Disney Yanks China-Mocking Simpsons Episode From Its Hong Kong Streaming Service

from the for-reasons-only-understandable-to-multi-national-conglomerates dept

American companies still give China what it wants. Y THO?

The only thing that can be gained from maintaining whatever the fuck a "good relationship" with the world's most powerful autocracy is… more subjugation! Who would want that?

I wish this was rhetorical but it seems plenty of entities want to be bossed around by the Big Red Bully, ranging from the NBA to a variety of tech companies which consider a potential market of billions more valuable than their credibility.

So, who's caving to the always unreasonable demands of China and its head of state, Winnie the Pooh? Why, it's none other than Disney, the current host for every Simpsons episode ever. And what's getting pulled? It's a Simpsons episode that chose to portray China the way China would not choose to portray China, according to this report from Narayan Liu for CBR.com.

Disney+ recently launched in the Hong Kong, a special administrative region that, until recently, officially functioned separately from China. Not everything will be available to Hong Kong viewers, however, as subscribers have found at least one episode of The Simpsons has been removed due to a reference to the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Numerous subscribers and reports have surfaced, showing that the Season 16 episode "Goo Goo Gai Pan" has been removed in Hong Kong.

What's wrong with this episode? Tough to say since it simply repeats (mocks) the official party line. Here's a screenshot of the "offending" language China feels is too subversive to allow Hong Kong viewers to enjoy for what must be at least the umpteenth time.

It's a shot of the place where things happened in 1989, most notably a Chinese citizen staring down a line of tanks. But the Chinese government continues to insist this is a collective delusion and has worked as tirelessly as a country of kowtowed billions can to erase history. In this Simpsons episode, the illusion is complete. If you can't read/see the screenshot, it shows a monument apparently erected in Tiananmen Square that reads:

TIAN AN MEN SQUARE
ON THIS SITE, IN 1989,
NOTHING HAPPENED

That's what the Chinese government wants everyone to pretend to believe. So, what's the problem? Well, I guess Chinese censors are at least able to discern context when they want to. And since this isn't officially issued propaganda, it has to go.

But it doesn't. Disney could have ignored demands to remove the episode, if there actually were any demands. It could be a proactive move by Disney which makes it even worse. A country known for its casual disrespect for American copyrights and trademarks should be way up on Disney's shitlist, considering its efforts to extend all things IP to forever and a day.

Disney should be willing to flip the bird to a nation full of casual IP violators. Somehow, it's apparently not up to the task. Instead, it has (preemptively or otherwise) caved to the overseer of millions of infringers in the apparent hopes of retaining some relationship to millions of Hong Kong streamers, as well as the billions just over the imaginary property line that separates the region the Chinese government was supposed to leave unmolested for the next couple of decades.

Once again, we must ask: what is the fucking endgame? Do American companies actually believe that adhering their tongues to the underside of the Chinese government's boot will somehow exclude them from future censorship demands? All signs point to No.

So… is it easier than showing spine? It must be because we've seen similar acts far too often. China may have a supply chain stranglehold, but it relies on a steady supply of customers in other nations. With a little collective effort, this imbalance of power can be leveraged to make China more amenable to the freedoms enjoyed by customers around the world who purchase its products.

Filed Under: china, free speech, hong kong, self-censorship, the simpsons
Companies: disney

Facebook Is Tracking When You Write Something... And Then Decide To Delete It Rather Than Post It

from the your-thoughts-belong-to-facebook dept

We've all done it. You type something into Facebook and are all set to post it as a status update or a comment to someone else... and then your common sense takes over, and you realize that posting it would probably be a mistake. You were either about to post something fairly stupid, controversial or just ranty... and realized that, after taking a few breaths, life would probably be better for everyone if no one ever saw your words. Personally, when this has happened to me, it feels a bit cathartic. You were still able to type out what was in your brain... but no one ever had to see it. Or did they? According to a new report, Facebook is closely tracking and analyzing such "self-censorship" in order to figure out ways to encourage you to post anyway. While the company claims it's not actually looking at the actual text, it could do so, and is certainly looking at the situations in which you self-censor, trying to help you speed right by that little hesitation known as "thinking better of it":

