Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#161

Post by elagost »

tombert wrote: post #39

It makes me sad how 4chan has largely been reduced to a place where racists and bigots and sexists hang out. When I was a teenager, it felt like the racists in /b/ were doing it ironically (maybe I was wrong?), but now it seems like a place to spout off white-nationalist nonsense, and whenever its called out the people fall back on "it's just a joke bro!"

On the Internet, even if you're "ironically" being something, it doesn't matter - in text, where it's difficult to interpret intent, if you're being something ironically, you're still being that thing. And for those that find it hard to interpret the irony, all they see is you being that thing.

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#162

Post by RobertRoberts »

Taniwha wrote: post #147
RobertRoberts wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being blocked for political reasons. Just like when the US went to war against Iraq, one argument was "Saddam is a dictator that kills his own people". But there are worse dictators before and after Saddam. You are using the same manipulative cherry-picked argument to justify censorship. Censorship is a weapon used by dictators, not free leaders.

It's being blocked by private companies, because they think it's the right thing to do in context, and I suspect largely for business reasons, they don't want to be convicted for passing around the snuff video. Censorship is part of our law, it's right and proper for the NZ censor to declare the snuff video as obscene, that's his job according to law. We're a democracy, if we decide we don't need a censor we'll legis…

Here's the _government_ of NZ arresting people for _not_ censoring the video, with a worse punishment than murder and rape: (fyi, all censoring has to be done via private companies, unless NZ has all government run internet and tv?)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/new-zealand-men-...

I absolutely loath the video, it's revolting. But as I mentioned ealier, worse stuff has been online and still is.

I think the problem is that many people don't want to really know what was on the video and be appalled by it without truly knowing.

Do you know what was on it? It was sick and terrible. But, since I have seen the whole thing (I made myself) I can compare it with other videos.

The last few years of ISIS videos of drownings, murders, pushing people off of roofs, mass shootings, etc... (only part of a few I saw, and what I saw was so terrible I turned it off)

A _slew_ of videos that are 10 times more graphic, sick and violent have been shown on CNN, Fox News and elsewhere.

So, if you believe this one video is worse than others, I would like to know which part is more horrific than people being burned alive in a cage? Yet, I didn't hear one single peep about censoring those videos, or anyone being arrested or jailed for sharing ISIS terrorist propaganda.

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#163

Post by RobertRoberts »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #100
fourier_mode wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If even 5 people had attacked this guy at once, he would have been taken down and many people saved. But those 5 people would have to take the increased risk of getting killed, which is difficult to convince than just run. Also the standard safety norms, says to do not indulge with the attacker.

I understand and fully agree. That is why real training, even the most basic, is a good idea. Running and hiding didn't help any of these people. (unless they actually got out of the building) Those men let women and children die around them without even trying to save them.

For those down voting my comment above, I think you have no idea what happened in that mosque. It was really sad, only one person tried to help anyone. Everyone else just laid down. Literally (I mean _literally_) just laid down and waited to be shot.

Imagine if you are trapped in a room with your family, women and children and a gunman is coming. Would you tell your family to just lay down and wait to die? And you wouldn't try to do anything at all?

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#164

Post by dontbenebby »

identity-haver wrote: post #23

Just a thought experiment: so it's after 9/11. Nobody will show a video of the planes flying into the towers. The only place you can watch the video is ISISchan.org, and there are news articles about how many countries banning ISISchan.org & how problematic ISISchan.org is (don't go to ISISchan.org, kids!). Now instead of watching a clip on CNN you've got people absorbing all the extremist propaganda on ISISchan.

Alternatively, look how bad the conspiracy theories are about 9/11 despite video of the planes hitting WTC and Pentagon.

Now imagine that the same unfounded rumors start and sites are barred from displaying the videos so people can "make up their own mind".

There will always be conspiracy theories but hiding the footage, IMHO, will increase it dramatically.

To be clear, it's terrible footage and I think it's good FB, Youtube, and other private sites are choosing to bar it from their platforms.

But I worry that in the long run, if you start doing things like banning any domain that hosts it, you'll feed into some of the worst elements of the internet.

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#165

Post by dontbenebby »

krapp wrote: post #80
ip26 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be for free speech while also unwilling to host certain speech on a platform you own & operate. I can support your right to protest, while also not permitting you to do it in my living room.

>You can be for free speech while also unwilling to host certain speech on a platform you own & operate. In that case, you're for free speech in principle, but not in practice. Which is fair, given that free speech in practice means being willing to commit felonies.

>Which is fair, given that free speech in practice means being willing to commit felonies.

I'm not sure I follow. What "free speech" do you think is currently a felony in the US?

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#167

Post by dang »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #163
RobertRoberts wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand and fully agree. That is why real training, even the most basic, is a good idea. Running and hiding didn't help any of these people. (unless they actually got out of the building) Those men let women and children die around them without even trying to save them.

For those down voting my comment above, I think you have no idea what happened in that mosque. It was really sad, only one person tried to help anyone. Everyone else just laid down. Literally (I mean _literally_) just laid down and waited to be shot. Imagine if you are trapped in a room with your family, women and children and a gunman is coming. Would you tell your family to just lay down and wait to die? And you wo…

You're probably being downvoted because of the judgmental position you're taking. None of us knows how we would react in such a situation, and to talk down about it on a message board is in poor taste at best (even though you probably didn't mean it that way).

Also, I think you may be looking at this through the wrong frame. It's well known in the physiology of trauma that the body shuts down in overwhelming situations. That's the freeze part of fight, flight or freeze.

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#168

Post by Grue3 »

krapp wrote: post #84
rc_kas wrote: post #63

I hate 4chan so much, its a diseased cesspool of morons. However, I hate the idea blocking them. Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Edit: Also, facebook pro-actively took down the video as soon as they became aware.

>Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Is it really, though, or do people just like the slippery slope fallacy a bit too much? Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not h…

>Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments tend to work.

Russian here. It's exactly how ours works.

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#169

Post by spangry »

happytoexplain wrote: post #40
kbenson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're either for free speech or you're not, and as much as I would like to have some absolute reference of good and bad, it's all culturally defined. I mean, I think it's horrible, but I can envision lots of functional and useful societies that are horrible based on my principles (how would you like to to be part of a hize mind?), but that doesn't make them bad in an absolute sense. Scaled down, freedom of speech is…

>You're either for free speech or you're not Absolutism is poison.

The irony of this statement.

Re: 4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video

#170

Post by SCdF »

kbenson wrote: post #82
SCdF wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're either for free speech or you're not, and > it's all culturally defined. contradict each other completely, right? Everyone is for free speech, it just everyone has a different idea of what that means (as you say)

Depending on how you interpret those terms (that is, if you choose a very specific definition of each), possibly. What I means is that free speech is meant to protect everyone from other people's differing opinions on what is and isn't acceptable in a cultural sense. If you're "for free speech as long as it's accepted within my culture" then you're not for free speech. I did clarify a bit in my original comment what…

Have you heard about the paradox of tolerance? I think it's important in this kind of discussion.
Post reply on HN