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

231–240 of 373 posts

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

#231

Post by huffmsa »

jimjimjim wrote: post #221
huffmsa wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole god damn thing was his propaganda! Why did he film it? why publish a rant? why write things on his guns? to try to push his shitville excuse of a view. To embolden other shitists. Do sow fear and anger into the non-shit.

Sure, it's propaganda, but you have to understand your enemy to defeat them.

I'm not interested in this video or the man's opinions.

But I strongly believe that the footage should be available so people can see just how horrifying it was.

If you want people to take terrorism seriously, they need to really really understand how terrifying it is. Names and numbers don't do that. Watching another human go from walking and talking to stone cold dead in an instant does do that.

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

#232

Post by redisman »

tenpies wrote: post #131
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 als…

I wish we would look more at what he did. Killed 50 muslims. Not what his rambling troll "manifesto" said.

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

#233

Post by gruez »

TheTruth1234 wrote: post #229
gojomo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, on what sites/services did you find the video so prevalent it was hard to avoid?

If you need to ask me that ... I congratulate you on your restrained use of social media.

Are you saying that the video was being posted to social media as "shock videos" (ie. the viewer did not know that it was violent before watching it)? If so, why is censorship needed, rather than a NSFW/NSFL label?

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

#234

Post by huffmsa »

TheTruth1234 wrote: post #228
huffmsa wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think you understand, but until you really see something or someone go from living and breath to abruptly dead, you don't. As for the 16 year old, it wasn't long ago that by 16 you'd have seen a few of your siblings and friends succumbed to illness or accident. Death used to be part of life and we dealt with it.

I'm not saying we need to be in denial of death. I'm well versed, thanks. But that doesn't mean I need or want to tune into the live-action progress of a disgusting, terrorist attack.

And I'm not saying it should be played in time square. But hiding it from the "normal" parts of the internet doesn't do anyone any favors.

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

#235

Post by RugnirViking »

TheTruth1234 wrote: post #229
gojomo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, on what sites/services did you find the video so prevalent it was hard to avoid?

If you need to ask me that ... I congratulate you on your restrained use of social media.

I honestly consider myself somebody who uses social media perhaps too much, and yet I still didn't see anything like a video at all - I don't know if it's a social media bubble, or perhaps a feature of the country I'm in. I saw the news that the attack had happened almost instantly, but not even on places like reddit did I see videos of the event.

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

#236

Post by reader5000 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #206
vuln wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

You're going off on wild tangents. I didn't ask about whether or not the sites would be held liable for their content, nor did I muse on whether or not facebook is required by law to pull down their videos. I have a very specific question that I want answers for and I don't want any further misdirection. 4chan is an example of a pure free market of ideas. Yet only the most toxic of ideologies seem to survive. Why is…

How is 4chan more toxic than e.g. the New York Times?

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

#237

Post by arrrg »

huffmsa wrote: post #225
arrrg wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video of the NZ attacks is not documentation. It is purposefully created propaganda by the terrorist himself. It’s not neutral. (Not that even something set up explicitly as merely documentation could ever be completely neutral itself, I’m just saying that this footage is extremely far removed from having any claim to neutrality.) It does document the attacks, that much is true. And in that regard it is the same…

But we still make Nazi filmed footage from their concentration camps available. There's no other way to truly understand what happened unless you see it. Regardless of who filmed it.

With proper context, sure, I’m all in favour of that. I’m not suggesting every last copy of this video being deleted.

However, I do question the need for everyone to watch the video to understand what happened. That doesn’t really seem to follow for me.

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

#238

Post by burfog »

tzs wrote: post #138
burfog wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What about the privacy rights of Phan Thị Kim Phúc?

What about the privacy rights of so many kids on album covers? (Nevermind, Virgin Killer, Blind Faith...)

It doesn't seem that society demands such a right.

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

#239

Post by vuln »

fzeroracer wrote: post #206
vuln wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

You're going off on wild tangents. I didn't ask about whether or not the sites would be held liable for their content, nor did I muse on whether or not facebook is required by law to pull down their videos. I have a very specific question that I want answers for and I don't want any further misdirection. 4chan is an example of a pure free market of ideas. Yet only the most toxic of ideologies seem to survive. Why is…

Bacteria only grows in environments it can survive.

You can find the same content on reddit that you find in 4chan. The difference is Condé Nast will remove subreddits because it looks bad and hurts their bottom line. 4chan doesn’t have share holders, they barely have advertisers.

Toxic ideologies survives on the Chan because there is no one worried about profit there’s no one to answer to. The entire internet use to be the same way.

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

#240

Post by kumarm »

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…

The video is being distributed in whatsapp groups in countries where education level of people is pretty low. This is going to be propaganda for more violence in the world.

World is complicated and no censorship doesn't work when a society has 50% that never went to school.

Post reply on HN