Why does Facebook care anyway? Das and Kramer argue that self-censorship can be bad because it withholds valuable information. If someone chooses not to post, they claim, "[Facebook] loses value from the lack of content generation." After all, Facebook shows you ads based on what you post. Furthermore, they argue that it’s not fair if someone decides not to post because he doesn't want to spam his hundreds of friends—a few people could be interested in the message. "Consider, for example, the college student who wants to promote a social event for a special interest group, but does not for fear of spamming his other friends—some of who may, in fact, appreciate his efforts,” they write.

Right. But what about the other situation where someone is about to post something that is going to make a lot of people miserable. Aren't we all better off in those cases when the "self-censorship" brain cells kick in? Facebook might not think so, but I imagine that an awful lot of people would disagree.

Filed Under: self-censorship, social media
Companies: facebook

What We Should Learn From Comic Creators Censoring Themselves For Apple

from the it's-still-their-fault dept

On the heels of Tim Cushing's story about Apple threatening removal of a comics app due to what it deemed to be adult content, leading me to wonder whether Apple realizes that their devices are indeed used by adults throughout the world, it's worth highlighting something Cushing mentioned somewhat briefly. Beyond the obvious problem of Apple's clearly arbitrary morality, and even beyond the struggle of that comics distributor having to parse out what to do with their product, is the chilling effect walled gardens like Apple's app store have on everyone else.

Consider what occurred the past several days with Comixology and their comics app with respect to a specific book, Saga #12. Initially there was a fervor of anger at Apple, including by the creators of the comic themselves, over what appeared to be a banning of that book due to depictions of homosexual sex. As it turns out, it wasn't Apple who had censored the comic, but someone at Comixology instead. Comixology issued a letter of apology to their customers and to the creators of the Saga series, while also noting that Saga #12 will indeed be available in the app after all.

As a partner of Apple, we have an obligation to respect its policies for apps and the books offered in apps. Based on our understanding of those policies, we believed that Saga #12 could not be made available in our app, and so we did not release it today. We did not interpret the content in question as involving any particular sexual orientation, and frankly that would have been a completely irrelevant consideration under any circumstance. Given this, it should be clear that Apple did not reject Saga #12.

After hearing from Apple this morning, we can say that our interpretation of its policies was mistaken. You'll be glad to know that Saga #12 will be available on our App Store app soon. We apologize to Saga creator Brian K. Vaughn and Image Comics for any confusion this may have caused.

It is tantalizing to take the easy way out, blame Comixology for the screw up, and all go on with our days. It wasn't Apple's fault, they say. However, you can only reach that conclusion if you fail to understand the plain meaning of words in Comixology's apology. The only way to interpret this is to say that, yes, they self-censored the content in their own app because they feared the consequences of not doing so and running afoul of Apple's sincerely illogical attempt at being the morality police. This is the inevitable result of creating the walled garden, an Eden if you will. Either you conform to the rules of whatever overlord suits you in this analogy, and you are therefore limited in your freedom and expression, or else you act free and risk being expelled from the so-called paradise. Those that wish to remain in the ironically named Apple's walled garden must not attempt at biting from any forbidden fruit and must take overly-protective steps to ensure they don't appear to. As one commentor at Kotaku put it:

A sign that Big Brother has won is when you start censoring yourself, instead of simply speaking your mind and stand the critics afterwards.

Indeed. Fortunately, unlike any Adam or Eve, Brian Vaughn and Image Comics have other, less trodden upon gardens in which they can play should they choose. And for creators of anything not aimed at school children, it's beginning to become more and more necessary that they choose exactly that, or risk obtaining the wrath of a so-called partner that sees itself as a god.

Filed Under: comics, ios, self-censorship
Companies: apple