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

#71

Post by m0zg » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

x38iq84n wrote: post #2

The shooting in Christchurch is a tragedy that should not have happened. That said, this massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing. It will be inevitably used to suppress citizens' freedoms, it will cause more tension in society that will escalate into more tragical incidents. Also, the video may serve someone to study modus operandi of such an attacker to increa…

  > massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, 
  > regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing

Never waste a good crisis. Someone in the government was salivating over this even before the bodies reached room temperature. Happens every time. Does jack squat to prevent anything at all, but the power balance always shifts unidirectionally, towards the ruling class.

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

#72

Post by sasasassy » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #70

sasasassy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No I don't. When I share a book on how to teach people to make bombs like the Anarchy Cookbook, I don't have to consider intent at all. Why is CP different?

CP, violent and hateful content are shared for a myriad of reasons, some for profit, like the documentary on the Bataclan attack on Netflix, some for sharing with fellow pedophiles. I don't see why I can't see 9/11 footage because someone else might feel different about it.

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

#73

Post by jimjimjim » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

I am almost as saddened by some of the responses here as I was after hearing about the shooting.

Have you all become so gradually desensitized to violence that absolutely nothing is beyond acceptable?

Are YOU, personally, YOU, happy with how things are in the world?

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

#74

Post by fucking_tragedy » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:22 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 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.

People are going to jump on you for this, but I feel it's necessary to put this in perspective.

Ten years ago, the threat of domestic radicalization was a hot topic, except it concerned radicalization towards fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.

Twitter, Google et al. devoted resources towards identifying Islamic terrorist propaganda, accounts and networks, and then silenced them all.

Today, the threat of domestic radicalization comes from the far right. We should at least be honest and consistent when considering the threat and how we've handled such threats in the past.

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

#75

Post by dogma1138 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:24 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…

Context is also important, I have no problems with displaying footage form Nazi experiments on concentration camp prisoners for educational purposes I could however agree that it is ok to block the same footage when it’s shared by neo-Nazis or white supremacist groups on Facebook for lolz and pride.

I also think that this is a stupid argument this footage is not illegal and can be considered by many newsworthy hence should be protected at least in some narrow context.

Child pornography on the other hand is illegal. Broadcasting or displaying child pornography has no newsworthy or any other value in any context other than the pornographic one.

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

#76

Post by Simulacra » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #23

tibbydudeza wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity#Morbid_curiosity

I refuse to watch it or even seek it out, personally I think it’s disrespectful and way too morbid. But I do understand the morbid curiosity. Very strange fact of human psychology.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #52

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.

Personally I'm more tempted to blame AI content curation pushing people into echo chambers than a lack of censorship. If we want less division we should be listening more to each other not less.

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by burfog » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

tibbydudeza wrote: post #17

Simulacra wrote: post #13

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

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

I wasn't too interested, but now I feel a duty to watch it due to the censorship. I think we all have that duty.

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

#79

Post by UncleMeat » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:40 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.

This video is fascist propaganda. It isn't neutral.

It also isn't "purged from the internet".

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

#80

Post by judge2020 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 8:42 PM UTC

jimjimjim wrote: post #73

I am almost as saddened by some of the responses here as I was after hearing about the shooting. Have you all become so gradually desensitized to violence that absolutely nothing is beyond acceptable? Are YOU, personally, YOU, happy with how things are in the world?

I recommend re-reading the comments here. Nobody is saying that what happened is acceptable, every comment here has its own reasoning for why they viewed it or why they don't think it should be censored.