Facebook failed to block 20% of uploaded New Zealand shooter videos • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by stefan_ » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

seanwilson wrote: post #93

huffmsa wrote: post #3

The video of the 757s hitting the WTC isn't purged from the internet, why should this video be? The world is dark and full of terrors (but getting better every day), and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't change that.

For comparison, I can't think of anything close to this graphic being shown on the news. I'm not sure how honest you're being with your comment but there's clearly a line where news reporting jumps from showing something to communicate the facts to something that is gratuitous + glorifying the guilty + insulting to the victims + traumatising to family and friends. It's not easy to describe exactly where that line is…

And it's a damn shame. I still remember when WikiLeaks released that video from the Apache helicopter strafing down a Reuters journalist based on some grey pixel looking like a rocket launcher, then coming back for those picking up survivors, while laughing at it all.

People need stark reminders what trillions in military funding is buying them. It's exactly that. They need to see what lax gun laws enable, what warmongering is, what war is.

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

#162

Post by mic47 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

43920 wrote: post #150

mic47 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There are 2 factors that play "against" FB having nice numbers. It takes some time between unique (or in some similarity cluster or whatever they have) content is uploaded, reported and taken down. During this time, exactly same content is not being taken down, because it's not known to be bad. So even if all the content was byte to byte identical, if 20% of it is uploaded before it is reported, there is…

It seems like you could fix this (at least for exactly identical content) by generating a fingerprint for each file as it is uploaded. If a file with a given fingerprint is marked as bad, then all existing files with the same fingerprint would be removed (or maybe just recently-uploaded ones, in order to avoid removing too many legitimate files). That being said, it would probably be pretty simple to work around this…

What I said already assumes that you delete the all instances of that content when you find out it's bad. FB already does this. Problem is, that people see content before it is taken down. And once it's taken down, bad actors stop uploading it, and slightly change it (enough to make it pass existing upload filter).

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

#163

Post by tim333 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

x38iq84n wrote: post #2

The shooting in Christchurch is a tragedy that should not have happened. That said, this massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing. It will be inevitably used to suppress citizens' freedoms, it will cause more tension in society that will escalate into more tragical incidents. Also, the video may serve someone to study modus operandi of such an attacker to increa…

It's not totally censored and you don't go to jail for sharing it or anything like that - it's just making it harder to get and a bit more obscure which I don't find that worrying. It took me 5 mins to find it for someone else - I didn't actually want to watch it personally.

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

#164

Post by x38iq84n » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #120

x38iq84n wrote: post #2

The shooting in Christchurch is a tragedy that should not have happened. That said, this massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing. It will be inevitably used to suppress citizens' freedoms, it will cause more tension in society that will escalate into more tragical incidents. Also, the video may serve someone to study modus operandi of such an attacker to increa…

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 do not make a stop to the opinions they try to suppress. They just drive them away, to hidden forums, to non-mainstream platforms, to dark web.

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.

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

#165

Post by vuln » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

djflutt3rshy wrote: post #100

fhcm8o3x4h wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with any idea, people come to believe and subscribe to ideologies because they are genuinely pursuasive and they are persuasive because they contain substantial - and often meaningful/relevant - truths (if biased and omitting other relevant truths). However, censorship is exactly the wrong thing to do. If these pockets of knowledge are cordoned off, and inaccessible to causal observers then fewer people will know…

Do you have any data supporting this assertion that access to and ability to freely communicate information leads to less radicalization, rather than more? I look at the Internet, and wherever there is no censorship, there is not wisdom; just hate and chaos. 4chan (and even more so, 8chan) are the pure essence of no censorship, yet everything from Holocaust denial to rampant racism and sexism thrive and fester and sp…

That’s two websites. If you asked 1000 people about 4chan maybe 25% would know what is and would say it’s a troll website if they even what what it is. I think less know about 8chan. The media has driven so much traffic to the site. It’s almost as if they want people to radicalize because it will make great news. I digress just because we know what 4/8chan are I doubt most internet users do or care. we shouldn’t sign off on whole sale internet censorship because of 2 websites. Right?

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

#166

Post by wankerrific » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

Facebook and YouTube would sure as f--- fix this problem if, you know, it was the law that they hold liability for any and/all content that was hosted on their platform that they were, you know, profiting off of by displaying ads next to said content.

But that would require regulations which is bad for job creations or something.

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

#167

Post by 908087 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #36

mrkstu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same people who gathered around TVs on 9/11 after the first strike and then saw the 2nd strike live? So most of the country?

On the morning of September 11, 2001 nobody knew there would be a second attack on the other tower. I distinctly remember everyone including myself thinking about the B52 that accidentally ran into the Empire State building. We were all at work so it wasn't like we were watching TV. You're assuming at the time that everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, which is false. Nobody knew that until well after the second p…

But it continues to be featured and replayed to large audiences to this day, so that excuse doesn't really add up.

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

#168

Post by marcinzm » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #126

marcinzm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this. Because of course, censorship only blocks the material you personally don't want others to view and never material you personally would want others to view. I can see a lot of politicians, especiall…

Yes, but on the other hand, the prevalence of far-right dialogue contributed to the rise of far-right politicians. When they are in power, they use their power to block the voices for minority rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, etc. Do you think they will stop, thinking "Oh but far-right voices are still allowed, it won't be fair if I silence women's activists"? All things considered, I'm not convinced that censori…

>"Oh but far-right voices are still allowed, it won't be fair if I silence women's activists"?

No, but they'd need to pass laws and fight court battles to enable censorship versus merely taking over existing systems of censorship. The latter is much easier to do and much harder to notice or right against. Especially when merely fighting against it is grounds for censorship.

>Yes, but on the other hand, the prevalence of far-right dialogue contributed to the rise of far-right politicians.

Depends on the scale you look at. In a sense, the far right is merely the average person's view as of 50-ish years ago. Censoring to the view of the average person merely ensures that in 50 years you'll be seen as having helped far right ideas. Or in a different way, I don't believe that my current views are the pinnacle of progressiveness (or morality or whatever) and I am loathe to prevent future progressives from being able to push their views forward.

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

#169

Post by ceejayoz » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

huffmsa wrote: post #140

dpau wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a defender of free speech and am completely against actions like Reddit banning /r/watchpeopledie. But here's the response from Liveleak which (somewhat surprisingly) I found clarified my own thoughts on the matter: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=uSQT_1552831454 Relevant quote: "Previously we have risked the ire of viewers by refusing to show the glossy promo videos for ISIS. The ones shot on DSLR's, with depth…

Agreed. There's a difference between propaganda and documentation. Christchurch is grainy helmet cam. Not highly produced propaganda.

Grainy helmet cam can be highly produced propaganda. It seems fairly clear the guy had a social media strategy worked out, of which a live stream was an integral part.

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

#170

Post by huffmsa » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

stefan_ wrote: post #161

seanwilson wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparison, I can't think of anything close to this graphic being shown on the news. I'm not sure how honest you're being with your comment but there's clearly a line where news reporting jumps from showing something to communicate the facts to something that is gratuitous + glorifying the guilty + insulting to the victims + traumatising to family and friends. It's not easy to describe exactly where that line is…

And it's a damn shame. I still remember when WikiLeaks released that video from the Apache helicopter strafing down a Reuters journalist based on some grey pixel looking like a rocket launcher, then coming back for those picking up survivors, while laughing at it all. People need stark reminders what trillions in military funding is buying them. It's exactly that. They need to see what lax gun laws enable, what warmo…

Death, dismemberment and destruction used to be a part of people's lives.

They're not now and I think we don't value life as much because most of us don't know how abrupt and cold death actually is.