Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajosh | Hacker News Reader

I often feel like sentiment such as this assumes that these kinds of notices, movie ratings, "clean" / radio versions of media, etc are solely meant for teenagers. Maybe that's how they relate to it - as some kind of restriction as a teen.

Keep in mind that while you will learn this stuff in your life, for very young children, there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence. A 2 year old is unable to fully understand what is appropriate when. They are not ready to handle many of these concepts.

Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them. If they've don't want to see or hear something, why should anyone else care?

View on HN

> there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence

I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny.

I have no problem believing that depictions of sex and violence might be bad for young children in some way, but I would argue that there is a burden on people who claim this to spell out out the bad consequences could be.

Is it that it affects children psychologically? If that is the claim, in what way? And is there any research that shows this to be the case?

Or is it that they could say something that would create social embarrassment for the parents? If that is the case, one has to ask: does it make sense to place such a burden on free culture for this rather minor reason? And doesn't it just perpetuate useless social norms?

In the end, I suspect this is (at least partially) good old-fashioned puritanism. I am willing to accept that I am wrong, but I think I am right in reacting with scepticism towards vague moral proclamations such as "it is inappropriate!"

clearly there are things that are inappropriate for a 5 year old to watch. Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects? To take extreme example.

I overall agree with your sentiment on Puritanism. But let's not go to the other extreme.

> Your points about Puritanism would be much more amenable without your second paragraph. Do you really doubt that subjecting a chikd to nonstop violent porn would result in some psychological adverse effects?

Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour. The history of science if full of cases where common sense turned out to be wrong.

More importantly: I am not proposing that a child should be subjected to "nonstop violent porn". That sound like a terrible idea and it is a straw man. Like most things in life, this is not a binary choice. It's not like we have to choose between puritanism and nonstop violence and porn. What I am saying is this: is catching a glimpse of violence or sex so damaging that our entire culture should be subjected to severe restrictions? Or is it something best left for parents to decide? Maybe some parents are more worried than others, and maybe it doesn't make sense to burden everyone with a certain standard -- unless it is supported by rigorous scientific research.

>Please read again. The second paragraph is precisely where I say that I have no problem believing that there might be ill effects. Our intuitions, however, are no replacement for scientific rigour.

They are not just out of the blue intuitions though, they are based on millennia of observations.

Empiricism is not just found in scientific labs.

I take your point, but this is not entirely true in this case. Cinema is less than 150 years old, and not long before that most people could not read. Mass media is a very recent phenomenon.

I am no expert in the history of social norms, but I don't think it's clear at all the protecting children from witnessing violence and sex is a human universal. I know of several cultures (e.g. Roman Empire) where it was normal to let children witness public executions or violent fights. Again -- I am not arguing that this is good, I am arguing that one should not make laws based on vague intuitions.

>I take your point, but this is not entirely true in this case. Cinema is less than 150 years old, and not long before that most people could not read.

Most people didn't make laws and force social norms either though. The "educated" classes that did had theater and other kinds of public shows (music, etc) since at least the time of Ancient Greece, and those did have certain codes about what is to be said and what shouldn't be said.

They also had special "adult" shows.

What millennia are you taking about? None of these cultural norms are that old. We still have people living in the jungle walking around with breasts exposed and nude beaches are quite popular on posts of Germany.

>None of these cultural norms are that old.

None of these cultural norms are that new either. Even back in ancient Greece and Rome there were rules about what constitutes public or on stage obscenity.

What "severe restrictions" are these? Having music and movies labeled as to their general themes/content? If in reference to the subject FBI investigation, do note that was over fifty years ago. Social standards have changed a lot since then.

Rating hurts funding and distribution channels for anything that is not bland, "family-friendly" content. Go to any modern cinema complex in the western world and you will see what I mean: dozens of rooms, no real choice.

You can argue that the internet solves this, but it's not really the case: for example consider the current YouTube "demonetization crisis" or the arbitrary rules imposed in walled gardens such as app stores. The bigger danger -- and there are many examples of this -- is that "think of the children" can be used by politicians to advance more nefarious censorship agendas. For example, trying to rate content that presents non-conventional ideas.

