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

221–230 of 373 posts

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

#221

Post by jimjimjim »

huffmsa wrote: post #194
megous wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difference is presumably in the intention, not the video quality.

True. But it's functional no different than police bodycam footage. It is a documentation of the events as they unfolded. It does not have a message. It doesn't function as propaganda.

The whole god damn thing was his propaganda!

Why did he film it? why publish a rant? why write things on his guns?

to try to push his shitville excuse of a view. To embolden other shitists. Do sow fear and anger into the non-shit.

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

#222

Post by roenxi »

Pharmakon wrote: post #212
roenxi wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You handwave, but: 1) That probably is a valid defense in some countries 2) It is completely reasonable to ask for an articulate link between a crime and some sort of victim, otherwise the crime shouldn't exist. "It is obvious" is only for crimes with a very obvious victim. For child pornography, I assume the link is because people might be selling it for cash which is harder to trace and collecting it might be suppo…

1.) Which countries? 2.) Your opinion is at odds with the laws of virtually every country on Earth. Countries that can’t agree on things as simple as diet, or whether gay people should be allowed to live still manage to agree on this.

1) Well South Korea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and a smattering of African countries by the look of it [0]. And the level of enforcement probably varies wildly by country.

2) I doubt you've actually read my opinion properly, it was that the link between crime and victim should be articulated on request. That is going to be a very popular opinion in the civilized world.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography

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

#223

Post by burfog »

anigbrowl wrote: post #136
burfog wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would treat child porn and specific threats against individuals just the same as I'd treat a shooting video. Arrest the shooter, the child porn producer (unless victim==perpetrator), and the person making the threat. It is fine for others to keep and share the video, photos, text, etc.

I'm not sure that it's fine, since one would expect network effects to increase proliferations - and empirical results bear out that expectation: http://www.davidmckie.com/final-visualizations/

Well, do we want to catch people harming children, or do we just want to not be aware of it? We have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind policy right now. Reporting is discouraged, because then all your stuff would be seized as evidence and you'd be under suspicion. Lots of people probably destroy computers if they accidentally come across the stuff, since mere possession of the data is an offense.

If it spreads around, then somebody might recognize a perpetrator. I suppose we could get fancy, with a rule that you can keep it if you register it. That would make it far easier to track things back to the source and then see if anybody is getting harmed.

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

#224

Post by redisman »

huffmsa wrote: post #194
megous wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Difference is presumably in the intention, not the video quality.

True. But it's functional no different than police bodycam footage. It is a documentation of the events as they unfolded. It does not have a message. It doesn't function as propaganda.

> It does not have a message. It doesn't function as propaganda.

What an absurd thing to say about a terrorists propaganda video.

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

#225

Post by huffmsa »

arrrg wrote: post #218
huffmsa wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see these two pieces of footage as functional different. They are documentation of terrorist attacks. If one is allowed, then yes, all should be.

The video of the NZ attacks is not documentation. It is purposefully created propaganda by the terrorist himself. It’s not neutral. (Not that even something set up explicitly as merely documentation could ever be completely neutral itself, I’m just saying that this footage is extremely far removed from having any claim to neutrality.) It does document the attacks, that much is true. And in that regard it is the same…

But we still make Nazi filmed footage from their concentration camps available.

There's no other way to truly understand what happened unless you see it. Regardless of who filmed it.

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

#226

Post by dekken_ »

bitxbit wrote: post #149
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.

That’s not logical at all. What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated? Who are you to stand in the way of their wishes and rights? So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube but when it comes to people actually getting murdered it’s all of sudden not OK.

> That’s not logical at all

Yes it is.

> What if any of the victims in the video didn’t want the video to be disseminated?

They don't get to decide that.

> So we are OK with corporate cease and desist letters on youtube.

No

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

#227

Post by gruez »

Pharmakon wrote: post #217
gruez wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>their next of kin have the standing. That's not what standing means[1]. At least in the US, if the video was recorded legally[2], there's nothing you can really to do prevent publication of it. The laws are stricter if you're using it for commercial purposes, but it's not the case here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) [2] You could argue that the shooting was illegal, so therefore the recording was…

I’m not sure why you’re bringing the US into this when it’s about a crime that took place in NZ, and their requests for cooperation.

>I’m not sure why you’re bringing the US into this when it’s about a crime that took place in NZ

because I'm not a new zealand lawyer, but both US and new zealand uses common law, so I'm using that as a point of reference. I'm not trying to say "it's x in the US therefore it's x in new zealand". If you can find an authoritative source that confirms what the legal status is, feel free to post it.

>their requests for cooperation.

The people posting/sharing those videos aren't going to comply with nicely worded "requests for cooperation". If they want something taken down, they'll need assistance of the legal system.

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

#228

Post by TheTruth1234 »

huffmsa wrote: post #214
TheTruth1234 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. It's the inadvertent exposure that's more of a problem. The access is just so easy. If you were browsing at the time it was happening, you almost couldn't not watch the video because it was so prevelant. I'm imagining a 16 year old coming across it, and wondering how they process…

You think you understand, but until you really see something or someone go from living and breath to abruptly dead, you don't. As for the 16 year old, it wasn't long ago that by 16 you'd have seen a few of your siblings and friends succumbed to illness or accident. Death used to be part of life and we dealt with it.

I'm not saying we need to be in denial of death. I'm well versed, thanks.

But that doesn't mean I need or want to tune into the live-action progress of a disgusting, terrorist attack.

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

#229

Post by TheTruth1234 »

gojomo wrote: post #219
TheTruth1234 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. It's the inadvertent exposure that's more of a problem. The access is just so easy. If you were browsing at the time it was happening, you almost couldn't not watch the video because it was so prevelant. I'm imagining a 16 year old coming across it, and wondering how they process…

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.

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

#230

Post by jancsika »

zed88 wrote: post #135

I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart. I am from NZ and a muslim and have watched the video myself an hour after the incident, I know people personally affected by this and I think we all need to come together as human beings and understand that there are some evil ideas and people everywhere around the world. And that's…

> I think censorship is not going to fix the issue, people have the right to see and face evil if they so wish to and have a strong heart.

I'd like to pentest that. Here are some real and hypothetical cases that should be easier to defend:

* thousands of people access scientific journal articles through scihub

* thousands of people copy books from an illegal mirror of the corpus of digital books from UC libraries that Google scanned for Google books

* millions of people sharing copyrighted digital music and videos

Do you also publicly defend without reservation the behavior of the people in my bullet points above on free speech grounds? Should such users and publishers be defended in their endeavors on free speech grounds?

Post reply on HN