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

261–270 of 373 posts

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

#261

Post by tomp »

bitxbit wrote: post #149
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.

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.

There’s thousands of porn and prank videos online that don’t get taken down.

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

#262

Post by anigbrowl »

anonytrary wrote: post #202
anigbrowl wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're off by about 3 orders of magnitude.

> 99.99999% being off by 3 orders of magnitude. So you're implying that 99.99% of gun owners aren't criminals then?

No, I'm implying you should prefer accuracy over hyperbole.

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

#263

Post by RHSeeger »

fzeroracer wrote: post #120
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…

It is extremely telling to me that of all the comments here, most of them I've seen express concern not with the fact that 50 people were murdered by white supremacists (a number that seems to be rising year over year) but rather attempting to divert the topic into one about censorship and free speech. I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists because so far, the market p…

> the comments here, most of them I've seen express concern not with the fact that 50 people were murdered by white supremacists (a number that seems to be rising year over year) but rather attempting to divert the topic into one about censorship and free speech.

The original topic (the headline) was about censorship

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

and it's what the comments addressed. People were commenting about the topic that was being addressed. They weren't diverting anything; you were.

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

#264

Post by tomp »

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.

Why single out children? Why not all videos of people getting raped? Why not all videos of people being murdered?

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

#265

Post by sjwright »

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 ?

That would entirely hinge on the degree to which the content was editorialised. If the video contains commentary and/or editorialising and/or editing that in any way implied that the occurrence was desirable or righteous, then it is terrorist propaganda and should be restricted without hesitation.

If it was an opinion-free, propaganda-free raw unedited video of a newsworthy event that was filmed in a public place, then it probably shouldn't be banned—though publishers should still act responsibly if the material contains deeply offensive or distressing material, or if it has serious privacy implications.

And that's just a proposed set of principles I came up with after three minutes of consideration—I'm sure with an extra 15 minutes we could come up with something even better. Point is, this isn't difficult. The fact that there are no bright clear lines doesn't preclude us as a society from drawing a line somewhere.

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

#266

Post by brailsafe »

fzeroracer wrote: post #179
x38iq84n wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists No, you have only missed them. The solution is exactly free speech and more of it. These days people are often suppressed when they voice a concern that touches certain topics, i.e. immigration, religion and particularly Islam, anti-semitism, rapid changes of demographics and many more. Media oppression and flat out censorship d…

No, they're not often 'suppressed'. Again, nowadays it is far easier to access white supremacist material than possibly any other time. It's one search, one twitter account, one youtube recommendation away. These are people not operating on hidden forums at all, they're out in the open espousing these views. I keep seeing people repeat this view, but I see none of it. You're attempting to divert away from my point in…

I feel like the best way to counter apparently illegitimate arguments is by bettering the argument for your stance, whatever it may be. If you can't argue your stance, how can it be defended legitimately?

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

#267

Post by bitxbit »

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 really don’t see this as an issue of censorship but protecting rights. These are not footages from public places. Churches, mosques and other places of worship are not public places for the most part. In addition, Facebook is a commercial platform where they make money based on user activities.

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

#268

Post by 1123581321 »

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.

In the future, would you please add an additional sentence to comments like this one where you answer the question?

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

#269

Post by Amezarak »

bitxbit wrote: post #245
gruez wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>their next of kin have the standing. That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) [2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was…

Well if we want to go down that road, the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark. And from my understanding (I don’t know since I refuse to and didn’t watch the video) there were minors in the footage. Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages. So, yeah, people cannot post and disseminate these videos even if the event occurred here in the US. In addition, the foota…

Under US law none of that matters - whether it occurred in a private place or whether minors were involved doesn’t matter. Even the shooter’s copyright claim, if he wanted to exercise it, would be irrelevant because of the news reporting aspect.

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

#270

Post by anigbrowl »

burfog wrote: post #223
anigbrowl wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Well, do we want to catch people harming children, or do we just want to not be aware of it? We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now. Reporting is discouraged, because then all your stuff would be seized as evidence and you'd be under suspicion. Lots of people probably destroy computers if they accidentally come across the stuff, since mere possession of the data is an offense. If it spreads around, then…

We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now.

Then how am I able to provide you with data collected by law enforcement authorities demonstrating decade-long trends, along with information on the methodology employed to collect it?

Post reply on HN