

~~~
alkibiades
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?

~~~
StavrosK
Because there are no "proper values", there are "your values".

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-
baby-e...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-
aliens-1-8)

~~~
perfmode
Just because morality is subjective doesn’t mean there aren’t rights that we
must deem fundamental and defend globally.

This knee jerk relativism is getting old. Just because morality exists outside
of systems of formal logic, doesnt make it any less important. It is still up
for debate.

~~~
StavrosK
Which right is more fundamental? My right of deciding my own morality, or your
right of enforcing your global values?

~~~
ForHackernews
Nobody is forcing Saudis to watch a Netflix show they find morally repugnant
-- the Saudi government prevented its citizens from seeing something
politically sensitive.

I can't believe posters on HN are defending this.

~~~
StavrosK
Who's defending this? I, specifically, didn't talk about this specific
instance at all.

~~~
perfmode
Pick a position.

~~~
StavrosK
Right, because there must be enforceable universal moralities for Netflix to
decide that they don't want to remove an episode.

~~~
perfmode
My issue with your participation in this discussion is that you think you are
moving the discussion forward when you post a less-wrong link to support your
statement about moral relativism.

And you maintain the same sense of correctness even as it is explained to you
that your argument is regressive and unhelpful.

~~~
StavrosK
I posted exactly two comments on this, one saying that there are no "proper
values", and one asking what they would look like if there were.

Commenters mistaking this for me condoning what Netflix did or making some
broader assumption are just that, mistaken.

You did answer my question with an example, but I chose not to reply because I
thought that if two sentences can be misconstrued so badly, more sentences
wouldn't make anything better, but, since you replied, I will ask you:

> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights

If a woman decides that she wants to cover her face with a burqa and we
legislate a burqa ban, are we following her right to freedom or are we
oppressing her? If a society votes that they don't want to see nudity on TV,
is it right for another society to not adhere to that? Is it moral for Spotify
to censor songs that the US finds offensive, even though Sweden disagrees?

~~~
yakshaving_jgt
If me and a friend vote to kill you, are we right to do that?

------
cm2187
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?

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
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?

~~~
cm2187
I am not defending Netflix. I think Silicon Valley companies pushing a
political agenda using their platforms is reprehensible, particularly given
the high level of concentration. However I merely point the contradiction
between the New York Times cheering for the de-platforming movement and then
complaining about Netflix in name of Free Speech.

------
ng12
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.

~~~
paulcole
> Netflix is GDPR compliant although that almost definitely violates the first
> amendment

Can you explain what you mean by this point? AFAIK the First Amendment is a US
thing and GDPR is something Europeans wanted.

~~~
acdha
It doesn’t, any more than Facebook or Twitter can, as non-government actors,
censor Americans. There are some lobbying groups which push the argument that
any sort of accountability is a free speech violation but that’s rhetorical
ammunition not to be confused with a sound legal argument.

------
porpoisely
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.

------
adamc
Saudi Arabia is an oppressive theocracy. That's not news. Have we decided
American companies can only trade with democracies? That would be news.

------
mc32
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.

~~~
lordfoom
> I thought because Netflix is a private company what they do isnt censorship.

I mean, if they do it at the behest of the government, it very definitely is?

------
onetimemanytime
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.

~~~
oaiey
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.

------
tanilama
Didn't see the problem. If Free Speech isn't respected in SA, Netflix can't
fix it.

------
devwastaken
I don't blame them at all. If anything the censor has made it all the more
popular, and those who are curious will seek it out.

It's either censor certain episodes, or there's no Netflix at all.

------
mscasts
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.

------
21
Free speech is a Western value.

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
The diversity of allowing theocracies isn't one I am particularly interested
in supporting.

------
2trill2spill
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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.

~~~
2trill2spill
That's not how it works in the United States. As a non government entity
Netflix is perfectly within their right to censor or restrict their customers
any way they see fit, as long as they don't discriminate based on gender,
race, sexual orientation, etc. Also It seems people in Saudi Arabia have no
right to freedom of speech unlike in the United States.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Could you say that again, I can't see how it disagrees with anything I said.

Also, AIUI Netflix can discriminate so long as it's consistent with the
concept of "positive discrimination". So they can say "we're not having your
show because you're a white male", or "we want you to include a homosexual
lead character", or similar.

~~~
2trill2spill
> So they can say "we're not having your show because you're a white male", or
> "we want you to include a homosexual lead character", or similar.

Netflix can't discriminate against anyone for their race, including white
males.

