Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#31

Post by dperfect » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

For more context into Facebook's decision-making process when it comes to censorship, you might find this episode of Radiolab insightful (it was for me):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/post-no-evil

From what I recall: Facebook's dilemmas over how/what to censor have existed since very early in the company's history. Internally, FB developed a policy document - separate from the public one we see - which would be applied by both human and AI enforcers. The employment of those human enforcers could be considered unethical in itself (at least without providing adequate therapy). Over time, the secret policy document has grown substantially to account for a lot of edge cases. While terrorist/graphic violence is normally censored, there are provisions for allowing content that would otherwise not be seen/known if not shared on FB (e.g., content that governments seek to cover up). Still, there is considerable internal disagreement among executives at FB when it comes to handling edge cases.

The fact that this secret document (and the processes that define and apply it) has so much power in shaping public perception, politics, etc. with so little transparency is perhaps the most disturbing part of this.

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#32

Post by jstanley » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #21

All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? If you do, and publicly, well... at least you're consistent. If you don't then you're already ok with some kind of censorship, and the argument is just about where the line is drawn. I really don't like when people talk about "censorship in general" when they really mean "This is belo…

> All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals?

Yes.

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#33

Post by happytoexplain » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #3

The video of the 757s hitting the WTC isn't purged from the internet, why should this video be? The world is dark and full of terrors (but getting better every day), and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't change that.

Can you elaborate on your apparently implicit assertion that the decision of major social media platforms to ban the content constitutes "sticking our heads in the sand" or an attempt to get it "purged from the internet"? That's such a black-and-white leap to me that I'm baffled.

Edit: Or perhaps the "implicit" part of your post is that you're referring to the ISP incident in NZ, and not Facebook?

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#34

Post by TaylorAlexander » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #21

All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? If you do, and publicly, well... at least you're consistent. If you don't then you're already ok with some kind of censorship, and the argument is just about where the line is drawn. I really don't like when people talk about "censorship in general" when they really mean "This is belo…

And if people want the right censored then they’re accepting that the right or center or whoever will censor new critics the way Martin Luther King Jr, The Black Panthers, Muslim movements, Native American Rights movements, Puerto Rican Indepencence movements, and other groups fighting for the rights of their people against the establishment.

If we empower an elite to censor information or have any other power over us they will use it to further their own agendas even if that means inhibiting the freedom of millions of people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#35

Post by deogeo » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #21

All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? If you do, and publicly, well... at least you're consistent. If you don't then you're already ok with some kind of censorship, and the argument is just about where the line is drawn. I really don't like when people talk about "censorship in general" when they really mean "This is belo…

Many/most free speech advocates seem pretty happy with the way it's implemented in the US, where both child porn and threats are illegal.

I really don't like it when people take the few, narrow exceptions to free speech in the US, and try to expand them: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t...

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#36

Post by dghughes » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

mrkstu wrote: post #20

tibbydudeza wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have ask what sort of people would watch this ???.

The same people who gathered around TVs on 9/11 after the first strike and then saw the 2nd strike live? So most of the country?

On the morning of September 11, 2001 nobody knew there would be a second attack on the other tower. I distinctly remember everyone including myself thinking about the B52 that accidentally ran into the Empire State building. We were all at work so it wasn't like we were watching TV.

You're assuming at the time that everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, which is false.

Nobody knew that until well after the second plane hit. And even after the third plane crashed into the ground.

The only reason anyone watched TV was because it was a major event with a dramatic incident. Most of the people at the time in my town didn't turn on the TV I had to ask several times at a bar to have the TV turned on. Even then people had no idea what was going on.

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#37

Post by Shivetya » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #21

All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals? If you do, and publicly, well... at least you're consistent. If you don't then you're already ok with some kind of censorship, and the argument is just about where the line is drawn. I really don't like when people talk about "censorship in general" when they really mean "This is belo…

Well there we have it then, censorship should only be in force when not doing so deprives someone of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. To put it another way, do not deprive a person of their self, their property, or efforts of their work. Child porn when get caught under depriving children, those unable to consent legally, to their happiness, if not liberty and in some cases their life. Video threats to living people would likely fall under all three as well.

As in life, our actions should never deprive another of their rights to live and pursue their non infringing rights.you have a right to self, your property, and the efforts of your work. we balance some of the latter in order to provide a more orderly society and benefit those who cannot fully sustain themselves.

A simplistic view I admit but it is when people start having exception after exception we end up with no real liberty but a tyranny of violations. Every thing you do would bound to be covered to where even no action is a wrong.

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#38

Post by eg5fv4 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #19

eg5fv4 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to this particular incident I've clearly seen the hypocrisy of many people regarding these matters.

Hypocrisy? Why do you assume that censorship will be used to block far-right material rather than leftist material? The right is gaining more and more political power and historically (at least in the US) is the side most willing to use censorship for it's own benefit.

I've read many people for too long opposing censorship, because it was always used by those in power for many things, from oppressing the political will of people to protecting copyright. Think of China, Russia on one side and the West on the other.

But now that some political power that we don't like is emerging, well, a lil censorship never hurt anyone huh?

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#39

Post by ilkkao » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

warning26 wrote: post #9

I know people on here will disagree with this, but I think many of these events indicate that online censorship is needed. I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this.

I read that it was a live stream. Not sure how even technically those can be fully moderated. Probably one employee can watch up to ten streams at time but it still doesn't sound scalable enough. The cost would be too high.

Re: Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos

#40

Post by michaelbuckbee » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

warning26 wrote: post #9

I know people on here will disagree with this, but I think many of these events indicate that online censorship is needed. I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this.

I recently came across the concept of a "data void" that we have these gaps in our electronic communication platforms where:

1. Platforms weight/select for content that is updated frequently and drives views.

2. Established/agreed upon information is much less likely to get that fed to you.

Consider the flat earth folks, they are churning out thousands of videos on that topic. How often are spherical earthers updating their YouTube channels? And I see similar happening with extremist communities: a flood of ideas and video that just seem unhinged and I'd rather ignore, but in doing so it furthers this gap.