I don't think movie ratings are the cause of bland movies. The mass market has voted and superhero/transformer movies that cater to 15 year old boys are the biggest moneymakers. All the original programming has moved to TV, which is also subject to restrictions but is not the bland wasteland it used to be.

>I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny.

It depends on society's definition of appropriateness. For example, in your society would it be "appropriate" for you to go out right now and defecate in public in a hygienic manner? Or have sex in public? Or walk up to a store employee and expose your genitals?

Do you think it's "inappropriate" ? Can you define and spell out the bad consequences of doing so? Any research into that? Is it just because it can cause social embarrassment? Is it exclusively American?

The simple answer for your first set questions is that probably nobody would care -- I live in Berlin.

But that is not my point. What I am arguing is that using the catch-all label of "inappropriate" seems like an American phenomenon. I don't notice people talking like this in other cultures -- but maybe that's just my own ignorance.

You keep talking about how this is a uniquely American concept but I get the feeling that your only basis for comparison is Europe? Because just to take one example, Chinese parents complain even louder than American parents about anything "inappropriate" in the media and thus Westerners are often very surprised and disappointed to find that their Chinese acquaintances aren't interested in fighting government censorship.

Every culture for thousands of years has had rules about what is appropriate. Kosher laws, Halal, and so on. Modern Europe is probably the main exception.

Having lived for long periods in the USA and Nigeria and visiting other continents as well, I can assure you that each culture has an idea of what's appropriate whether they use that specific word or not. Never been to Germany (I've visited 5 of its neighbors), but no matter how open or permissive Berliners consider themselves, I feel it's likely they "don't care" about certain things - a lot of people take things for granted that everyone in their culture accepts as a norm or a line that shouldn't be crossed and I'm sure there are bound to be some of those in Berlin whether you perceive them or not.

What I found with my kids was that the two year olds simply weren't interested in these things. If breast were suddenly on display on the tv screen they didn't really care. YMMV

The concept is mostly what parents want for their children. Every parent is different. Some have no problem taking a 10 year old to an "R" rated movie, others would not dream of it.

Anyone who has had young children will tell you that they can definitely get very freaked out by violent or "scary" movies and most parents do not want to expose their young children to explicit sexual content either.

I have no problem with mandatory labeling of violent or sexual content in movies or music. It helps me make decisions and it doesn't deprive adult consumers of anything.

> I have no problem with mandatory labeling of violent or sexual content in movies or music. It helps me make decisions and it doesn't deprive adult consumers of anything.

Not really true -- it affects funding and distribution of cultural artefacts, and this becomes very evident if you go to a modern cinema complex. It can be a very alienating experience if you are not a child or a parent.

I understand that rating helps you make choices, but it is not for the people who like these restrictions to decide if the burden they are placing on everyone else is justifiable or not.

> It can be a very alienating experience if you are not a child or a parent.

Can you elaborate?

I would say that a modern cinema is equally alienating to me as a parent with young children. There have been only 3 G rated movies to have a wide theatrical release in the past 5 years, compared to 18 in the 5 years before that.

Living in SoCal, everyone has an opinion on Hollywood, and the consensus I've heard is that they are targeting the 8-13 segment really hard, and a G rating is a negative signal to tweeners.

As a parent, appropriate is determined by my children's ability to yield the knowledge correctly.

Take swears for instance. Until they know better, there's more risk of them using swears at the wrong time.

Or you could look at it like an ingredient label on food or calorie count on restaurant menus.

Yes, there are allergens but there are other things that people just want to avoid due to personal preference.

Proper labeling can be helpful in lots of areas.

This is a very good analogy. Media is input for your mind in the same way food is input to your body.

One is not explicitly barred from buying a product with too much fat or sugar due to their age however. Cigarettes and alcohol sure, those have proven societal and health implications, but the analogy falls short on the basis of the buyer not being restricted from purchasing that which contains the nutritional info

Proper labeling can be helpful, but the music/movie content regulators go a lot further than labeling in their restriction on content. Basically teens are forced to torrent content that seems obscene to christians until they are 18. This is a form of market regulation that seems more likely about pushing christian cultural homogeneity onto a group that can't politically object, than simply labeling what the content is.

