Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 373 posts

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

#61

Post by huffmsa »

happytoexplain wrote: post #33
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?

I do mean the media platforms.

That 757 video was played on repeat for weeks on all of the major channels in 2001. Hundreds of people turning into a fireball over and over.

It made it real for us.

By hiding the video from ChristChurch, people have to imagine how awful the event was. And they'll fall back to the stylized Hollywood notions of violence as a reference point. There are no heroic close-ups in this footage (I found a copy).

If you want people to get upset about this and take action, you show them the truth. It would repulse almost everyone.

So, since a very very small part of Internet consumers venture out of the big social and old media sites, by not hosting it there they will never see it.

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

#62

Post by x38iq84n »

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…

Yes. Go after the authors of said horrible crimes, not after those in possession of a video thereof.

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

#63

Post by mkgolden »

Simulacra wrote: post #13

People around the office were watching it. Shockingly easy to find.

Everyone keeps saying how easy it was to find. My experience was different, eventually came across a torrent of it but it took me surprisingly long, 30 minutes or so. Maybe im bad at googling?

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

#64

Post by writepub »

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 "non-free-speech", "speech is violence" advocates here: Violence, call for violence against others, and crimes that happen to have a speech component to them, are NOT protected by the first amendment. Threats against individuals and CP very much fall under crimes, and they have ZERO protection under free speech.

> If you want to make the case for no censorship at all then you need to use the most extreme examples of what will be shared and consumed because that's what will happen

No free speech advocate worth their salt EVER demanded anything illegal to not be censored, including threats, CP, etc.

Absolutely no one should entrust private corporations with the power to decide what is and isn't extreme, or acceptable speech. Because it will immediately be abused (as is happening right now) to censor speech that companies, mostly based in left leaning blue cities with, overwhelming employee bases leaning towards one ideology (hint: left), to spread their worldview to the REST of the world. US law sets clear definitions on free speech, and is a lot more reliable than the "moral" compass of a few individuals at companies.

For instance, the very legal and harmless "learn to code" meme was only considered offensive by a very small monitory of silicon valley Twitter censors, but anyone who tweeted that got an immediate temporary suspension.

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

#65

Post by sasasassy »

happytoexplain wrote: post #47
sasasassy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home. You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.

While I agree with this notion generally, you're avoiding the relevant point, which is that information is not something that inherently can have no direct effect on the real world. Child porn is the usual example where you can start to make a reasonable argument that possessing it creates a real-world effect, not due to the possession itself, but due to the necessary action required to possess, which is seeking it o…

Acquiring child porn doesn't have to be any more difficult than acquiring videos of beheadings and other vile acts. It was only made difficult to acquire out of puritanism, there's nothing intrinsic about it that suggests you have to commit further crimes to find it.

And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it doesn't make sense at the same time for me to be advertised violent movies in the cinema.

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

#66

Post by x_____x »

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…

For me, the line is what is legal in your area of operation. Not what is acceptable to potential advertisers.

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

#67

Post by sasasassy »

tantalor wrote: post #42
sasasassy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home. You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.

IANAL but knowingly transmitting CP is arguably "aiding & abetting" (i.e., encouraging) the "actual crimes" after the fact.

Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.

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

#68

Post by burfog »

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…

I would treat child porn and specific threats against individuals just the same as I'd treat a shooting video.

Arrest the shooter, the child porn producer (unless victim==perpetrator), and the person making the threat. It is fine for others to keep and share the video, photos, text, etc.

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

#69

Post by sasasassy »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #50
sasasassy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home. You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.

I’m sorry, but that crass treatment of “ones and zeroes” as not being part of the real world is a serious logical fallacy. It should apply across the board—if you’re a serious engineer. Those same “ones and zeroes” could cost someone their life as much as a mal-designed truss on a bridge could. That is not a new phenomenon. The same applies to childrens’ safety.

Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world". If I use them and they are a virus and damage computer systems, that is a crime. If I made the virus just to learn about hacking, that should be perfectly fine.

Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to be perfectly tolerated and celebrated in books, movies, music.

If I'm trying to make a business out of child porn, sure try to prosecute me. I believe selling other peoples' pictures without consent should be illegal in any case, specially if in demeaning circumstances. If I'm just sharing it, though disgusting it may be, the law should not stick it's nose in it. Just like it's legal to share books on how to make bombs and poison people.

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

#70

Post by tantalor »

sasasassy wrote: post #67
tantalor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but knowingly transmitting CP is arguably "aiding & abetting" (i.e., encouraging) the "actual crimes" after the fact.

Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.

You have to consider intent of sharing that content, and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior.

CP is shared with the intent of reciprocity for more CP; hence sharing existing CP promotes future CP.

Violent/hateful content is shared with the intent to encourage/persuade others to perform similar acts, or to dehumanize the victims.

Post reply on HN