Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France Bans Facebook and Twitter From Radio and TV

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-you-ban-it-from-the-web-too-please dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In France, radio and television news anchors are no longer allowed to say the words 'Facebook' and 'Twitter' on air, unless the terms are specifically part of a news story. The ban stems from a decree issued by the French government on March 27, 1992, which forbids the promotion of commercial enterprises on news programs."

56 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Unless by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

    "unless the terms are specifically part of a news story"

    Well that hardly ever happens.

    1. Re:Unless by Hylandr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Check your history before flaming or modding me down.

      If it weren't for France there wouldn't be an America. Seriously, Philosophically, financially, and with their military help America was established. Then they turned around and did for themselves too.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:Unless by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the rest of the world still blames them for you.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:Unless by Tasha26 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You seem to be forgetting presenters who re-direct viewers to their twitter or facebook page and/or ask them add their views to an ongoing discussion of some topic posted/tweeted on those sites. Frankly, I think it's a good move. Why should Facebook and Twitter get free advertising and becomes more popular than they already are? It's hindering emergence of other sites... hmm, non-US sites. :)

    4. Re:Unless by lexsird · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is an epic amount of "French Bashing" going on in the USA. I find it repulsive because I have always liked the French. I ran into lots of them in MMORPGs such as Asheron's Call, particularly the Dark Tide server. They were fun to fight and fight with. They are a bit quirky and tend to stick together, but can be very friendly if you aren't a tool.

      Its highly important that everyone isn't of the same mindset on planet Earth. I could explain this, but I would rather do it and get an A for it in some damn sociology class, than waste it here.

        Just think if we would have followed the French's lead on Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded and wasted trillions of dollars in a war that we get absolutely NOTHING from. Leave it to the Right wingers to smear them after they didn't play ball with them. AND leave it to capitalists to make every socialist country a villain. BTW, I am not a socialist or capitalist. I believe the intelligent way to govern is to cherry pick what works well and use that for the benefit of EVERYONE, not just the aristocracy.

      Also, contrast the life of the average Frenchman to ours. They live longer, have more free time, have medical and JOBS. I think they are infinitely freer than the corporate wage slaves that we are here. Every time a Rightwinger brays about how socialism doesn't work, pointing to the fall of Russia, I think of the French. In fact, I think of a lot of European countries that are socialists and they haven't "failed".

      With that all said, I cheer them on if they want to keep the news newsworthy and not yet another plug for company X. After all, the airwaves belong to the public, not to any one person, and if you want to use it, you have to follow the rules the public agrees on. If you think our TV has "free speech" to say whatever they want, you are insane. We have something called the FCC and there are censors in this country and have been for decades. After the "Patriot Act", I don't think we have room to talk smack to ANYONE about freedoms. Once we stop our own government from goose stepping all over our Constitution, we might have a leg to stand on.Until then, we need to seriously STFU.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    5. Re:Unless by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't remember did France run away from Vietnam in a cute little bitch style like the Americans did?

    6. Re:Unless by RonnyJ · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That bit should be part of the headline. Terrible editing.

      France Bans Facebook and Twitter From Radio and TV News

    7. Re:Unless by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Are you serious? Do you blame women for being weak when their men beat them too? If we lived next to the Germans when they came Blitzing through, we would have surrendered too. There wasn't a lot of choice in the matter either. You obviously are no student of history and just how advanced the German war machine was.

      German engineering + War; think about it.

      French life style + War; bad combination. Unless they are invading to plant vineyards, and make better coffee, or milk our cows to make some cheese, I don't think we have anything to get excited about.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    8. Re:Unless by RonnyJ · · Score: 2

      Or, better yet: France Bans Facebook and Twitter Promotion in Radio and TV News

    9. Re:Unless by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please give France back the Statue of Liberty. You don't deserve it anymore. You rape the liberties France helped you with against the British. You slap the the French soldiers in the face who died next to yours in the first Iraq war.

      You try to convince the world that you alone won world war one and two, ignoring the many other countries and men that you were in a coalition with. Canadians, Polish, Russians, French, Dutch, English, South African. The list goes on and on and you could not have done it alone.

