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

81–90 of 373 posts

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

#81

Post by guiambros »

sasasassy wrote: post #69
52-6F-62 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world"...

So you're saying that having illegal material on your computer is not a problem because, well, it's "your property"? Like, it's fine for you to have child porn (or pirated software, or illegally downloaded copyrighted music or movies) because hey, it's all zeroes and ones, and you're not "making a business out of it"?

I empathize with the argument of some free speech advocates that it's complicated to find the right balance on where to draw the line in terms of censorship, but frankly the argument that you can do anything you want just because "it's zeroes and ones" and that is not "the real world" is plainly ridiculous. Thankfully what you propose is clearly against the law in most countries.

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

#82

Post by huffmsa »

UncleMeat wrote: post #79
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".

It's purged from the parts of internet the majority of people consider "the internet".

But here's 65+ people vaporizing from 18 different angles. On YouTube. These are not different. They are footage of a terrorist attack.

https://youtu.be/7YLm3pkAiJQ

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

#83

Post by mrkstu »

sasasassy wrote: post #65
happytoexplain wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

People acquire child porn because they are the target market as consumers of it.

People, generally, watch video of a terrorist attack to be informed about threats to them or their country, a direct first amendment concern.

There is a direct connection between the consumers of child porn and its production that is absent in the other.

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

#84

Post by sasasassy »

mrkstu wrote: post #83
sasasassy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 does…

People acquire child porn because they are the target market as consumers of it. People, generally, watch video of a terrorist attack to be informed about threats to them or their country, a direct first amendment concern. There is a direct connection between the consumers of child porn and its production that is absent in the other.

You are implying there is an actual industry of producing child porn and filling in quotas and receiving payment in some form, I don't think that's the case. In any case, people that watch (many) speeches of Hitler are also the target market of many businesses, and yet there is a correlation between doing so and being radicalized/extremist/dangerous, and yet it is perfectly legal.

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

#85

Post by sjcsjc »

eclipxe wrote: post #45
x38iq84n wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ goes even further, threatening 10 years prison for a “possession of a video”. Kiwis have gone bananas. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-ye...

When did zerohedge become so...bad. The comments on that thread are atrocious. It wasn’t always like that.

ZeroHedge's comments have been appalling for several years. They made a switch some time ago so that they don't show by default. Frankly I don't see why they don't simply ditch their comments section, but that's there business not mine.

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

#86

Post by sasasassy »

guiambros wrote: post #81
sasasassy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world"... So you're saying that having illegal material on your computer is not a problem because, well, it's "your property"? Like, it's fine for you to have child porn (or pirated software, or illegally downloaded copyrighted music or movies) because hey, it's all zeroes and ones, and you're not "making a business out of it"? I empathize…

No, if it's stolen property, it is it's own crime. Like a pirated software. But it's treated quite differently someone's picture that is an adult from someone who is a child isn't it? Still, against the law. So yes having CP should be a minimal offense if it is copyright theft, but very old CP or noteworthy or for some other reason public domain pictures should not.

It's idiotic that I can have a picture of my niece in a swimsuit in my computer and it's fine but if it's a stranger and he plans to masturbate with it then it becomes a most serious of crimes.

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

#87

Post by microcolonel »

ihuman wrote: post #28
x38iq84n wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ goes even further, threatening 10 years prison for a “possession of a video”. Kiwis have gone bananas. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-ye...

What law makes possession of the video illegal? The post mentioned "possession of objectionable material" is illegal, but that sounds way to vague.

Vagueness doctrine is an American innovation, as far as I'm aware.

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

#88

Post by Animats »

The US has shootings this big most years now. Las Vegas festival shooting, 2017, 59 dead. Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2017, 27 dead. Orlando nightclub shooting, 2016, 50 dead.

Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But for a high body count, you need a good assault rifle like the AR-15 family, the choice of most mass shooters.

Streaming your mass shooting is fully supported by off the shelf products. GoPro sells an official mount for mounting a camera on a rifle.[1] Video of deer hunting with this.[2] Instructions from GoPro on how to set up your camera for live streaming.[3] It's so easy now that anyone can do it.

And it's all legal in most US states, right up until you pull the trigger. America, Land of Guns!

[1] https://www.amazon.com/GoPro-Sportsman-Mount-Official/dp/B00... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOTO5ydGbE [3] https://gopro.com/help/articles/block/getting-started-with-l...

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

#89

Post by darkpuma »

huffmsa wrote: post #6
x38iq84n wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NZ goes even further, threatening 10 years prison for a “possession of a video”. Kiwis have gone bananas. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-ye...

It still strikes me that it can be illegal to be in possession of a device which has a certain combination of positive and negative polarities embedded in it. Shakespeare's typing monkeys come to mind.

Does it also strike you as strange that it can be illegal to make certain cuts on a piece of metal? (e.g. machine gun manufacture laws that exist on nearly every corner of the planet)

I find that these kind of reductive arguments floated for digital subjects fall apart when you remove the computer from the equation.

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

#90

Post by fizx »

ben_w wrote: post #58
40acres wrote: post #11

We have yet to have a real discussion about what we expect the largest platforms to do about content like this. The nature of online content is that once it's created it can be copied quite easily, if Facebook was able to block 80% of this content that should be commended. AI is not at the point where we can expect 100% of this content to be removed and if it was there would likely be some collateral damage that othe…

20% not being caught is surprisingly high to me. I would have assumed the majority of the upload attempts would be byte-for-byte identical, and that even if there were a dozen minor variations of the same content, they would be able to deal with >95% automatically.

1.5 million videos uploaded implies the involvement of at least persistent script-kiddies, if not possibly state-level actors getting involved for propaganda.

This seems likely to be an arms race.

Post reply on HN