Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

191–200 of 373 posts

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

#191
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not strange at all. We crave for knowledge because knowledge is extremely useful. Seeing, understanding and learning from anything and everything is how we survive, advance and evolve.

Just because we live in a society nowadays that promotes being weak doesn't mean our base instincts are not there.

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

#192
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

80% of the videos probably did match a simple sha1 lookup and were trivially removed. Now what?

Some kind of perceptual hashing and whatever additional magic YouTube uses to detect copyrighted stuff? Once a video is flagged, it can be added to the perceptual database in a fraction of a second and all future uploads checked against it, YouTube seems to have gotten good at it.

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

#193
post #91
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 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.

I hear this argument a lot. Obviously, the perpetrator would prefer that the video spread widely and inspire similar acts of violence. But that is not the only possible outcome of allowing the video to spread and be seen.

Humans are largely visual creatures. If we don’t witness something, we have a tendency to treat it as less ‘real’. Doubly so when it happens half a world away: atrocities and their victims become almost theoretical.

Actually witnessing a video record changes our perception dramatically. The victims cease to be faceless ‘others’, and we receive a somber reminder that a maniac slaughtered husbands, wives, sons, and daughters—real people that could be your friends, family, or neighbors. The sense of tragedy and the casual brutality of it sinks in, and we are forced to acknowledge the evil among us.

In the U.S., where so many of these tech companies reside, we have become so bitterly polarized that many among us demonize nearly half our fellow countrymen on the basis of their political affiliations. At times like this, we could be coming together in our mutual disgust over this atrocity. Seeing it for ourselves is, perhaps, less important than seeing that those we condemn politically react with the same humanity that we do.

In a time when some people seem to honestly believe that “those [other half of the country] want to destroy everything everything I care about” we could use a reminder that, hey, we’re all people, and none of us deserve to die like that. And maybe then we could start working together to build a world that isn’t so conducive to hate.

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

#194
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. There's a difference between propaganda and documentation. Christchurch is grainy helmet cam. Not highly produced propaganda.

Difference is presumably in the intention, not the video quality.

True. But it's functional no different than police bodycam footage. It is a documentation of the events as they unfolded.

It does not have a message. It doesn't function as propaganda.

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

#195
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s two websites. If you asked 1000 people about 4chan maybe 25% would know what is and would say it’s a troll website if they even what what it is. I think less know about 8chan. The media has driven so much traffic to the site. It’s almost as if they want people to radicalize because it will make great news. I digress just because we know what 4/8chan are I doubt most internet users do or care. we shouldn’t sign…

You're avoiding the point. As he mentioned, 4chan and co are the epitome of no-censorship and entirely free debate. Under the assumptions made in this thread, the free market of ideas should squash ideologues and people who choose to believe in things such as white supremacy or conspiracy theories. Yet this is not the case. Why?

Well in the US Facebook / Twitter / 4chan / 8chan are all protected by safe harbor[1]. These sites / cannot be legally held liable for content their users post.

Facebook isn’t required by law to pull down the video. They pull down the video because it’s not profitable (shareholders)

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law)

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

#196
post #49

One can find thousands of copies of the video of President Kennedy's head exploding from the bullet of an assassin. All over youtube. What's the difference?

Not on 22 November 1963, one couldn't.

The Zapruder film itself only began to circulate publicly, in a very limited fashion, in 1969, nearly six years later. The first broadcast was in 1970.

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

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

#197
post #96

I wish so many platforms didn't shove content in your face that you don't want... there would be far less call to aggressively censor this material if so many people weren't using platforms which were designed to cram things down the user's throat. People should be able to live their lives largely free of unwanted exposure to this stuff. We shouldn't have to outlaw people who want to investigate it in order to achiev…

It's your own Facebook feed.

I'm having a little bit of a hard time figuring out the meaning of your comment.

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

#198
post #96

I wish so many platforms didn't shove content in your face that you don't want... there would be far less call to aggressively censor this material if so many people weren't using platforms which were designed to cram things down the user's throat. People should be able to live their lives largely free of unwanted exposure to this stuff. We shouldn't have to outlaw people who want to investigate it in order to achiev…

It's your own Facebook feed.

Not necessarily: https://mastodon.social/@dartigen/101754389608830780

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

#199
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…

> people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. Not on a site someone else owns and operates they don’t.

other put another way the owner of the site has the right to not show the face of evil.

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

#200
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not logical at all. What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube but when it comes to people actually getting murdered it’s all of sudden not OK.

>What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? What standing do they have to prevent distribution of the video?

A moral standing grounded in mutual respect we’d hope to receive ourselves? Or if you really want to be legalistic, their next of kin have the standing.
Post reply on HN