      The one war you lost was Vietnam and you couldn't deal with it the moment you went at it alone.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:Unless by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Also, contrast the life of the average Frenchman to ours. They live longer, have more free time, have medical and JOBS.

      Not so sure about jobs, French unemploment rate is at 9.7% which is about average for the Euro zone with 9.4% (pdf). Europe as a whole is just as screwed as the US, some countries like Germany are doing okay (6.1%) while others like Spain (20.7%) are completely screwed.

      Anyway, I've found unemployment rates to lie quite a lot. Look at the US data, sure, compared to last year the unemployment rate is down from 9.6% to 9.1% but the participation rate is also down from 64.9% to 64.2%. So in reality less people work today (58.4%) compared to a year ago (58.7%), even though unemployment has "dropped". Of course there can be slight demographic changes too but the majority of those are people that have completely dropped out of the job market. The real number of people who'd like to work is probably a lot higher.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Unless by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      I am sure that sounds barbaric as hell to you.

      Yes, but our enlightened leaders use the same trick. He promised to reduce unemployment and just changed the metric. Now they only count people "actively looking for a job" which means people who accept to go twice a month to useless interviews sometimes far away from where they live in order to get some unemployment aid from the government.

      Here is a question for you guys. What was the story with the IMF chief from France, the one that ended up in some frame up job in NY?

      What is best in this story is that he was leading the polls for the 2012 presidential elections in France, but now he is pretty much toasted. But he is a socialist only in name, his candidature was frowned upon by a lot of members of the socialist party. Maybe he needed more time to make a change but the IMF didn't look very socialist to a lot of observers during the crisis. Maybe slightly more keynesian. And he was known to have a dangerous inclination for excessive sex. I started believing in the conspiracy theory when I first heard about the event, he has so many enemies and this is the perfect accusation to do, but it is unfortunately too credible and I am not sure what to believe anymore. He is power-hungry, sex-hungry, and not that much of a socialist.

      This story however sparked a debate about how the media considers politicians' sex life. There is apparently a widespread belief in US that French do not take sex-crimes very seriously. This is not the case. We just consider extra-marital affairs as not important and private matters, our two previous presidents had mistresses, our current one married thrice, we just don't care and were shocked that the Clinton scandal was so important in US. However, rape is a completely different matter and is very serious. Voting for a cheating husband is not a problem, voting for a raper is another thing completely. And now we discover that the French press covered some past sex-crimes, thinking that the French public would only consider that as "personal matters". In particular there is a rumor about a former minister that had a sex-party with children in a foreign country. Journalists are wondering how to disclose what they know about this without being accused of slander, as the government at the time covered it.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    12. Re:Unless by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Well, you put the emphasis on JOBS yourself. Working hours only matter if you have work and the governments are going to have huge problems getting their budgets back in balance without cutting in public healthcare. Portugal, Ireland and Greece would all be bankrupt by now if not for the EU and the emergency loans are now putting the whole EU on the line as collateral. It's a make-or-break strategy, either they all rebound or it'll all come crashing down. The EU is not "too big to fail", the 1929 crash shows no market is that big. Right now I'd like to see in a few years forward in my crystal ball before I say Europe is going to do better than the US.

      That said, I don't see how you could do much worse in healthcare than the US for the same amount of money. And they have a cultural obesity problem, that's sure to affect the life span, but that's a different discussion.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Unless by lexsird · · Score: 2

      You should say "liberating a nation from a tyrannical dictator that used to be our puppet". You and so many others either ignore or are completely ignorant of our previous Middle East policies. While us and the Soviets got into some deadly dick measuring contest, we armed the living shit out of that region. We put some serious weapons in the hands of lunatics just as long as they sang and danced the "oil" tune for us. These maniacs then ran roughshod over their own people, their neighbors and anyone that got in their way, and we wonder why the average person that had to deal with all that shit hates us. "Why do they hate us? Why? Why?"

      The rest of your shit doesn't even dignify a response.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    14. Re:Unless by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      Here is one for you, the next time some Yank gets smart assed with you about anything, just whisper "Patriot Act" to them. If they have half a brain they will STFU.

