SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Monday February 01 2016, @06:57AM
from the what's-the-code-for-netflix-porn dept.
from the what's-the-code-for-netflix-porn dept.
TV and movie lovers in Asia jumped for joy earlier this month when Netflix finally launched throughout the region.
Some in Indonesia, however, weren't so excited by the news. The country's largest telco, PT Telkom Indonesia, announced that as of 12 a.m. Wednesday morning they had blocked access to the streaming service on all of its Internet platforms.
Dian Rachmawan, Telkom's Director of Consumers, said the ban was put in place due to Netflix not following the country's broadcast laws and for having violent and "pornographic" content, Indo Telko reports. The exec did not specify which content the company found to be overly violent or indecent.
No cewek cewek nakal [girl bad girl] for you!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Netflix Too Full of Porn and Violence, Indonesia's Largest Telco Says
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Don't believe everything you hear or anything you say.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 01 2016, @09:52AM
Soylentnews does show the target domain behind the link. While I do think it's mean to lure people to nsfw websites without warning, I would think the domain names are clue enough. Gets worse when people use URL shorteners...
And of course, SoylentBob would point out the importance of trigger-warnings in this context ;-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @02:04PM
Soylentnews does show the target domain behind the link. While I do think it's mean to lure people to nsfw websites without warning, I would think the domain names are clue enough.
Original AC here. I'd just like to clarity that my intent was to use the names of *religious* broadcasters with undisguised links to porn sites as an ironic gesture.
Since, as you correctly point out, no attempt was made to disguise the links and the domain names were clearly visible, it should have been clear to anyone who can read English where those links were pointing.
Anyone who couldn't pay enough attention to the clearly tongue-in-cheek post and clicked on any of those links thinking that the endpoint would be anything other than something completely inappropriate wasn't paying attention or isn't very bright.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 01 2016, @02:11PM
... and thats probably why your initial post was rightfully modded funny and not troll :-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 01 2016, @06:27PM
Yep, and despite the fact that those links were obviously pointing to truly pornographic sites (since SoylentNews does show the domain being linked to), there was some religious nut still bitching sarcastically about religious content not being safe for work. I guess that goes to show just how dumb and gullible many religious people are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02 2016, @12:20AM
Yep, and despite the fact that those links were obviously pointing to truly pornographic sites (since SoylentNews does show the domain being linked to), there was some religious nut still bitching sarcastically about religious content not being safe for work. I guess that goes to show just how dumb and gullible many religious people are.
I was the one who posted that religious programming is NSFW. I wasn't being sarcastic -- snarky, yes,. but sarcastic, no. What's more, I was poking religious nutters with a stick. Which is good fun!
Religions are false belief systems. There's no reason that a reasonably well educated person should hold such beliefs.
What's more, I knew exactly where those links pointed, as I wrote that post too.
Religious programming is enormously more harmful than porn in my view.
So, plus two points for your obvious conviction about this and minus five points for getting it completely wrong.