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

131–140 of 373 posts

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

#131

Post by tenpies »

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.

> merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization

The shooter was self described as an eco-fascist and claimed his motivation were two events covered widely by the mainstream media. He was very clearly "of the internet", but are you convinced that deleting "far-right dialogue" would have stopped him?

What about the current state of journalism and politics, which was also very clearly something he aimed to exploit and seems to have manipulated at a far more effective level than past attacks?

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

#132

Post by colejohnson66 »

darkpuma wrote: post #89
huffmsa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

The “illegal numbers” concept is something I find interesting. Just because a certain number can be used to decrypt BluRays, it’s illegal

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

1rkd wrote: post #103
UncleMeat wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This video is fascist propaganda. It isn't neutral. It also isn't "purged from the internet".

I don't think this can really be considered propaganda. It functions more to shock, insult, and potentially "brag". I think it is almost impossible that this video can garner support for white supremacist causes in anyone other than an already deeply racist and violent person. Seeing this unfold only portrays the shooter as a cowardly psychopath.

[deleted]

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

#134

Post by danso »

microcolonel wrote: post #87
ihuman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Was curious to see if it drew from somewhere like British common law, but didn't see it in the Wikipedia article:

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

> The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):

> [T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

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

#135

Post by zed88 »

I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart.

I am from NZ and a muslim and have watched the video myself an hour after the incident, I know people personally affected by this and I think we all need to come together as human beings and understand that there are some evil ideas and people everywhere around the world.

And that's the challenge we face that wouldn't go away because of censorship and putting our heads in the sand.

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

#136

Post by anigbrowl »

burfog wrote: post #68
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.

I'm not sure that it's fine, since one would expect network effects to increase proliferations - and empirical results bear out that expectation: http://www.davidmckie.com/final-visualizations/

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

#137

Post by huffmsa »

watoc wrote: post #101
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.

> The video of the 757s hitting the WTC isn't purged from the internet, why should this video be? That's different though. This video has been released by the perpetrator. Do you think beheadings videos released by ISIS should be easily accessed by anyone on Facebook?

I think they should. Hiding reality from people does not do any good.

Peta wouldn't release "inside the factory farm" footage if it was an effective way to galvanize an audience.

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

#138

Post by tzs »

burfog wrote: post #68
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.

What about the privacy rights of the children in child porn?

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

#139

Post by thepangolino »

Pharmakon wrote: post #125
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.

I don’t get people who seem to understand that it’s morally and legally sound to censor videos of children being raped, but when they’re being murdered it’s somehow a different story.

I’ve always understood the problem with those videos is that they are sold by producers or distributors and therefore finance those horrible acts.

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

#140

Post by huffmsa »

dpau wrote: post #109
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.

I'm a defender of free speech and am completely against actions like Reddit banning /r/watchpeopledie. But here's the response from Liveleak which (somewhat surprisingly) I found clarified my own thoughts on the matter: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=uSQT_1552831454 Relevant quote: "Previously we have risked the ire of viewers by refusing to show the glossy promo videos for ISIS. The ones shot on DSLR's, with depth…

Agreed. There's a difference between propaganda and documentation.

Christchurch is grainy helmet cam. Not highly produced propaganda.

Post reply on HN