      The Patriot act is a fucking shame. More even now that Obama called it crucial for US security. But we also have anti-terrorist policies that would frighten you as well. Here we have military with assault rifles patrolling in airports and subway stations. Warrent-less searches is the norm here and wiretapping happens without even a debate. Just don't overestimate us. When the post-9/11 world fell into madness, we followed just like most western countries.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:Unless by russotto · · Score: 2

      I can't remember did France run away from Vietnam in a cute little bitch style like the Americans did?

      Yes

    16. Re:Unless by improfane · · Score: 2

      I almost choked on my water when reading GPs post. He's an idiot and you are absolutely right.

      If you're reading this and wondering why he's an idiot, pick up a book by Noam Chomsky, 'Manufacturing Consent' would be a good start.

      --
      Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    17. Re:Unless by mangu · · Score: 2

      The root of many problems in the Middle East was the absurdly inept way the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was handled. The division of the empire ignored the complex religious and ethnic divisions in that region.

      Basically, Iraq is a country that should have never been created. Its territory should have been split between Kurdistan, Syria, and Persia. As it stands now, it can be either a police state or anarchy.

      However, this does not justify keeping Saddam in power. If Bush Sr. had a little bit of competence he should have killed Saddam in 1991 and moved immediately out of Iraq (and Saudi Arabia), let them sort it out among themselves. Having non-Muslim troops quartered in Saudi Arabia was one of the main motivations for the resurgence of religious fanaticism in the region.

      It's a pity the world has no easy way to remove dictators. Unfortunately, it seems that too many people aren't big fans of democracy, or at least do not care to make a big effort to maintain it. I believe that if you have the means you have the duty to do it whenever a dictator starts massacring his own people or attacks another country.

  2. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine something similar:
    Visit us at www.texaco.com/abcnews for more information.

    1. Re:Imagine... by rueger · · Score: 2

      Imagine newscasts that didn't include video press releases masquerading as news...

      --
      Three Squirrels
  3. France is just jealous... by howlingfrog · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that Twitter and Facebook have more influence on global culture than it does.

    --
    The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
    1. Re:France is just jealous... by MrCoke · · Score: 2

      Facebook == culture??

      Damn.

    2. Re:France is just jealous... by fearlezz · · Score: 3

      No, they're jealous that it's not livre des faces and twitteur

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    3. Re:France is just jealous... by jpapon · · Score: 2

      Face in French is generally used to mean "across from", or "facing" when describing locations, as in "en face".

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    4. Re:France is just jealous... by alexhs · · Score: 4, Informative

      livre des faces and twitteur

      More like trombinoscope and piailleur.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    5. Re:France is just jealous... by howlingfrog · · Score: 2

      Normally, I would ignore anyone who didn't realize that a comment modded +5 Funny was in fact a joke, not intended as a literally true statement. But first, you're wrong in interesting ways. I mean that as a compliment--people who are right or wrong in uninteresting ways are so boring as to be de facto nonentities, and people who are right in interesting ways are exceedingly rare. Second, you express yourself coherently. I therefore deem you to be worth talking to.

      Let's deconstruct my joke. In actual fact, France's influence is larger but declining, while Twitbook's is smaller but increasing. Claiming, facetiously, that those trends have gone so far that the situation has reversed emphasizes the trends themselves. It's a statement which is literally false, but in a way that highlights something true. That's something I (and apparently several people with mod points) find funny.

      But we do actually disagree--you think I was overstating the influence of social networking, but I was actually understating the influence of France. Social networking, especially Facebook and Twitter, are a much bigger deal than you claim they are. Point by point:

      It doesn't really alter people's values

      There has been much discussion, including here on Slashdot, about the effect cable television and the internet are having on people's political views. We can, more and more easily, choose to avoid exposure to differing viewpoints. This positive feedback loop seems to be leading us to hold more and more strongly to more and more extreme positions. I'd call that an alteration of our values. Social networking is not the driving force of that change, but it's certainly a factor.

