Netflix, we hardly knew ye. Censors are lonely, and want more power.

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Netflix, we hardly knew ye. Censors are lonely, and want more power.

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12875

Subscriber

#249127 26-Apr-2019 20:05

Some children have watched objectionable material on Netflix, such as "13 reasons," which covers suicides.

Of course, it would naturally too hard for parents to supervise their precious, fragile darlings

The highly educated censors want in on the parenting action, and of course the ecstasy of more power over all the unwashed masses.

We the vast majority couldn't possibly decide in our private domiciles what is appropriate due to our morally inferiority.

I'm sure Sky and Lightbox are thrilled that New Zealand lawmakers will make streaming videos services rethink whether it's worth the hassle of showing anything to us

Thanks God we're protecting children from Netflix. Who in their right mind would consider parents watching their children, when government appointed watchdogs will do it for them (and everybody else by extension)?

Thank you censors for protecting all us from watching TV, instead of reading pre-approved books.

Pablum for everyone! It's all we deserve, because we are all wicked fools.

fixed link. Sorry

New internet TV rules could mean less confusion for parents but a longer wait for shows

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/112284449/new-internet-tv-rules-could-mean-less-confusion-for-parents-but-a-longer-wait-for-shows

Internet television services such as Netflix and Lightbox may be compelled to submit their programming for classification by the Film and Video Labelling Body under a proposal that the Government has put out for consultation.

Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin suggested a rule change could create more consistency in the way programmes were labelled as being suitable for different age groups, which would make it less confusing for parents "trying to pick something for their kids to watch".

Martin said the reaction to controversial Netflix show 13 Reasons Why was an example of the "public concern" that a new "standardised classifications system" would address.

1 | 2 | 3

554 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 103

ID Verified

#2225793 26-Apr-2019 20:29

Who in their right mind would consider parents watching their children, when government appointed watchdogs will do it for them (and everybody else by extension)?

Not sure what you mean by this. There's no indication in the link you provided that the series will be rejected a rating, in fact Mr Shanks says "it's not really practical in any way to go: 'this is something that you're not going to watch'."

skewt

752 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 215

#2225796 26-Apr-2019 20:37

The article you linked to is nearly a year old?

nzkc

1634 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

#2225799 26-Apr-2019 20:40

Ive watched 13 reasons. Both seasons. Personally I think it approaches the subject of suicide in an extremely responsible way. Yes it has some confronting topics and tones. They are, sadly, a reality for people. Based on the OPs comments I don't think they have watched it. Not watching it is fine, however, you cant have much of a realistic opinion on a TV show you havent watched.

I have no problem with NZ wanting to have censors vet Netflix. I actually think they'll be pretty cool with what Netflix do already. I wouldn't let my kids watch 13 Reasons and Netflix aren't targeting that age group at all! My kids profiles only see content suitable for them.

That or the OP is being completely sarcastic and flippant. Which I'm ok with if they are (just to be clear).

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12875

Subscriber

#2225800 26-Apr-2019 20:43

skewt:
The article you linked to is nearly a year old?

Sorry. Fixed link

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/112284449/new-internet-tv-rules-could-mean-less-confusion-for-parents-but-a-longer-wait-for-shows

The bright-bulb Tracey Anne Martin asking streaming service to run all shows past her first is a member of the New Zealand First Party.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I think it's a horrible idea by Tracey. I'd bet a house payment she struggles with anything more recent than a typewriter and VCR.

Kiwifruta

1425 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 337

ID Verified

#2225873 26-Apr-2019 21:57

3 of my kids have their own Netflix kids profiles and my youngest watches barbie videos on YouTube.

On the occasion my kids watch something not in the kids section of Netflix it's because they are watching it with us as a family and we as parents deem it okay.

If internet streaming services were required to get their videos classified, what difference will it make in the home?

How can the government prevent kids from watching R16 & R18 action movies? Even requiring a PIN to be entered doesn't prevent a kid from watching them.

Sounds like another politician politicking outside their area of expertise.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16308

Lifetime subscriber

#2225923 26-Apr-2019 22:39

I recently changed my long-held views on censorship due to the despicable act in Christchurch. But I only changed them a little. Truly vile stuff does need to be screened out. But that is all. For the rest, censorship is a futile exercise. That is what VPNs are for. Anything that gets censored here will just be watched somewhere else where the nannies aren't so up-tight.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10214

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2225925 26-Apr-2019 22:56

Bad enough that they mess up the used DVD market, now they want to make streaming a wasteland of only mainstream content that is profitable to send to the monopoly of a ratings approval place? GTFO.

They had value when people were at the video library looking at cases on the shelf to decide if something was OK for their kids or not.

Now there are countless places online that all give their own opinions on videos and their suitability, and you are much more likly to find one that matches your own views - weather that is puritanical or whatever.

Richard rich.ms

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#2225934 27-Apr-2019 00:29

Many kids these days watch Youtube, so are they also going to do the same with Youtube vids? There is so much content now released, including so live content, that I can't see how all of it can be checked first. I think they need a global standard, rather than NZ having their own one. Why don't we at least join with Oz, like we do with other standards, such as some safety standards.

