Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

rnz.co.nz

31–40 of 337 posts

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

#31
post #21

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world.

Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism?

You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat?

That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify taking your rights away.

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

#32
Preventing viral spreading of the videos I think is unquestionably ideal, but there's also a section in this "Call" stating another goal, to "Counter the drivers of terrorism ... to resist ideology and narratives... through education and building media literacy..." [some words removed so the message is less hidden]. It's hard not to suspect political motivation, given that Internet platforms are turf wars for politics these days.

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

#33
post #21

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

Okay, I'll bite. Here is an alternative. Make it illegal for any "news" agency to publicly name the group or individual that commits any "terrorist" act. Make it a multi-million dollar fine per instance. We need to stop giving these people their 15 minutes of fame or infamy. All coverage must be about the victims only.

We also need to collectively care about stopping extremism with other approaches. One thing that is that most people who commit these heinous acts have reached a point where their lives have to perceived value. They are then easily radicalized. (See blue collar America blaming all their jobs lost to automation on Mexicans) People who have money for their family and are generally happy don't go around killing for some cause. Addressing wealth inequality can help.

The challenge of supporting this kind of "good censorship" is always who will watch the watchers? What passes for terrorism in the US is different than in a country like Russia or North Korea or .... A lot of people (even in the US) are very careful about what they post on socials. What happens if people who attack a certain viewpoint or organization are suddenly declared "evil" and the cause of all our ills? Is someone on a bowling team with a closet Nazi or KKK member also guilty? You only need to look back at McCarthyism to see how easily "good" people can be weaponized into something terrible.

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

#36

I guess they're not going to ban content that glorifies war, though? That would be a bridge too far.

Of course not. They are going to promote it. They are going to give the pro-war "authoritative sources" preferential treatment.

It's funny how so many of the pro-censorship comments here reference ISIS. These same people would defend the pro-war news companies which has spread false propaganda leading to illegal wars that killed millions of innocents in the past few decades.

If these companies are going to censor "extremism", then they should start with the "authoritative sources".

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

#38
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? I was under the impression that ISIS was extremely censored online, particularly by the companies that signed this. Is that not the case? On the otherhand, I see white supremacist propganda basically daily at this point.

A couple of years ago, Cloudflare refused to remove access to ISIS websites, and said it's not the job of ISPs or themselves to police content. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-opisis-cloudflare-refuse...

The policy of one internet infrastructure firm doesn't validate the original claim of ISIS' online activity being 'ignored for well over a decade.'
Post reply on HN