Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by Kalium » Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:58 AM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #279

Kalium wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that perhaps this difference could be split by legislating against harming others? This also has the benefit of not requiring lesiglative bodies to spell out every circumstance that could be involved. It sounds like you might be in full agreement with the person you have quoted.

> Is it possible that perhaps this difference could be split by legislating against harming others? It could. But I'd put (at least) extremist/hate speech into the category of "harming others" and that puts me on the side of "censorship" which, I think, is in disagreement with them (and, it seems, most of the people in this thread.)

I think that depends on how one defines harm. I think we can all agree that bodily assault, destruction of property, and similar are all clear harms. So is a loss of human rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Personally, I find myself deeply skeptical of unprovable, unverifiable, and ultimately vague notions of harm. If you can provide a clear demonstration that someone engaging in hate speech is meaningfully the same as physical violence comitted against a person, I am happy to reassess this position. To be clear, I expect clear criterion for what is hate speech (no "community standards" qualifiers) and proof of consequences as clear as those of other clear harms. Until then, I'm reluctant to infringe on general freedoms in the name of something that does not appear to be a clear harm.

I hate doing this, but I'm also someone who regularly sees hate speech directed against my ethnic group. I am well familiar with the emotional consequences of being on the receiving end of what some might call hate speech.

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

#282

Post by roca » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:06 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #278

pryce wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. This is an idea worth examining more closely. In one view, social media acts as simply a passive reflection of an existing culture; in another, social media reproduces that culture which later becomes (in part) a reflection of social media etc. The causality goes both ways. Organised white supremacists have decided that social…

I believe it's something in between both views: Society is just shifting its operations to social media. This does bring a few changes, but ultimately nothing new is happening, it's just happening somewhere else and becomes easier to identify.

I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement. Before the Internet, the average person simply would not have come into contact with material promoting these ideas.

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

#283

Post by Kalium » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:06 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #176

EdwardDiego wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is far left in this? Jacinda Ardern represents a centre-left coalition government.

Some people like to use the term "far-left" to mean "far-left of me", without acknowledging that they're nowhere near the center themselves.

In fairness, people do the same thing with "far right". I've met some people who would likely characterize President Obama as far right.

This particular pathology seems to arise from the idea that "far $TYPE" is inherently de-legitmizing. And once you've de-legitimized someone or some position, you don't actually have to take them seriously, so...

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

#284

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:10 AM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #271

danans wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before the Internet came around, it was actively happening "here". You couldn't shop your violent extremist video around to pre-Internet mass media outlets, or if you did, you would probably be referred to law enforcement. Not all forms of this look like China, some look like the USA circa 1990.

Pre 1990 extremists would maintain mailing lists and send each other communications and videos. You have no right to mass media outlets. Just as I have no right to barge into your home and force you to listen to my speech... you have no right to force the owner of a tv or radio station to broadcast your message. Your right to free speech is not a right to violently force others to deliver your message against their w…

Nobody forces anyone to hear from anyone else on Facebook or Twitter. You can block people, you choose who you follow. That sort of thing is woven into the fabric of the medium itself. TV and radio was traditionally limited to broadcast companies because there was only so much spectrum to go around. The internet is a different thing, it's not exactly analogous to any medium to ever come before it.

I don't even know if you and I have the same definition of extremist. If you mean promoting literal violence or any other illegal activities, you're absolutely right. No one has a right to that kind of speech.

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

#285

Post by mr_toad » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

LilBytes wrote: post #135

elken wrote: post #125

The Christchurch shooter amassed a cache of weapons, and also posted a copy of his manifesto and a link to his real Facebook account to 4chan. The censorship/Facebook algorithms amplifying abhorrent content debate is one thing but I'm surprised by the lack of scrutiny of the security services over this. Especially for a member of the 5 Eyes. I can't help but feel this could have been prevented without any of the chan…

4Chan and LiveLeak have both been blocked (via DNS) in Australia and New Zealand. So, the scrutiny albeit region specific has occurred.

And according to my kids ‘everyone’ at school uses VPNs.

The only people who don’t have access to these sites are the people who don’t want to see it.

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

#286

Post by roca » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

Rapzid wrote: post #234

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…

NZers have observed the USA's experiment with reducing violent crime by flooding the nation with guns, and there is very strong support across the political spectrum for trying something else: restricting access to the most dangerous guns, and deplatforming murder advocates. It is not some authoritarian ploy.

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

#287

Post by roca » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:21 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #277

Aren't they missing the point here? The problem isn't that this guy streamed what he was doing on facebook, it's the fact that he did it in the first place? As these large hosts move more and more away from mere platforms to content curators it does make a lot of sense that they'd also be more responsible for what they curate, but at the same time, it seems like this responsibility will ultimately leak back into the…

A big contributing factor to him doing it in the first place was him marinating in online murder advocacy groups.

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

#288

Post by roca » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:27 AM UTC

elken wrote: post #125

The Christchurch shooter amassed a cache of weapons, and also posted a copy of his manifesto and a link to his real Facebook account to 4chan. The censorship/Facebook algorithms amplifying abhorrent content debate is one thing but I'm surprised by the lack of scrutiny of the security services over this. Especially for a member of the 5 Eyes. I can't help but feel this could have been prevented without any of the chan…

AFAIK (and according to Wikipedia) the manifesto was only posted "minutes before the attacks began".

There wasn't any system for gun tracking that would let any agency detect he was amassing a cache. That is likely to change.

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

#289

Post by roca » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

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.

How well is that working against the flat-earth and anti-vax communities?

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

#290

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Thu, May 16, 2019, 9:29 AM UTC

roca wrote: post #282

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's something in between both views: Society is just shifting its operations to social media. This does bring a few changes, but ultimately nothing new is happening, it's just happening somewhere else and becomes easier to identify.

I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement. Before the Internet, the average person simply would not have come into contact with material promoting these ideas.

Good point.

Then again, the same way people can become aware of the problems with their political system through the internet. I understand this has happened in Syria within the last generation or so.