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2226504 27-Apr-2019 19:37

mattwnz:
Many kids these days watch Youtube, so are they also going to do the same with Youtube vids? There is so much content now released, including so live content, that I can't see how all of it can be checked first. I think they need a global standard, rather than NZ having their own one. Why don't we at least join with Oz, like we do with other standards, such as some safety standards.

Ratings are not a standard. They're the result of the application of a standard (practice)... that of rating the content. They'll pay attention to the ratings issued in other jurisdictions but what different countries, cultures see as reasonable (or objectionable) is likely to differ. Over the years things have harmonised a lot but to argue that that we should drop our legal framework for the classification of film and literature and just 'accept' that applied by someone else, misunderstands the way it works legally...

Useful Reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Film_and_Literature_Classification_(New_Zealand)

Also: Blog section on https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz

A joint approach to standardisation (the AS/NZS system) is not quite the same thing.

That all said, I agree that streamed content is a massive grey area in terms of the current system - clearly much content consumed by New Zealanders hasn't necessarily gone through the Classification Office. As much of the media coverage on the subject notes, to require this will slow down the airing of content and possibly deter people bringing content to our market.

What we need then, is for a standard method of classification that would be used by Netflix and it's ilk, and perhaps trusted as an interim classification until our official rubber stamp (or variation) can be laid on it.

I'm sure they're not ignorant of this idea, but it actually may require a legislative change to have something like this put into place.

No signature to see here, move along...

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12875

Subscriber

#2226591 28-Apr-2019 07:45

The vast majority of Kiwis will be upset if streaming services pull out of New Zealand, or legally available

The voters would see it as it is: a power grab by New Zealand First, and specifically Tracey Martin.

The only people who would be happy would be Sky stock holders. Even the censors would be unhappy because voters would blame them.

The worldwide media companies would again be upset with New Zealand because piracy would increase.

So even the Prime Minister would again get cajoled / threatened by world leaders acting at the behest of Sony, UMG, Warner Bros, MPAA. It could possibly even cause issues with trade treaties.

As mentioned, besides Netflix there's a lot of streaming video services. They would also need to decide whether it's worth the hassle for a small market.

So do we really want to undo 10 years of progress, because a few parents can't monitor their children watching something like "13 Reasons"?

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2226764 28-Apr-2019 13:38

kingdragonfly: The vast majority of Kiwis will be upset if streaming services pull out of New Zealand, or legally available

The voters would see it as it is: a power grab by New Zealand First, and specifically Tracey Martin.

The only people who would be happy would be Sky stock holders. Even the censors would be unhappy because voters would blame them.

The worldwide media companies would again be upset with New Zealand because piracy would increase.

So even the Prime Minister would again get cajoled / threatened by world leaders acting at the behest of Sony, UMG, Warner Bros, MPAA. It could possibly even cause issues with trade treaties.

As mentioned, besides Netflix there's a lot of streaming video services. They would also need to decide whether it's worth the hassle for a small market.

So do we really want to undo 10 years of progress, because a few parents can't monitor their children watching something like "13 Reasons"?

I don't get what you are so angry about... It seems a little odd and perhaps more appropriate for the Politics forum rather than Online Streaming.

NZ has a Classification office for a good reason. Or do you think in the age of the internet the whole restriction on certain content is irrelevant so there is no point in doing it anymore?

There are two things in this world when talking about "freedom" of expression.

Free Speech. Which means there are *NO* restrictions on any speech and therefor *MUST* include child abuse material, the Christchurch attack video as well as the manifesto and everything else vile in this world including on the internet.

Freedom of Speech. Which means as a society we agree there are limits as to what is acceptable. Who decides what is acceptable is already determined by the chief censor as that is their role. If you don't like what decisions they come up with I suggest you take it up with them or apply to work in the office. But be aware that they see all sorts of extremely vile material and it's a job that there is no amount of money that would make me do it. IMHO whatever they are paid is not enough.

It's pretty binary in my view. Either you accept there are constraints on content within our civilised and that there is already an agency that performs that function, or you should be advocating for the child abuse, Christchurch attacker as his content should be free. If you believe the latter then let us know how your advocacy works out for you.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
13036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3896

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

Subscriber

#2226765 28-Apr-2019 13:39

uh. is this not what "kids mod" is for?

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16308

Lifetime subscriber

#2226836 28-Apr-2019 14:49

BarTender:

I don't get what you are so angry about... It seems a little odd and perhaps more appropriate for the Politics forum rather than Online Streaming.

NZ has a Classification office for a good reason. Or do you think in the age of the internet the whole restriction on certain content is irrelevant so there is no point in doing it anymore?

There are two things in this world when talking about "freedom" of expression.

Free Speech. Which means there are *NO* restrictions on any speech and therefor *MUST* include child abuse material, the Christchurch attack video as well as the manifesto and everything else vile in this world including on the internet.

