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

Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 243 posts

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#221

Post by lifeisstillgood »

medecau wrote: post #202
jplayer01 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except nobody goes to the Internet Archive unless they're looking for something extremely specific. The benefit of Facebook as a platform is that you can reach a wide audience in a place where often going to the authorities means either jack squat or your incarceration or worse.

Sure. I meant to say the Internet Archive can be used as the 'funded "journalism" archive' that GP mentioned.

I did think that was one possibility - but this needs to be funded and supported by the tech firms themselves not handed off and forgotten.

I can imagine a way of referencing these redacted images that facebooks just puts up a big red sign and a warning - but that still allows people to find it and it acts as a full web citizen.

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#222

Post by hutzlibu »

logicprog wrote: post #218
hutzlibu wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The nation isn't perfect, but does anyone really believe that, on net, America hasn't been a force for good in the world?" Wow. You really never moved out of your bubble, did you? There are many people(not just IS extremists) who consider the US-Empire as plain evil. And much more who just think of US as arrogant, ignorant, self righteous bricks who try to enforce the american way of life on the whole world. And cov…

I see the word "empire" bandied about when discussing this subject a lot , and I'm never really sure what people mean by it. I mean, sure on the face of it you're correct, an "empire" according to various dictionaries is just an expansive amount of territory under a single rule, but it doesn't seem like that's what anyone really means when they say it. Otherwise, why aren't most countries empires? They have an "expan…

The way I understand empire is a state which tries to expand its influence and dominate wherever it can.

And yes, for people being dominated by it, it has a negative connotation.

Different from a democracy and federation. Because a democracy fighting for freedom and ... well democracy, would not do this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

"During the Cold War in particular, the U.S. government secretly supported military coups that overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Congo in 1960, Brazil in 1964 and Chile in 1973. "

This is what empires do.

Dominating their way onto weaker states, by all means. Sanctions, assasinations, supporting, supressing, blocking, sending weapons and ultimatively troops. There is a reason why there are US bases all over the world.

And yes, sometimes that can be a net gain, like in Nazi Germany, but usually all the human rights democracy talk is just facade.

And also yes, smaller states do the same, act like empires, but the US is by far the largest Power since the USSR vanished.

But china is on the rise and europe likes to be an empire as well ... but for example with europe I have the hope that we tend to stay more a democratic federation and not go down that path as well.

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#223

Post by mAEStro-paNDa »

cr0sh wrote: post #182
thaumasiotes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to see someone build or modernize a news outlet that isn't driven by attention or clicks as a currency. There are two motivations for running a news outlet, both with extensive historical precedent: - You want money. - You want to spread your view of the world, inflicting your culture on other people. There isn't a lot of immediate financial gain associated with the second approach, but the gains are real…

> But in the modern US, while we still have outlets of that type, there is a very strong belief that they shouldn't count as "news", and that they are less legitimate than "neutral" journalism. At least one of those outlets, in a court of law, by it's creator/owner/founder at the time, admitted that it was "entertainment" and not "news", but rather a channel that called itself "news" in name only, that its main purpo…

Used to be, somewhat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#224

Post by thaumasiotes »

cr0sh wrote: post #182
thaumasiotes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to see someone build or modernize a news outlet that isn't driven by attention or clicks as a currency. There are two motivations for running a news outlet, both with extensive historical precedent: - You want money. - You want to spread your view of the world, inflicting your culture on other people. There isn't a lot of immediate financial gain associated with the second approach, but the gains are real…

> But in the modern US, while we still have outlets of that type, there is a very strong belief that they shouldn't count as "news", and that they are less legitimate than "neutral" journalism. At least one of those outlets, in a court of law, by it's creator/owner/founder at the time, admitted that it was "entertainment" and not "news", but rather a channel that called itself "news" in name only, that its main purpo…

The money-oriented and "public service" outlets are also entertainment, and are also happy to admit it in public. For example, the BBC has explicitly made the statement that it is a form of entertainment.

