41–50 of 243 posts
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If people were ready to pay for a platform with "raw" footage of others' lives there could be a place for it. So far the market has proven otherwise.
I'm not interested in seeing war crimes on facebook. If you want to disseminate that stuff, use a public forum where that stuff is welcome. There are countless places. Facebook and the spin users give is not welcome by me and no doubt by others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android apps don't require approval from Google to be installed.
From Google Play they do, right? And how many people use alternate sources for Android?
[0] - https://9to5google.com/2018/09/07/fortnite-android-fragmenta...
If 9/11 had happened today, what would their policies mean for that footage? What should they do to censor it, if anything? Consider too the increase in camera density over the past two decades.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
This. It is simply not possible to have these platforms host this kind of content and it boils down to money. If you want Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the likes you need ads. Advertisers don't want to be displayed alongside gruesome content. If people were ready to pay for a platform with "raw" footage of others' lives there could be a place for it. So far the market has proven otherwise.
[0] - https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread...
[1] - https://www.cnet.com/news/gab-is-down-as-godaddy-paypal-pull...
The problem is that we've equated some platforms with a certain kind of media. Youtube is video, Twitter is news, Facebook is.. reality tv, I dunno. It's pretty debatable whether those platforms are the right place for the coverage of war crimes. I'm not going to start an argument about the media not doing their job right. However, this discussion would be moot if there was a news platform on par with the above, and…
This. If your evidence for war crimes is Twitter, there's a problem. And the problem is not Twitter. Twitter and Facebook posts should not be evidence of anything. That stuff is so easily faked that courts would be entirely right to laugh such "evidence" out of the courtroom. Evidence should be gathered by appropriate authorities and kept in accordance with international standards on evidence storage. Hint: That's no…
Which appropriate authorities investigated his beating?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. If your evidence for war crimes is Twitter, there's a problem. And the problem is not Twitter. Twitter and Facebook posts should not be evidence of anything. That stuff is so easily faked that courts would be entirely right to laugh such "evidence" out of the courtroom. Evidence should be gathered by appropriate authorities and kept in accordance with international standards on evidence storage. Hint: That's no…
I think you are completely missing the point why they are ending up on these platforms... Try to imagine a world where "appropriate authorities" do not exist, as a first step. Places where these materials get captured are not first world countries with respectable, recognised law enforcement. Most of the people these sharing atrocities are aware only about platforms we call social media. For them these are the only w…
Places where these materials get captured are not first world countries with respectable, recognised law enforcement...
I've lived in these nations, and if you can send via internet to Twitter, you can send to the UN. In fact, you can send to both at the same time.
Who is doing this coordination? To what end?
Is there a common thread in the deplatforming, smearing, and silencing campaigns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. If your evidence for war crimes is Twitter, there's a problem. And the problem is not Twitter. Twitter and Facebook posts should not be evidence of anything. That stuff is so easily faked that courts would be entirely right to laugh such "evidence" out of the courtroom. Evidence should be gathered by appropriate authorities and kept in accordance with international standards on evidence storage. Hint: That's no…
This makes no sense. Pretty much all evidence starts out in some nonprofessional hands. By this logic you could also say that you shouldn't record evidence of war crimes on your Android smartphone, because Android footage "shouldn't be evidence of anything" and "Evidence should be gathered by appropriate authorities and kept in accordance with international standards on evidence storage." Videos from Facebook or Twit…
Money quote.
Twitter is not the evidence store.
Twitter is the place the evidence is gathered from. Along with numerous other sources. And no, they don't simply take your word that the footage on your platform was recorded at place X at time Y and is verified to document persons of interest A, B, and C. They take your word that a twitter post was made at time W containing video N. That's all. I think you may have misunderstood what you were signing if you thought that your signature validated and verified the content of a twitter post. (Or any internet post for that matter.)
That's what the investigations are for, investigations that I can assure you entail far more than twitter posts when you're talking about war crimes.
Crimes require evidence. Real evidence, not twitter posts.