Netflix's Bow to Saudi Censors Comes at a Cost to Free Speech

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/business/media/netflix-saudi-arabia-censorship-hasan-minhaj.html

by jmsflknr • 8 years ago

48 78 8 years ago

Shivetya• 8 years ago

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?

rayiner• 8 years ago

Companies like Netflix and Google have leverage they could be using for good.

oaiey5• 8 years ago

And they should. However, they need to comply first to local law and then lobby to change something.

bedhead• 8 years ago

These are profit-seeking enterprises, not political activist organizations. I don't know why more people confuse the two. This is a rabbit hole companies need to be very careful about going down.

Besides, this whole thing is irony of the highest order. We scream bloody murder about Saudi Arabia explicitly censoring a comedian, meanwhile in the US we have an arguably worse form of implicit censorship where if you make an offensive (and harmless) joke, a bunch of noisy leftist maniacs go into high gear to end your career.

alkibiades3• 8 years ago

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?

StavrosK5• 8 years ago

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

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-e...

SpicyLemonZest• 8 years ago

We can't do it because we don't want other countries doing it to us. Can you imagine the outrage if a Saudi company in the US was ordered to stop discriminating, and they refused to comply because they believe gender discrimination is proper and just?

Certainly there are some things so terrible that we should expect companies not to go along, preferring to leave the country rather than participate. But censoring a TV episode (not even an entire show!) isn't that bad in the scheme of things.

tanilama2• 8 years ago

Because SA is a powerful country. Netflix is small steaming company comparing to it. Their power aren't on par with each other.

Besides, Saudi probably has very different values, I am pretty sure if they try to spread their version of proper values in US, like what quality defines a woman, people won't be very welcoming and outrage will follow.

atomical2• 8 years ago

The government sanctions countries and declares war at the cost of decreasing trade with those countries.

jstanley• 8 years ago

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.

chaosphere2112• 8 years ago

Yeah, but one of the main roles of pretty much every government is regulating what is sold in their markets.

(Were this a less autocratic regime,I would have said "governments are just people", but I take your point on the government of SA being largely disjoint from the citizens)

mc322• 8 years ago

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.

5555624• 8 years ago

It's not censorship in terms of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

lordfoom• 8 years ago

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?

ng123• 8 years ago

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.

krstf132• 8 years ago

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.

ng123• 8 years ago

GDPR wasn’t passed by Congress.

That's the point. Neither were SA's censorship laws. You have to conform to laws that wouldn't fly in the USA to do business in other countries.

paulcole• 8 years ago

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.

acdha2• 8 years ago

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.

onetimemanytime• 8 years ago

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.

oaiey5• 8 years ago

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.

mscasts• 8 years ago

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.

tanilama2• 8 years ago

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

cm21872• 8 years ago

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?

_bfhp3• 8 years ago

"Free speech" as a value is different from free speech protections from government interference. Maybe the former needs a new name...

Rapzid• 8 years ago

Free speech the value is about the government. Free speech is always about the government.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC4• 8 years ago

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?

cm21872• 8 years ago

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.

acdha2• 8 years ago

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.

21• 8 years ago

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.

adamc2• 8 years ago

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

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC4• 8 years ago

So, true diversity in your opinion requires that we allow some king to torture and kill people who are too diverse?

pbhjpbhj5• 8 years ago

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).

yakshaving_jgt3• 8 years ago

In much of MENA, female genital mutilation is a cultural norm.

Are you saying that “true diversity” is allowing small girls to have their clitorises cut off?

tangent128• 8 years ago

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.

adamc2• 8 years ago

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

2trill2spill3• 8 years ago

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.

pbhjpbhj5• 8 years ago

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.

2trill2spill3• 8 years ago

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.

austincheney2• 8 years ago

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.

_bfhp3• 8 years ago

largely how Kuwait avoids religious strife that infects other regions

That's really interesting, can you provide a source on this causal relationship?

austincheney2• 8 years ago

I am not sure. Here are some areas to get you started on your own research

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Kuwai...

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kuwait_mosque_bombing

* https://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/freedom-speech-kuwait/

dsfyu404ed• 8 years ago

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.

gammateam• 8 years ago

Or more likely a missing poster on a telephone pole:

Everyone knows you are dead but they cant call it

parthdesai• 8 years ago

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.

ForHackernews2• 8 years ago

It's partly because he was a journalist, but also because state-sponsored murder in that state's own consulate is rare. More typically, there's at least a thin veneer of plausible deniability.

mc322• 8 years ago

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.

devwastaken• 8 years ago

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.

porpoisely• 8 years ago

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.

Netflix's Bow to Saudi Censors Comes at a Cost to Free Speech

Related Stories