      Just as widely discussed is the rapid, universal devaluation of privacy--primarily and directly due to social networking. Whether that's a good or bad thing is far from clear, but it's definitely a big thing.

      it doesn't lead people to do anything new ... it's a different way of doing the same thing

      The big new thing that Facebook does is that we no longer have to consciously choose to keep in touch with casual friends--we have to consciously choose not to. I'm Facebook-friends with dozens of people I went to high school or college with but haven't seen since graduation, former coworkers, siblings of friends, etc. These continuing relationships are not a big part of my day to day life, but any of them could be rekindled--if we move to the same city, or one of us posts about a common interest we didn't know we shared. That's something that was never possible before, even with earlier social networking sites. Nothing before Facebook had a large enough userbase to have that effect.

      You can break all forms of communication down into four categories: one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many. A conversation in person, or a personal letter, is one-to-one. The written (published) word (or television or pretty much any form of artistic expression) is one-to-many. Democracy is a kind of many-to-one communication, as is survey-based research. But many-to-many communication never existed before the internet, and you could almost use it as the primary distinguishing characteristic of social networking. Social networking is the subset of internet activity that is not just a faster version of traditional one-to-one or one-to-many communication. The major breakthroughs of the other three categories are language, democracy, and the printing press--it's an understatement to call them world-changers. We may not know yet HOW many-to-many communication will change the world, but there's no doubt that it's going to. Check out the last three paragraphs of this speech by Douglas Adams for a somewhat more in-depth discussion of this idea.

      Twitter is drastically different from anything else that exists on- or offline, including other social networks. All o

      --
      The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
  4. Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by Sparx139 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't limiting freedom of speech. Granted it sucks (I know in Australia we've had all kinds of stupid/funny "if we get x followers on twitter we'll do y" things on breakfast shows that this sort of thing would stomp on were it here), but it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    1. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by nzac · · Score: 2

      Please tell me how you figure this isn't a limitation on freedom of speech?? It's not just a limitation on freedom of speech. It's a directive that requires news organisations to make the news vaguer. If an issue has been discussed on Facebook, and they are forced to say "social network sites" and not identify the social network, that's diluted the information. Idiotic!

      I read the summary/article differently, your case is allowed. What it disallows is using broadcast time to advertise Facebook and twitter pages for the channel, which is hardly censorship of information or an attack on free speech. I would think it closer to age restriction censorship which is good or in very lest necessary.

      Anti (some) Americans rant: Seriously how can you use the idea of freedom of speech to make it sound like a good idea to allow advertising or promotions of companies into news broadcasts.

    2. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by sammyF70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about news ABOUT Twitter or Facebook. It's about PR related issues. So, the headline "Facebook's Owner, Marc Zuckerberg, killed by frikking bass with lasers he intended to eat" or even "Bill Gate's Twitter account hacked. His password was Chairs4Steve" are still allowed, whereas "Entertainment Industry comes to term with the fact that DRM is contra productive. Read more on our Facebook page" isn't. In the first two, mentioning the sites is relevant. In the last one it's just hidden advertising (Even if might be unwilling).

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    3. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's an increase in freedom of speech: there's limited time and resources for speech. Letting commercial companies take over all of it displaces and cancels cultural, philosophical... speech.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by sammyF70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it still isn't. "Amazon.com" (or "amazon.fr" in that case) can't be named in similar circumstances ( "Here is our review of "Harry Potter XIII - Resurrection". You can buy it at amazon.fr" isn't allowed, 'Amazon's worth increasing 10 fold on the stock market after Bezos calls his kid "Kindle"' is actually allowed.)

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    5. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Why shouldn't a news organization be able to promote other avenues for viewers to receive or submit content to their service? I see no logical difference between "Visit us at CNN.com" and "Visit our Twitter page at twitter.com/CNN" other than the second is an outside service rather than an internal service. It's not a "hidden advertising" issue if the first is allowed, which AFAICT, it is.

    6. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      "...unless the terms are part of a news story" - you know, the bit from the article that the summary deliberately neglected to mention, in order to provoke reactions just like yours. In fact, the law isn't even aimed at Facebook or Twitter, it just happens to encompass them.

