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

351–360 of 373 posts

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

#351

Post by megous »

huffmsa wrote: post #194
megous wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police body cam serves to protect the citizens and police. I guess in the same way, this video will surely serve to get this guy locked up for however long is possible in NZ.

But the video has a message and is part of a message that he wanted to send by the act itself. The message is his manifesto that was published along side with it. Also the guns in the video have a message. It's hard to read, but that was solved by news media that gladly published it in its entirety.

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

#352

Post by ionised »

jancsika wrote: post #230
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 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'd like to pentest that. Here are some real and hypothetical cases that should be easier to defend: * thousands of people access scientific journal articles through scihub * thousands of people copy books from an illegal mirror of the corpus of digital books from UC libraries tha…

Absolutely.

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

#353

Post by ionised »

peteradio wrote: post #215
tuesdayrain wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does me seeing a murderous rampage equate with me somehow having the ability to affect such events? Like I'm somehow indifferent to this until I see it and now I'm imbued with the will and ability to make it stop? How does me seeing this give me the ability to make it stop? I think this is terroristic and shouldn't be given a platform because that is exactly what this sick piece of shit wants.

So, you would prefer never to hear or even know about events for which you can not directly affect change?

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

#354

Post by vibrato »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #298
vibrato wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Moderation by censorship doesn’t sit right. Responding to comments and the upvote / downvote system seems fair enough. Spam is a tough one. As long as the user of a spam filter can modify their settings and see everything easily I’m not opposed. Perhaps we need to regulate spam / ddos in a similar way to incitement of violence.

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

#355

Post by ceejayoz »

huffmsa wrote: post #194
megous wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But it's functional no different than police bodycam footage.

Perfect example, but not of what you're claiming. Police bodycam footage is frequently released in partial, edited form as propaganda. When it doesn't appear to exonerate the cops, police departments often fight its release.

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

#356

Post by thousandautumns »

rndgermandude wrote: post #305
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.

Frankly, not my problem. That's your problem. Today it is you who says we gotta censor what you find offensive, tomorrow President Orange-Nimrod will censor all of CNN because it's OK now to censor things that somebody/anybody finds offensive, and in a few decades time President Jenna Bush Hager will censor all depictions of an Earth that isn't flat because those are offensive to the good god-fearing citizens who are…

The flipside being that you are making the argument that private entities should not be allowed to choose what content they host. You worry about flat earthers censoring non-flat earth depictions, but a much more realistic threat is flat-earthers forcing their insanity to have a larger share of voice than they should by strong arming platforms and people that know better into giving them a microphone, because were they not to do so, they would be accused of "censorship".

No one is saying the NZ video should be purged from the internet. But it is foolish to equate censorship with private social media companies scrubbing it from their sites. You are welcome to search out other venues that host the video, or host it yourself. Your rights are not being infringed upon if Twitter and Facebook won't.

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

#357

Post by thousandautumns »

x38iq84n wrote: post #154
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.

You can choose to skip posts, block users from view, close the tab with that disturbing website, not to view the "breaking news mosque shooting" video. Do you seriously ask for a censorship of media, social or other, just so you do not get disturbed by a video that you chose to watch?

It isn't censorship. Free speech does not equate to Twitter/Facebook/Google having an obligation to host any/all content someone might post on their site.

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

#358

Post by thousandautumns »

x38iq84n wrote: post #164
fzeroracer wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

> So instead of shunning white supremacists from media - tolerate them on and challenge them with arguments, explain how they are wrong, educate them, ridicule their nonsense; but never censor them.

This takes the mistaken position that social media is a good tool for discussion and debate, and we have plenty of evidence to the contrary at this point.

This is also the same thought process that leads to ideologies like climate change-denialism, evolution-denialism, anti-vaxxing, etc. to be given oxygen when they shouldn't. It assumes that by shining the light on these topics, the debate should result in people rejecting them, but in reality it simply gives them more credibility. We live in a post truth era, where people don't use the internet to debate and agree on what is write and wrong and rethink our opinions, but to form bubbles with people who agree with what we want to believe, which we leave occasionally to scream at each other, and then retreat to in order to insulate ourselves from reality.

The people who are driven to non-mainstream forums such as 8chan that comprise the scum of the internet are already fairly radical in their thinking. That's why they seek out those sites. But non-radical thinkers may be susceptible to radicalization by giving a platform on a mainstream site like Twitter or Youtube to idealogies like white supremacy, militant Islam, or violent misogyny.

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

#359

Post by lohszvu »

tomp wrote: post #292
Shivetya wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Leaked porn tapes were filmed with consent. If they were not filmed with consent they are illegal to possess.
Post reply on HN