Freedom of Speech. Which means as a society we agree there are limits as to what is acceptable. Who decides what is acceptable is already determined by the chief censor as that is their role. If you don't like what decisions they come up with I suggest you take it up with them or apply to work in the office. But be aware that they see all sorts of extremely vile material and it's a job that there is no amount of money that would make me do it. IMHO whatever they are paid is not enough.

It's pretty binary in my view. Either you accept there are constraints on content within our civilised and that there is already an agency that performs that function, or you should be advocating for the child abuse, Christchurch attacker as his content should be free. If you believe the latter then let us know how your advocacy works out for you.

I am no fan of the censor, or censorship in general. I believe in self-censorship and I practice it, but I don't like (anonymous) bureaucrats telling me what is bad for me. I stopped believing in 'free speech' after Christchurch and now accept that there do have to be limits, but the problem I have is with those limits being determined by one individual or a few who are not directly accountable and who then come up with idiocies like Facebook banning the powerful (and award-winning) image of the Vietnamese girl with her clothes burned off by napalm running up the road crying. This picture, which stunned the conscience of the world, could be said to have violated standards of decency (nakedness) and paedophilia (underage child) yet it is something much greater than either of those.

With the Christchurch horror video, there was immediate widespread agreement by ISPs, the public, politicians, all of society, that such an obscenity should be buried forever. This should be the standard where the line is drawn. It is fundamentally different from some repressed catholic in a darkened room deciding that he doesn't approve of someone else's taste in pornography. So I agree with the principle of censorship in very specific cases, but I don't think there is anything binary about it at all. If there must be censors, they need to be kept on a very tight leash.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12875

Subscriber

#2226850 28-Apr-2019 15:43

hio77: uh. is this not what "kids mod" is for?

How to Quickly Switch to Kids Mode in Netflix

https://www.trishtech.com/2018/01/how-to-quickly-switch-to-kids-mode-in-netflix/

BlakJak

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 735

Trusted

#2226855 28-Apr-2019 15:58

Rikkitic:
BarTender:

I don't get what you are so angry about... It seems a little odd and perhaps more appropriate for the Politics forum rather than Online Streaming.

NZ has a Classification office for a good reason. Or do you think in the age of the internet the whole restriction on certain content is irrelevant so there is no point in doing it anymore?

There are two things in this world when talking about "freedom" of expression.

Free Speech. Which means there are *NO* restrictions on any speech and therefor *MUST* include child abuse material, the Christchurch attack video as well as the manifesto and everything else vile in this world including on the internet.

Freedom of Speech. Which means as a society we agree there are limits as to what is acceptable. Who decides what is acceptable is already determined by the chief censor as that is their role. If you don't like what decisions they come up with I suggest you take it up with them or apply to work in the office. But be aware that they see all sorts of extremely vile material and it's a job that there is no amount of money that would make me do it. IMHO whatever they are paid is not enough.

It's pretty binary in my view. Either you accept there are constraints on content within our civilised and that there is already an agency that performs that function, or you should be advocating for the child abuse, Christchurch attacker as his content should be free. If you believe the latter then let us know how your advocacy works out for you.

I am no fan of the censor, or censorship in general. I believe in self-censorship and I practice it, but I don't like (anonymous) bureaucrats telling me what is bad for me. I stopped believing in 'free speech' after Christchurch and now accept that there do have to be limits, but the problem I have is with those limits being determined by one individual or a few who are not directly accountable and who then come up with idiocies like Facebook banning the powerful (and award-winning) image of the Vietnamese girl with her clothes burned off by napalm running up the road crying. This picture, which stunned the conscience of the world, could be said to have violated standards of decency (nakedness) and paedophilia (underage child) yet it is something much greater than either of those.

With the Christchurch horror video, there was immediate widespread agreement by ISPs, the public, politicians, all of society, that such an obscenity should be buried forever. This should be the standard where the line is drawn. It is fundamentally different from some repressed catholic in a darkened room deciding that he doesn't approve of someone else's taste in pornography. So I agree with the principle of censorship in very specific cases, but I don't think there is anything binary about it at all. If there must be censors, they need to be kept on a very tight leash.

The limits that we are subjected to, which are established via laws (established through all the checks and balances that go with the establishment of laws and regulations, by people who are well qualified to do so), are implemented on the basis of least interference possible whilst still maintaining public order and complying with those laws and regulations (aka why create additional work?)

The public servants who carry out this work, do so in a transparent manner.

The full structure of the office and the named people who carry responsibilities, can be seen at https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/about-nz-classification/about-the-classification-office/#structure-and-staff.

By all means kick up a stink if you think they get it wrong, but let's be honest - the 'system' as is currently defined, is bypassed by streaming vendors and it was only a matter of time before it needs to be addressed.

However, I do take offense at the charactarisation of thsoe who work at the Classification office as being 'repressed catholics in darkened rooms'. These are people who take their work seriously and the evidence shows that they generally do strike a reasonable balance, IMO. Public servants are not out to screw the public, contrary to what many people would suggest or believe!

And yes, i'm a public servant (posting personal opinion, of course.)

No signature to see here, move along...

1 | 2 | 3