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

301–310 of 373 posts

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

#301

Post by Nimitz14 »

huffmsa wrote: post #145
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…

It's not gratuitous, it's real life. If you really really want the public to be upset enough about this to take action, they need to see just how horrifying it was. The video of the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém in Vietnam was huge in turning opinion even harder against war.

And if you knew the whole story you would know that guy deserved to be executed (google it). Kind of an argument against releasing material like that: The public does not have the information nor the time to interpret it correctly.

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

#302

Post by idlewords »

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…

You put your finger on a key issue, which is consent. Many people were shown this film of a brutal mass murder with no warning due to autoplaying video on news or social media sites.

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

#303

Post by shittyadmin »

refurb wrote: post #10
warning26 wrote: post #9

I know people on here will disagree with this, but I think many of these events indicate that online censorship is needed. 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.

It's amazing how quickly people will give up fundamental rights in the name of safety.

It really deeply bothers me, I wish there was something I could do to help protect my rights from this sort of reactionary response. Does the ACLU still put up a fight in cases like this? They used to back in the day, but I'm not sure they would now...

EDIT: To make my view clear here, Facebook and others are free to remove the videos, I'd prefer if they age-gated and put a warning on them instead, but that's their choice. What I don't like is the way that that some police agencies have been suggesting that mere possession of the video is illegal.

The worst part here is that the attacker himself was suggesting that by hitting on ideas like free speech and the right to bear arms he'd be able to "accelerate" the deepening of political divides. I do not want to be put in a place where I'm forced to choose between fundamental rights and respect for entire races of people, but at this rate I fear that decision time may be approaching. Given time I hope cooler heads will prevail.

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

#304

Post by whiddershins »

warning26 wrote: post #9

I know people on here will disagree with this, but I think many of these events indicate that online censorship is needed. 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.

Interesting. Do you feel that statements of the far-right (by whatever definition you are using) are the exclusive source of incitement to hatred and violence on the internet?

Or was that just an example of one of many kids of dialogue that might be dangerous and need to be proactively censored?

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

#305

Post by rndgermandude »

telesilla wrote: post #22
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…

Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? It's not fair to allow these things in the public field where we might see disturbing things without wanting to. Videos and images must be tagged, and therefore given a rating so that I can self-censor.

Frankly, not my problem. That's your problem.

Today it is you who says we gotta censor what you find offensive, tomorrow President Orange-Nimrod will censor all of CNN because it's OK now to censor things that somebody/anybody finds offensive, and in a few decades time President Jenna Bush Hager will censor all depictions of an Earth that isn't flat because those are offensive to the good god-fearing citizens who are true to the word of the Bible.

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

#306

Post by techdragon »

erentz wrote: post #290
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…

From reading a lot of the anti censorship comments popping up around FBs activities here, it feels like it is actually partly fueled by the deplatforming actions social networks have been taking here in the US, which have been political, and very anti-free speech. It doesn’t all seem purely about this case of whether a social network should be required to distribute propaganda videos of mass murder. Personally I don’…

It’s simply the matter of where we draw the line. Child porn is nearly universally considered past the line. Bestiality is predominantly considered to be past the line. Videos on how to make weapons or learn self defence / martial arts (all mechanisms by which violence can be inflicted) are placed past the line or not past it in the laws in many parts of the world. Hateful and vitriolic rants will be illegal in some places and legal in others.

Is it really so hard to understand that some people draw the line between the two things you mentioned? Especially when those advocating it not be illegal, may consider the video of mass murder to be news, or audiovisual documentation worthy of preserving as evidence of the events that have transpired.

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

#307

Post by shittyadmin »

tenpies wrote: post #112
tikwidd wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WTC footage is documentation of a terrorist attack by innocent bystanders. The Christchurch Mosque shooting footage was created by the terrorist with the aim of becoming viral. It is a component of the terrorist attack itself.

If no one had recorded anything, but a few months later Al-Qaeda released ground-level videos of the attacks happening, would we ban them then ?

They're not illegal, but many sites ban them - I tried to find an unedited copy of the ISIS video with them dropping grenades from a drone a few years back... you often wind up having to go into the same niche news sites, gore sites, or torrent sites which you do to find this video. My options were pretty much 8chan itself or "BestGore" when I looked.

I'll also note that ISIS does a lot more editing and commentary to slant the content in their favor than this guy did. About all this guy did was make meme references... I can see an argument that this is quite different.

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

#308

Post by huffmsa »

Nimitz14 wrote: post #301
huffmsa wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not gratuitous, it's real life. If you really really want the public to be upset enough about this to take action, they need to see just how horrifying it was. The video of the execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém in Vietnam was huge in turning opinion even harder against war.

And if you knew the whole story you would know that guy deserved to be executed (google it). Kind of an argument against releasing material like that: The public does not have the information nor the time to interpret it correctly.

Oh I know. He was a spy and got what he deserved. But until then, the US public hadn't really seen blood spilled in Vietnam. The government and media censored and spun the hell out of the news coming home.

The best way to prevent propagandistic spin is to make sure the raw footage is available.

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

#309

Post by halfjew222 »

sasasassy wrote: post #67
tantalor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but knowingly transmitting CP is arguably "aiding & abetting" (i.e., encouraging) the "actual crimes" after the fact.

Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.

I’m leaning more towards your side of this argument, but after looking through the archive of the thread from 8chan where NZ shooter initially announced his plan and linked his streams, these guys are begging for proof and this character is a meme that they’re cheering on. It’s sickening, scary, and quite frankly, I can’t understand how you can get to a point that they are at.

That said, the sharing of the video in that thread is something I think we can all agree is 0’s and 1’s that should be attempted to be prevented.

The media will come and share these videos for clicks and that’s a separate issue. Initially, this guy is knowingly becoming an Internet celebrity for murdering people. This part of the culture has to be addressed. I am worried this kind of meme-heavy killing is opening up a sickening can of worms.

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

#310

Post by 50656E6973 »

dewey wrote: post #111
jayess wrote: post #49

One can find thousands of copies of the video of President Kennedy's head exploding from the bullet of an assassin. All over youtube. What's the difference?

It was not created by the assassin and spread as propaganda.

"Know your enemy"
Post reply on HN