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

361–370 of 373 posts

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

#361

Post by gojomo »

chrismsnz wrote: post #280
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?

Clips were autoplaying in the live updates tab of twitter.

I'm a heavy user of the Twitter web and iPhone clients, and I'm not sure what you mean by "live updates" tab. Is that something in TweetDeck or another client?

If you (or parent poster ~TheTruth1234) found this unwanted, wouldn't unfollowing or blocking the source accounts be an adequate remedy?

(It is a embarrassing mess, but par for Twitter's lackadaisical approach software quality, that Twitter web often ignores their own settings' "don't autoplay" toggle, and has for many months.)

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

#362

Post by gojomo »

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.

Thanks for the appreciation, but still wondering which specific sites/services presented you with images/video you didn't want to see.

(I'm a pretty heavy user of social media, especially Twitter & Facebook, but as none of my friends/followees/groups posted raw video, I only saw the headlines and generic 'aftermath' photos common on mainstream news sites.)

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

#363

Post by gojomo »

TheTruth1234 wrote: post #248
gruez wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm saying the video was readily available as "news". I don't care how it's dealt with, but I prefer it not to be a part of my regular online diet.

So, how does having it be "available as 'news'", behind an intentional click or two for those who feel they want or even "need" to know, affect your online diet?

Can't you just pass it over without clicking, like with the hundreds/thousands of other offered-but-unwanted links one encounters in daily web/app usage?

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

#364

Post by 52-6F-62 »

sasasassy wrote: post #69
52-6F-62 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, but that crass treatment of “ones and zeroes” as not being part of the real world is a serious logical fallacy. It should apply across the board—if you’re a serious engineer. Those same “ones and zeroes” could cost someone their life as much as a mal-designed truss on a bridge could. That is not a new phenomenon. The same applies to childrens’ safety.

Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world". If I use them and they are a virus and damage computer systems, that is a crime. If I made the virus just to learn about hacking, that should be perfectly fine. Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to…

That is why I question any involuntary distributed file protocol.

What separates a simple file host from a complicit active member? I think at that point you're one in the same.

This matter isn't about an isolated machine; it's about a networked machine.

And to the rest of what you've said... I can't do anything but disagree with you.

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

#365

Post by Nadya »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #293
eg5fv4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Facebook is the only reliable or affordable form of internet access at all. I think the measure of "own website" changes once you reach a certain mass and especially when that "own website" is not a personal website but a corporate one. Not to mention the government influences that can and are made against these corporations.

It gets morally messy when you consider scale. At what point does it cross over from reasonable moderation to censorship? If Facebook were a country, it would the largest country in the world. Is it okay to censor two billion people because Facebook is not an "official government"?

I'm not against moderation at all but at a certain scale does it cease being only moderation? I would argue yes, but at what point? That's trickier to answer and I can't really say I know.

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

#366

Post by peteradio »

ionised wrote: post #353
peteradio wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you feel shame for your poor reading comprehension? I said nothing even close to that. I was well aware of these events and do not have any objection to being aware, but I didn't need to witness the murderers video. I speak only towards giving platform to terrorist videos. It seems like there is this idiotic idea that gore perpetrated by the filmer should be granted global freedom of speech and platform providers are infringing on this universal right. Which is dumb as fuck because such rights don't exist nor should they. Why do you get up in arms when these total shitheads aren't getting red carpet treatment?

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

#367

Post by Pharmakon »

tomp wrote: post #264
Pharmakon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

I’m speaking to the usual exception “online libertarians” tend to accept, and pointing out the hypocrisy there. Of course adults being raped or murdered is equivalent, but this is a limited format for communication and my desire to cover every possible permutation is precisely 0.

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

#368

Post by anigbrowl »

burfog wrote: post #330
anigbrowl wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be more interested in your hypotheticals than engaging with empirical data or learning about the rather extensive infrastructure that already exists to address the problem.

I think you missed the point that I disagree about what is and isn't a problem. I think your "increase proliferations" wording refers to people having harmless data, not causing actual abuse. It should also be clear that not all abuse is caught, and that discouraging people from reporting things is unhelpful to actual victims.

YOu're asserting that it's harmless, I'm asserting that the existence of a market creates demand for more and absolutely does lead to actual abuse. I know people who were raped as children specifically to make child pornography and the evidence of whose suffering is traded among people who enjoy watching that. Oddly enough they don't seem to share your perspective.

You haven't provided any evidence for your claim about discouraging people from reporting things. I think most police departments have a procedure for dealing with the situation where someone calls to say 'hello I bought an old laptop/hard disk/whatever and it seems to have child porn on it, please advise.'

Waht do you know, there is even an official tipline specially set up for that purpose in the USA: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/report-violations#repo...

By all means continue to explore your imagination unencumbered by facts, but don't be surprised if people who live in the real world end up drawing different conclusions from yourself.

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

#369

Post by caf »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #277
caf wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anyone who seeks out - or worse, redistributes - this video, is complicit in furthering the propagandistic aims of the attacker.

Just as anyone who censors it is complicit in eroding human rights?

No.

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

#370

Post by rndgermandude »

thousandautumns wrote: post #356
rndgermandude wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Well, I didn't make this argument specifically here, and my answer would be: it depends.

Common carriers, like Telstra (largest mobile Australian ISP), started blocking websites hosting the video. That's not OK for an ISP to do. Same as it isn't OK for e.g. a utility company to cut off power to a "nazi" (whatever that means these days) or to Bernie Sanders supporters because the utility CEO doesn't like "socialism".

Private entities actually hosting the content would be a different matter, and the decision should be up to the private entity. Unless such a private entity is a de facto common carrier in itself. I'd argue Facebook, twitter, reddit, google e.g. are de facto common carriers running general purpose platforms - given their size, influence and reach - even according to their own PR. They are analogous to a utility company, and saying "you can host the content on your own server" is like saying "you can just run your own generator for your electricity needs/use solar panels and battery" or like saying "you can always create your own telephone network if you don't like what the companies are doing; all it takes is 2 old cans and a string".

In my opinion common carrier and de facto common carriers should not be allowed to outright censor lawful content. Videos of newsworthy terrorist attacks, no matter if it is made by a terrorist (e.g. this one) or just an innocent bystander (e.g. 9/11, Las Vegas), are not illegal and should not be allowed to be censored by such de facto common carriers/de facto utility companies.

Post reply on HN