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

291–300 of 373 posts

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

#291

Post by burfog »

anigbrowl wrote: post #270
burfog wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is only about possession of what is sometimes evidence of abuse, and only about people who were caught with it.

The interesting numbers are how many cases of abuse are hidden from law enforcement because:

1. people won't recognize abusers they know because they won't dare look

2. people would rather destroy a computer than deal with unfriendly police procedures

Oh, BTW, one other problem I didn't mention. The current situation is very easy to use for framing a person. This has been determined to be the case in some divorce cases, and of course an unknown of innocent people were unable to prove that they were framed.

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

#292

Post by tomp »

Shivetya wrote: post #37
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…

Well there we have it then, censorship should only be in force when not doing so deprives someone of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. To put it another way, do not deprive a person of their self, their property, or efforts of their work. Child porn when get caught under depriving children, those unable to consent legally, to their happiness, if not liberty and in some cases their life. Video threats to living peo…

Why block child porn but not leaked porn tapes of adults? Are they somehow less deprived?

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

#293

Post by amanaplanacanal »

eg5fv4 wrote: post #38
marcinzm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypocrisy? Why do you assume that censorship will be used to block far-right material rather than leftist material? The right is gaining more and more political power and historically (at least in the US) is the side most willing to use censorship for it's own benefit.

I've read many people for too long opposing censorship, because it was always used by those in power for many things, from oppressing the political will of people to protecting copyright. Think of China, Russia on one side and the West on the other. But now that some political power that we don't like is emerging, well, a lil censorship never hurt anyone huh?

I oppose censorship when the government does it. However, I fully expect to be able to boot any content that displeases me off my own website. Which is what Facebook is trying to do.

This very discussion forum is moderated, and very well as far as I can see. Do you think it would somehow be better if the mods weren't here?

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

#294

Post by tomp »

happytoexplain wrote: post #47
sasasassy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home. You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.

While I agree with this notion generally, you're avoiding the relevant point, which is that information is not something that inherently can have no direct effect on the real world. Child porn is the usual example where you can start to make a reasonable argument that possessing it creates a real-world effect, not due to the possession itself, but due to the necessary action required to possess, which is seeking it o…

First, there’s thousands of CP videos already there, so acquiring them doesn’t further harm anyone. Second, CP doesn’t necessarily harm children at all, it could be computer generated.

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

#295

Post by armitron »

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?

One reason "white supremacists" end up congregating in the various chans is because they've been banished from everywhere else. In the US, the overton window has shrank dramatically in the last decade and it keeps on shrinking.

More to the point, it is my view that events many will see as extreme will keep on happening regardless of which way we choose to go. Today, we are not dealing with increased discussion and development of new ideas (printing press). The feedback loops are getting short enough to give rise to cognitive metasystems. It follows that some blowback will occur. We are watching force projection/meatspace interaction from cognitively dissonant emergent hive minds. This is exactly what bottom-up reorganization looks like. Expect it to intensify.

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

#296

Post by amanaplanacanal »

matz1 wrote: post #258

This is why we need desentralized, hard to censor platforms. Or at very least a competing platform that has different stand on the issue.

Other platforms that don't moderate already exist. Unfortunately, because they don't moderate, they are so awful most people won't use them.

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

#297

Post by tomp »

tantalor wrote: post #70
sasasassy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.

You have to consider intent of sharing that content, and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior. CP is shared with the intent of reciprocity for more CP; hence sharing existing CP promotes future CP. Violent/hateful content is shared with the intent to encourage/persuade others to perform similar acts, or to dehumanize the victims.

> and whether (a reasonable person would conclude) the intent promotes criminal/antisocial behavior.

No, it should be based on actual research and statistics. For example, many supposedly reasonable people assumed that violent computer games promote criminal/antisocial behaviour, but they actually don’t.

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

#298

Post by amanaplanacanal »

vibrato wrote: post #41
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…

We have laws against those specifics you mention under the first amendment. So yes, I would prefer the tech companies did nothing but assist law enforcement of the violations (when warranted).

So... how do you feel about the Hacker News moderation? Or say... spam filtering? Do you think those should go away too?

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

#299

Post by stormbrew »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #203
peteradio wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What could be classified as hate speech more than a self videoed murderous rampage? Why the fuck should that be given a platform? Go search the dank corners of the internet for that shit if your "strong heart" desires it. What sick mind desires to give this piece of shit a bigger soap box?

I think if I was one of the people murdered, I would want others to see what kind of terror I went through. A video triggers emotions in people that they don't experience when they just hear about another unfortunate statistic. Maybe that would inspire more people to put effort into preventing these situations.

Maybe you can go ask these people being murdered on video for the world to see if they consent to the broadcast of their death.

Oh wait.

Your belief that you'd be ok with it or even find that a positive outcome means pretty much nothing unless you're one of the people on that video.

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

#300

Post by tomp »

XorNot wrote: post #204
mrkstu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No assumptions. We were gathered around the TV in the conference room after the first one hit and part of the conversation was whether it was terrorism, since it was pretty obvious you don't just happen to ram into the side of the tallest building in the country. But your comment is a non-sequitur regardless- even once we all knew it was a terrorist attack it was replayed endlessly on TV for months, including the peo…

There's a pretty big difference between watching an event that killed people, and watching people - individuals - die.

Can you elaborate on the difference please, I’m not sure I see it myself...
Post reply on HN