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

Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

rnz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 337 posts

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#231

Post by Zuider »

CodiePetersen wrote: post #162
endorphone wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it." You picked three. How about Australia, Canada, European Commission, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries. "The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were alread…

"Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries." I could I suppose go over more of them. The point though, that I was making when I mentioned in exempting fictitious future governments, is that it can be used NOW by real governments. Sure there will be nations that don't abuse it indefinitely, but you can't ensure a governments intent 5 years from now let alone 50. There a…

>So you don't get the "oh you lose" social cue [on twitter]

You don't get the silent downvoting that occurs on sites like reddit, but you do get overt disagreement which can go viral and result in consequences in real life such as being fired and harassed. Added to that, twitter is very proactive in banning people. My point is that the absence of one form of feedback does not preclude the use of other kinds.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#233

Post by Rapzid »

anigbrowl wrote: post #179

It'd be great if people who want to explore this as a free speech issue would engage with the question of what happens to the free speech (and other) rights of people who are killed by extremists, and whether they are more or less important than the rights of people who advocate such killings.

Free speech is just as much about those on the receiving end as on the producing. And, once the information passed into other hands your dealing with producing end again.

Your thesis is a non sequitur as well; people sharing and receiving the information are not necessarily advocating the killings. In fact, just like with War footage from the past, they could be using it to the opposite effect.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#234

Post by Rapzid »

It's amazing to me how political this is and how oblivious to that fact a large portion of the NZ population is.

This horrible act happened on the current governments watch. I've seen more outrage and effort from the government on the spreading of the video and manifesto than introspection into how this slipped through in the first place. I suppose in a country where carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defense is considered a crime, something this terrible shattering the illusion of nanny government protecting you requires a whole lot of deflection and ultra maneuvers to secure the next election cycle.

New Zealand's knee has jerked so hard I'm feeling it in my groin 8k miles away.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#235

Post by dredds »

55555 wrote: post #224
dredds wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- he posted on sites which were considered targets. - he posted a manifesto online (it's been censored in NZ) - he livestreamed the act (also censored) - his attack has been referenced by subsequent attacks (this was his goal) - he wants to use the courts as a platform (our media has voluntarily agreed to censor proceedings) - he said his rights are being infringed by not having phone and other communication (his "ri…

The idea of censoring his manifesto is strange to me. You'd think people would just want to argue the points brought up in his manifesto on their merits and win mindshare that way.

We heard he cites Anders Breivik's manifesto in his own (i haven't read them) so the domino effect of self-radicalization is what concerns them i think. A bit like how we have laws against reporting on suicides cos they determined that suicides statistically increased when they were widely publicized in the past.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#236

Post by solidsnack9000 »

tomp wrote: post #77
bilbo0s wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism... I know this is pedantic, but you got me curious so I went to check the numbers. Odds of death in mass shooting (US only): 1 in 11,125 Odds of death by lightning strike (US only): 1 in 161,831 So it seems that it's actually a lot more likely for an American to die in a mass shooting than it is for us to die in lightning strikes. Edi…

From the same source: Odds of death by police: 1 in 7700 Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315 I'd agree with basetop , I'd rather live in a world free of censorship and "full" of extremism.

These seem like very high odds.

Odds of death by car ("any motor vehicle incident"): 1 in 315

Per the source, "any motor vehicle incident" is actually 1 in 108.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#237

Post by asdf21 »

mattnewport wrote: post #208

> Tech companies and governments sign up Two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. What's for dinner being our most fundamental rights as citizens.

Only Americans have fundamental rights.

Everyone else has "hate speech," which depending on how that's interpreted, can mean anything from thinly veiled blasphemy laws, an inability to bluntly criticize Scientology or Islam, or charges for making Nazi jokes.

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#238

Post by asdf21 »

Taniwha wrote: post #230
int_19h wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are you saying that watching the video is considered a crime in and of itself? Not redistribution, and not even mere possession, but just seeing it?

Certainly, like child porn, watching snuff movies was already illegal in NZ before the alt-right terrorist attack, all the NZ censor did was confirm that the snuff movie fell under that category, it was essentially born illegal. No one passed any special new laws to make it so. It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

>It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US

I don't think that's correct.

There are no federal obscenity laws. The U.S. government does not expressly prohibit obscene conduct. In fact, the U.S. government expressly protects some communications in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

https://legalcareerpath.com/obscenity-law/

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#239

Post by lliamander »

fzeroracer wrote: post #154
stcredzero wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The powers that be. The shadowy cabal. The unseen hand which controls all aspects of society with absolute and arbitrary power. Actually, this does seem to be the case with a somewhat reduced context of just media/social-media/tech in 2019. Journalist collusion is well documented. Big company manipulation of local journalists is documented. We have seen indications of CEOs of different companies cooperating to suppre…

Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America. It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is prete…

> It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people.

So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected?

Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

#240

Post by avereveard »

Reelin wrote: post #210
rudedogg wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It absolutely has made the problem worse in otherwise reasonable societies. I'm genuinely curious, has it really? I wonder if it's just more widely reported? I tried looking up terrorism statistics and found this: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism For most countries, it doesn't look like much has changed from 1970-2017. I glanced at hate crime stats on the FBI website (just looking at 2008 and 2017), with 7,783…

Many people seem unaware of how bad the 70s were, and that definitely predates Facebook. https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/396359930/explosive-protests-... I suspect people just like to have a boogeyman to blame so that they feel they have more understanding or control of the situation than they actually do. "It's a bad situation and we don't know what the cause is or how to fix things" isn't something you'll hear very…

and in the 80s too. anarchist &Nazi&friends in Italy were engaging in an actual bomb marathon with huge loss of innocent life, and I'd argue that if being mean on internet is action enough today for these groups so that they disregard their traditional methods, like literally bombing places, then we are all better off with that
Post reply on HN