> I always had a problem with this (very American, in my view) concept of "appropriate". What does it mean exactly? It seems to be hiding stuff that is either ill-defined or unlikely to withstand deep scrutiny.

The concept of appropriate is locally culturally bound. I suggest to people pondering the matter to read anthropology texts. They are extremely illuminating and suggest that it's better to exercise a certain cultural relativism.

>Keep in mind that while you will learn this stuff in your life, for very young children, there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence. A 2 year old is unable to fully understand what is appropriate when. They are not ready to handle many of these concepts.

In Germany everyday people can go to the park with their 2-5 year old kids and have no issues with nudists enjoying the sun nearby.

And while you wouldn't want your kid to become a potty mouth (for social reasons), them casually hearing some swear word now and then is no big deal at all anywhere in the world.

As for violence, depends on whether it's something that will frighten the kid.

>Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them. If they've don't want to see or hear something, why should anyone else care?

Because some people don't want a society of puritans, even if the latter appear to keep it to themselves.

> And while you wouldn't want your kid to become a potty mouth (for social reasons), them casually hearing some swear word now and then is no big deal at all anywhere in the world.

Yeah but that's not the same thing as them listening to a song repeatedly, then singing it, and having parts of that song enter their lexicon. Music is sticky, especially with young children.

I agree with your points on nudity (it's not a big deal) and violence (it's a very big deal).

> In Germany everyday people can go to the park with their 2-5 year old kids and have no issues with nudists enjoying the sun nearby.

The parent comment mentioned sex, not nudity. Children are generally comfortable with nudity since it's something they experience themselves. Most don't know that sex even exists, so they have zero association between nudity and sex.

I think part of the reason some parents are leery of nudity around their kids is not because the kids can't handle it, but because we adults are so used to nudity being associated with sex that it's hard for us to understand that kids don't think that way.

> As for violence, depends on whether it's something that will frighten the kid.

Young children do not have a clear separation between reality and imagination. Their brains simply don't partition the two as distinctly as we do. This is why playing pretend and imaginary friends come so naturally to them, and why they are natural inveterate liars.

I absolutely don't want my young kids exposed to violent media because they aren't yet able to understand it's not real. It would be almost as if they were experiencing the violence first-hand.

I also don't get why American culture is so gung-ho about violence in the first place. My hope is that my children will never see someone get shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, burned, or assaulted. But, judging by TV and movies, these are everyday occurrences. I'm not super keen on normalizing that.

I thought Germany did have rules about nudity outside of FKK marked locations, or is that up to each state?

I worked at an Indie Film Theater, and we had the Gaspar Noe film "Irreversible" - it was Unrated. As in, the Distribution company didn't even bother submitting it to the MPAA, knowing it would get the dreaded X Rating in the US. So we got a copy and it was Unrated.

We had at least 3 signs posted in the window at the box office with the same text on all of them: Unrated is not "open for all ages" - we will not sell tickets to this film to anyone under age of 18. Unrated is because the material is extremely disturbing by even artistic standards. No refunds.

I watched "Irreversible" in the theater, and it completely ranks up with "Stevie" as one of the most visceral and deep and dark things I've ever seen in a cinema. So I was completely equipped to tell people "Do not buy tickets to this movie. You will not like it."

One couple was on a date. Late-20s, white, good mood. No other films were showing / starting in a time they liked, so they picked "Irreversible" and I warned them. Then warned them again. They got defensive, telling me off basically that they were adults and would watch whatever they wanted.

When they came back to the box office about 30 minutes later, I knew which scene they'd just witnessed, and they were scarred for life, but like zombies, came back to try and get a refund. I let my manager take care of it.

Point being, sometimes adults think they're mature, but it's a lot more complicated than that. I'm not advocating showing a 5 year old "Saving Private Ryan" intro on a loop for a weekend, but some of these "protections" have mission creep of responsibility - who is really accountable in family development when it comes to Art (rationally speaking), Free Individuals or Federal Regulations?

> are solely meant for teenagers

Perhaps that's because the people campaigning for them are explicitly referencing protection of children as their motivation. The label on CDs says "parental advisory" and the MPAA film ratings system is explicitly indexed on age and parental guidance.

> Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them

So does the "stop" or "off" button. That's how I deal with most modern music which is indeed in many cases grossly inappropriate for my tastes -- but I guess actually I should lobby for a labelling scheme so I can be "helped".

If you get down to the root of it, those labels are there so Parents don't actually have to watch / listen to / referee the material before allowing their children to see it. Or, they don't watch / listen to the material with their children to be there to provide context and guidance like an Adult.

They're a way to shift responsibility. "Oh this should be okay, it's PG!" is what happened with "Gremlins" and then it scared the shit out of kids. Now we have PG-13 because of that movie. True story.

Do you have some evidence that any of that can harm children?

It's a social norm that we don't sit 5 year olds down in front of a YouPorn stream. Nobody waits for some peer reviewed study before making that decision - it's simply just not done. It's considered weird, perverse, crass, inappropriate.

If you feel that norm needs to change, and that children should in fact watch hardcore pornography without anyone batting an eye, you may certainly work towards those changes. But you should expect resistance because that norm is powerful.

>Nobody waits for some peer reviewed study before making that decision - it's simply just not done.

Actually, Alfred Kinsey did some stuff as bad or worse with children, and yet his work has become the basis for an entire field of study. (It was so bad that a movie had to be made defending him.)

Well right now the average age of virginity loss is ~17 now compared to ~21 in 1950[0]. it is not particularly uncommon for middle schoolers to be having sex these days. There's also a lot more readily available sexual content for all ages now than in 1950. (yes correlation not causation, but there's clearly some connection here)

there are plenty of full grown adults who are irresponsible with sexual activity (spreading stds, unwanted pregnancies) so can we just agree that MAYBE middle schoolers shouldnt be exposed to so much sexuality? that maybe a 14 year old has no chance of grasping the consequences and responsibility of sex?

[0] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-early-you-lose-your...

I think you are missing the point of the case. The obscene lyrics did not actually exist in the song. The various versions of obscene lyrics were most likely created by kids themselves for fun. This was at a time when obscenity was scrubbed from public media, but this didn't mean the kids didn't know about dirty words and sex.

You are assuming exposure to sexuality in media is what causes young people to have sex? I think sex have existed longer than mass media.

You couldn't find a better reference than the Daily Mirror?

One also might say that the pill had something to do with the change.

About 2-3% of Adults in England get an STD [0], so 97% are at least responsible / lucky enough to avoid them.

Educating the 14 year olds is the only way - you can't stop the rest.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/aug/25/stds-e...

The definition of "dirty" is arbitrary. Your "right" to not hear something abridges some else's right to publish it. You have to pick a side, and live with the consequences.

A parental advisory sticker does not stop someone publishing the music.

Having your artistic creation 'scarlet lettered' like this is something we condemn when applied to other forms of media. Think of the outrage surrounding Facebook and Google implementing labels for news they deem fake or unreliable. Though such companies are within their rights to do such a thing, many consumers recognize the chilling effect this can have on distributing information and also adds a layer of needless obscurity to the process of reading the news.

The music industry does not employ a 'rating system' like the film, TV, and video game industries. Rather, it's a catch-all for any and all content that arbitrarily may be viewed as offensive to a broad demographic of potential customers. This takes the label from a mere rating system to more of a form of soft censorship.

I've seen albums that are largely instrumental labeled with the parental advisory sticker, because the sounds are intense and experimental. I've seen the sticker on albums whose only crime was being critical towards a religious institution. The label does a lot of harm, while I am not so sure how helpful it truly is for parents.

It's a silly label and it shouldn't be there, but come on, you sound like you're speaking directly from 1990.

It's been done and over for almost 30 years. Whatever damage it did to the music industry and the culture, we've fully realized by now.

Laws that force fast food restaurants to put calories on fast food menus are annoying too, but we'll survive and I'll still get my burgers and fries.

The caloric content of food isn't arbitrary, it's measured by a process that can be independently performed by anyone with the right equipment and get the same result. There's no similar process for deciding if artistic content is appropriate.

Actually, it does. Wal-Mart won't sell music that has a parental advisory sticker, so at the very least, an artist has to compromise their music in order to be put in the largest retail chain in the world.

> Actually, it does. Wal-Mart won't sell music that has a parental advisory sticker,

They certainly sell them online.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/D12-World/32061444