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#225

Post by logicprog »

hutzlibu wrote: post #222
logicprog wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the word "empire" bandied about when discussing this subject a lot , and I'm never really sure what people mean by it. I mean, sure on the face of it you're correct, an "empire" according to various dictionaries is just an expansive amount of territory under a single rule, but it doesn't seem like that's what anyone really means when they say it. Otherwise, why aren't most countries empires? They have an "expan…

The way I understand empire is a state which tries to expand its influence and dominate wherever it can. And yes, for people being dominated by it, it has a negative connotation. Different from a democracy and federation. Because a democracy fighting for freedom and ... well democracy, would not do this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... "During the Cold War in particular, the U.S. gover…

Okay that does make sense. I think that there are good and bad sides to the US' actions though, and the good actions are not limited to WW2.

It's important to note that, at some size any nation becomes an "empire" by that definition-- it really isn't possible to not do that, and survive. Beyond a certain amount influence, there will be constant threats to security and prosperity and people trying to harm you, and rightly or not the solution any government would look to for these problems is violence. Because government is fundamentally based on force, inside and out (government is enforced at the point of a gun). So to say that the US's government is uniquely terrible is not really true.

Also for the most part the actions of the US are in service to what they say they are in service to. On this I disagree with you slightly: the values US talks about are usually not a facade. And the times that they are, those become highly contentious actions, even in the US, whereas in other countries I don't know that they would be-- so to act as if the US's people are uniquely terrible is again very disingenuous.

In the example that you quote, those actions were clearly in the interest of toppling an even greater evil. I don't think this rationale is morally right, but you could say we went with the "lesser evil".

So I agree with you, that the US does act like an empire, and that other countries would too if they had to or could.

However I see a lot of specific condemnations of the US as if it were unique. That's more what I was responding to. I don't think either of us think that's right.

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#226

Post by 8bitsrule »

cr0sh wrote: post #187
8bitsrule wrote: post #55

Social media have successfully created the illusion that they are (to some extent, at least) public spaces. This is another reminder that they are not. OTOH, truly public spaces on the internet ... where reasonable speech can truly be free ... are in very short supply. By accident or intention, this is a crappy state of affairs. This isn't a new topic. 20 years ago, Lessig wrote, "We can build, or architect, or code…

> OTOH, truly public spaces on the internet ... where reasonable speech can truly be free ... are in very short supply. Who decides what is "reasonable"? One's person or group's "reasonable" is another's call to regulation, if not censorship by various means. How can this conundrum be solved on an international network composed of both adults and children accessing the same content? I'm not expecting you or anyone el…

Who decides? Good question. But IMO, democracy is not the strong suit of most corporations.

Here in the US, back in the fabled wild west, the solution was not to expect the law to be upheld by grocers, blacksmiths, or bankers. The public hired professionals. So, I reckon, maybe we need some laws to enforce.

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#229

Post by AnthonyMouse »

_0ffh wrote: post #88
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like those safe harbour laws in the US are at risk, at least in practice, as the idea of a content "conduit" begins being less plausible as platforms start moderating more and more. The way the US got the safe harbor to begin with was as follows. There was a court decision that essentially said that you weren't liable if you were just carrying bits, but if you did moderation then you were. The problem with t…

>The problem with this is obviously that you then either have to have no moderation at all or it has to be 100% perfect I'm not sure. You can let the users moderate themselves, then you're still just carrying bits. That's where a pluralistic organisation of the platform comes in handy. Things like Reddit or image boards are not just one community, but a plurality of communities. None of those suit you? Go ahead and o…

> You can let the users moderate themselves, then you're still just carrying bits.

But then without a safe harbor the users doing the moderation would be liable, no?

Re: Tech Companies Are Deleting Evidence of War Crimes

#230

Post by AnthonyMouse »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #74
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely ignoring the public pressure needed to bring about enforcement of laws against connected figures. If you give your evidence against government officials to other government officials, good luck getting them bring a case that could hurt their career prospects by pissing off the wrong people. To get that rolling under those circumstances, you need public pressure. Which means you need to distribute th…

The problem is though that a video goes viral and then gets forgotten in a time shorter than anyone can verify its authenticity. Public pressure may end up getting applied incorrectly.

People get upset about dumb stuff continuously. It's the job of the public officials to verify the information for themselves. If it's false then they can publish the information disproving it and the public pressure subsides.

Better to have the occasional tempest in a teapot than that people do nothing even when something needs doing.

Post reply on HN