      The law is intended to prevent "news" programs from stuffing their stories full of product placement.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Breakfast shows aren't news.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      This paragraph from TFA sums up their argument:

      The French TV regulatory agency Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA) insists the French government is simply upholding its laws. “Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition?” a CSA spokesperson said in a statement. “This would be a distortion of competition. If we allow Facebook and Twitter to be cited on air, it’s opening a Pandora’s Box — other social networks will complain to us saying, ‘why not us?’”

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    9. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by icebraining · · Score: 2

      That aside, this also bans a news channel from saying something like, "Follow us on Twitter at @newschannelname for the latest news updates direct to your phone." How does it benefit anyone to forbid that?

      No, the channel can still do it, just as a proper advertisement, and not mixed with the news. Seems OK to me. Advertisement as news is just fraud.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    10. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by VanessaE · · Score: 2

      There is ONE argument I can make in favor of promoting Facebook or some other social network: When the news in question is ongoing. I.e. something that, if reported on only as part of a normal news broadcast a few times a day, leaves out valuable information of some kind.

      The recent devastation in Joplin, Missouri is a perfect example; until I heard that everyone I know there was safe, if homeless, I followed the story using the Facebook page for one of the city's radio stations (KZRG),at their suggestion. Not because I can't get that info from the radio station itself, but because it was more convenient for me, not being a resident of that state anymore, and because the "wall" therein also allowed for people to ask questions, make suggestions for places to donate, offer their own hands and tools to help in the cleanup, ask about missing loved ones, etc.

      These things just don't seem to work all that well on regular websites, from what I've seen. I still dislike Facebook, but I do have an account there and it does have its uses.

    11. Re:Inb4 "freedom of speech" comments by Alarash · · Score: 2

      They passed this law because it was unfair competition against other social websites. They wanted to ban the use of the "And find out more about our show on our Facebook page!" at the end of every TV show or whatnot. Now they'll have to say "And find out more about our show on the social websites!" I think it's actually a good thing and make people more aware that FB and Twitter are not the only websites on earth.

  5. This is normal throughout (large) parts of Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Product placement is not allowed in state channels, commercial websites are just that, products.

  6. FFS by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we PLEASE go in on the side of the Germans next time?

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. Wish we had this by nzac · · Score: 2

    No more follow/like us on twitter or facebook interrupting something generally more interesting.

    Seriously the PR departments must be really under pressure to appeal to the new generation, without fully understanding it, to think that we would rather follow them using a facebook or twitter interface rather than there generally well done actual website.

  8. I am so conflicted over this... by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the one hand, the freedom of speech lover in me thinks that this goes to far, as I do with many things the French do...

    On the other hand, I imagine what CNN would be like if they had to report or analyze a story instead of asking what Twitter thinks of a story...

    --
    Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
  9. Re:Circumvention is proven by sco08y · · Score: 2

    Anyway, exactly how do they report a currently hypothetical purchase of say, Twitter by Facebook? "The world's largest social media company, owned by Mark Zuckerberg, has bought another?" Even that is pretty self-explanatory.

    FTFS: unless the terms are specifically part of a news story

  10. brand names by dotsandlines · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that I agree with the French policy (or RTFS), but it's recently bothered me (in a very slight way) that we now have forms of communication that can only be referred to through the brand name. We could chat, text, fax, phone and blog without referring to a company name, but Tweets and Facebook posts seem harder to generalize. Just saying something's been "posted online" seems too vague. The proper generic verb hasn't been invented yet.

  11. Re:This is normal throughout (large) parts of Euro by sco08y · · Score: 4, Informative

    Product placement is not allowed in state channels, commercial websites are just that, products.

    And in Europe, it's taken for granted that this is a reasonable restriction and that the idea of state channels is reasonable.

    Most Americans (and probably a lot of Euros) don't grasp that European leftism != American leftism and European rightism != American rightism. There are strong parallels in abstract, but as you cross the pond you see a fundamental change in the cultural gestalt of the relationship between the state and the individual.

  12. Good. by radio4fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any objective person can see that saying "Follow us on twitter!" is an endorsement of a commercial service, and it's not legal in France to pepper news programs with adverts like this.

    The blogtards and upcoming posters who say "Stupid bans like these don't work" and "Next they will be after McDonalds and Disney" are either missing the point due to a lack of thought, or don't care about the point and just like to criticize France anyway.

