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

151–160 of 373 posts

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

#151

Post by manfredo »

telesilla wrote: post #22
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…

Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? It's not fair to allow these things in the public field where we might see disturbing things without wanting to. Videos and images must be tagged, and therefore given a rating so that I can self-censor.

> Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship?

Don't search for and click on videos of the shooting? Sure, it won't stop someone specifically trying to get you to watch the video. But censorship doesn't change that. No amount of censorship can keep people from, say, adding some noise to the video to circumvent any filters and sending it to you.

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

#152

Post by ipython »

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.

Oh I think it’s more about what’s being said than who is listening to who. For better or worse, human discourse is optimized for face to face interaction. It seems that widespread, anonymous speech turns even the most mild mannered individual into a raging maniac.

On a similar note I recently watched this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc and completely agree with its premise.

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

#154

Post by x38iq84n »

telesilla wrote: post #22
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…

Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? It's not fair to allow these things in the public field where we might see disturbing things without wanting to. Videos and images must be tagged, and therefore given a rating so that I can self-censor.

You can choose to skip posts, block users from view, close the tab with that disturbing website, not to view the "breaking news mosque shooting" video. Do you seriously ask for a censorship of media, social or other, just so you do not get disturbed by a video that you chose to watch?

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

#155

Post by zxcb1 »

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.

Face detection? It's Facebook after all

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

#156

Post by bhl »

tenpies wrote: post #112
tikwidd wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WTC footage is documentation of a terrorist attack by innocent bystanders. The Christchurch Mosque shooting footage was created by the terrorist with the aim of becoming viral. It is a component of the terrorist attack itself.

If no one had recorded anything, but a few months later Al-Qaeda released ground-level videos of the attacks happening, would we ban them then ?

Facebook already bans ISIS propaganda videos, so it's a small leap to assume that they'll also ban Al-Qaeda released videos as well.

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

#157

Post by anigbrowl »

dbg31415 wrote: post #98
Animats wrote: post #88

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 Is this something GoPro should be ashamed of? 99.99999% of gun owners aren't criminals.

You're off by about 3 orders of magnitude.

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

#158

Post by bitxbit »

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…

80% of the content being blocked is effectively 0% of it being blocked. That’s not something to be commended. And you’re right. AI is nowhere near reliable yet companies such as FB rely on them.

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

#159

Post by Forge36 »

zed88 wrote: post #135

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…

I have not seen the video. I can't say I want to either. I can see how censorship would discourage others from repeating the atrocity. Someone else was talking about how scary it was the events that took place occurred so calmly, and with such ease. I don't believe most people can face watching that without negative consequences for their own mental health.

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

#160

Post by dTal »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #132
darkpuma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That only seems odd because it's a flawed intuition pump: a "number" feels like a small, innocent, abstract and singular thing, while "data" feels large and complex and rich with potential. But a "number" can be any size. A dump of Wikipedia is a "number". All information, and hence all secrets, are "numbers". The notion of an "illegal number" is just a weird way of phrasing the idea of government-enforced secrecy.

128 bits is about the threshold where a "number" stops behaving like our intuition of a number, and starts being rare enough that you won't arrive at an "illegal" number by counting or chance, i.e. it is now a "file" for all practical purposes: https://qntm.org/number

Post reply on HN