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

281–290 of 373 posts

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

#281

Post by tomp »

fzeroracer wrote: post #129
armitron wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radicalization happens a lot quicker when groups are forced into ideological bubbles that have no pressure release valves. I feel as if we have two real choices here: + We fundamentally change how the Internet works and introduce an omnipotent overseer that enforces norms and behavior. We have to go all the way with this in order to reap the security benefits, half-measures - what we have today - won't work. If we do…

If that decentralized approach worked, then the various chans should've never been taken over by white supremacists. Can you offer an explanation as to how that fits your model?

You do realise that 4/8chans are full of trolls, right? They post offensive stuff to offend people like you, who take them seriously.

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

#282

Post by tomp »

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…

> All the "free speech" advocates here, do you still stand by that when it comes to child porn, or specific threats against individuals?

What if we just oppose continuously expanding the types of content that can be censored?

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

#283

Post by gruez »

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…

I was bitten by a sibling comment, so I'll preface this with: IANAL, this applies to US, but could apply to NZ as well. Feel free to correct me (with sources).

>the event was in a private place of worship and not a public landmark

The relevant doctrine here would be expectation of privacy[1]. You're right that it's not a public landmark, but I argue it's still a public place considering that there are dozens of strangers around and you can come and go as you please (they don't seem to check membership), thus you don't really have any expectation that it's private.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

>there were minors in the footage

There is a legal doctrine that gives special treatment to minors?

>Last but not least, Facebook specifically sells ads on their pages

This could work, although you could argue that the poster himself isn't making any money so it's okay. Also, if this did work, I'd expect way more public freakout videos to be taken down off video platforms by their subjects, which doesn't seem to be the case right now. At the very least you could sidestep this issue by hosting it offsite or via torrent/ipfs.

>In addition, the footages being disseminated are technically illegal copies.

This is only true because the author hasn't yet given explicit permission for people to use it. He's alive in jail right now, so this could easily be rendered moot by him proclaiming (via a lawyer) that he releases the video to the public domain (which I'm sure he would do). Even if he didn't give permission (eg. he got killed), copyright infringement is a civil matter, so only the author (or his estate) can go after violators. The state sure wouldn't be able to send takedown requests using this method.

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

#284

Post by huffmsa »

lostlogin wrote: post #253
huffmsa wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about the fact the he wanted the video viewed and his crap to be read? Not participating in something he wants is (another) motivation for avoiding his creations.

He's a terrorist, he intended to terrorize. Looking him in the eye and telling him to fuck off is the best thing you can do.

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

#285

Post by gotocake »

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…

Kids were killed in this attack too, unless I’m mistaken. So to add to your point, if you’re against child pornography, but not child snuff what’s the reasoning? Is it just because the social stigma around child abuse is so much stronger than murder? If so, then the child porn “exception” to free speech absolutism is arbitrary; the result of social pressure and not an ethical stance.

It seems sad to think people need social pressure to be against it, but I’m not sure how else to reconcile people who condemn the spread of one, but defend the other.

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

#286

Post by dmix »

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…

“Think of the children”

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

#287

Post by amanaplanacanal »

manfredo wrote: post #151
telesilla wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are services that don't moderate (censor) content. For the most part they are shit-holes and most people stay away from them.

If you want to make it so that no site owner can moderate their own site, you are going to have a huge uphill battle. And I can't imagine why you would want that kind of world.

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

#288

Post by rndgermandude »

tikwidd wrote: post #91
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 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.

The 9/11 attackers wanted attention, too, and they got it. Don't tell me that 9/11 wasn't carried out with the express intent to "go viral".

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

#289

Post by tomp »

TheTruth1234 wrote: post #259
tomp wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the reaction would be any different from any violent action movie? If you don’t know the context, you also don’t know that those people actually died.

I did know the context.

Then it cannot be “inadvertent exposure”.

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

#290

Post by erentz »

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…

From reading a lot of the anti censorship comments popping up around FBs activities here, it feels like it is actually partly fueled by the deplatforming actions social networks have been taking here in the US, which have been political, and very anti-free speech.

It doesn’t all seem purely about this case of whether a social network should be required to distribute propaganda videos of mass murder.

Personally I don’t get why people are okay with distribution of child porn being illegal, but think that distribution of mass murder videos shouldn’t be illegal AND ALSO now apparently must be required of any internet company.

Post reply on HN