    Personally, I'm amazed that CSA have finally pulled their finger out and have reminded the broadcasters of their responsibilities.

  13. Over time, this issue will be settled in overtime. by magusxxx · · Score: 2

    Then Twitter and Facebook will have to do what American companies have done for years. Buy sports stadiums. Then every time a game is played there, their name is mentioned during the sports replays.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  14. I wish they had that in Australia by JinjaontheNile · · Score: 3

    It is becoming obligatory that half the news stories have half arsed irrelevant comments from Facebook or Twitter Unfortunately I suspect our journalists will find a way around minor obstructions like the French promotion laws.

  15. Proper generic term hasn't been invented by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure it has: the proper generic term is GARBAGE. Really, when did ill-considered soundbites from anonymous children ever become news?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  16. Re:This is normal throughout (large) parts of Euro by houghi · · Score: 2

    I would say that European rightism = American leftism. And there would still be place between the two.

    Obviously talking about major parties, not minority groups or individuals.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Finally some decency. by Haedrian · · Score: 3

    I'm tired of the 'news' stories pointing out what X said on twitter, and what pictures Y put on facebook related to the news in question.

    I for one hope more people adopt it.

  18. France has stronger anti-ads policy than US by Trigger31415 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some examples : -Logos of trademarks that appear in music clip (and the rest) must be blurred. -A video announcer cannot promote his own book (example: this can't happen Glen Beck. Oh, and btw, his analysis of the French riots of 2005 is completely false, ofc. Hello FUD). -Trailers of films cannot be broadcast on TV as ads (only during emission about cinema) Generally speaking this comes from the same law: "No Hidden advertising" You have other reglementations, like 'in average, 6min of ads / hr max', and 'no too noisy ads' (wasn't that a recent proposition from Obama?). More recently, it was decided to stop broadcasting of all advertising on gvt-owned TV channels, which usually account for more than 50% of hearing. Whether you like or not those laws, comparing them to the Freedom Fries stuff is stupid, and shows that the author ignores French culture...

  19. High Unemployment in France by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Also, contrast the life of the average Frenchman to ours. They live longer, have more free time, have medical and JOBS.

    Actually, the unemployment rate in France is higher than in the US (9.5% vs. 8.7%), and it is very difficult for young people to find jobs there. If you recall, there was a major bout of riots in 2009 over it, and smaller riots have been occurring since then.

    Just think if we would have followed the French's lead on Iraq, we wouldn't have invaded and wasted trillions of dollars in a war that we get absolutely NOTHING from. Leave it to the Right wingers to smear them after they didn't play ball with them.

    I don't think we should have invaded Iraq (and I didn't think so at the time), but did you know that France had strong economic ties to Iraq at the time that probably contributed to their decision to oppose the war? It would be similar to the US opposing war on Saudi Arabia, or the UAE (which we certainly would). Those kind of decisions are made the same way in France as they are in the US.

    1. Re:High Unemployment in France by lul_wat · · Score: 2

      Some US commentators are putting the actual US unemployment rate at around 20%. Plus the million or so people who have gone past the 99 week limit. Just sayin.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    2. Re:High Unemployment in France by ianare · · Score: 2

      The difference is that this is actually not a bad rate for France. There has been high unemployment here for decades. As such, there are many social provisions for it (some would argue too many).

      In the US, if you've been out of work for a year or more and don't have any savings or family to fall back on -- you're on the street.

      BTW, the May 2011 US unemployment rate is 9.1 %

  20. Re:This is normal throughout (large) parts of Euro by Kjella · · Score: 2

    On the really broad lines my impression is that the US leaves it to the "invisible hand" of the market to fix everything. In most of Europe we'll employ any regulation we like as long as we treat all competitors equally. The free market is in the sandbox with the rules and limitations we choose, if say we want to clearly separate news from ads we just make a rule saying that you must, even if the "free market" would like to offer you a slush taking great kickbacks on their promotion. Rather than trust a market not to lie about "unlimited" Internet we tell them to either deliver or face sanctions. If we don't like your warranties we'll just give stronger protection in law.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings