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

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

#301

Post by lm28469 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 10:34 AM UTC

CodiePetersen wrote: post #227

wpietri wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely incorrect: > The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. If extremism couldn't be effectively spread, extremists wouldn't bother trying. But they put quite a lot of effort into recruiting and propaganda. For those interested, I strongly recommend Neiwart's "Alt-America": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MT2KCB2/ He's a journalist who in the 80s and 90s was…

Extremism was spreading long before the internet. We literally had a cold war to try to stop the spread of communism not to mention there are countless examples in history where the populace was swayed by extremism. The nazis didn't have internet but they were perfectly capable of getting people lined up for war. It's definitely not the technology, they will find any method they need to spread their message.

Don't you think the medium used to communicate ideas determine how fast and far they spread ?

Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda.

It's like saying internet didn't reshape the world because we could already send data over long distance before, yeah sure if you consider that a boat going from EU to US with hand written letters is just as good as our current 60 Tbps ocean internet cable.

Also, don't forget that the Nazis were elected to power and were the official government, it's much easier to use propaganda when you're in that kind of position.

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

#302

Post by dredds » Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:18 AM UTC

asdf21 wrote: post #260

Taniwha wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make it legal, or even morally right - people who want to watch this shit are sick fuckers

Wow, that's an incredibly judgey and myopic perspective. And wrong, I believe. I've personally watched a decent amount of gory stuff just because I like to understand the world I live in better. Do you think people who watch violent R rated movies are sick fucks too?

There's a difference between watching fatal car accidents or faked scenes in movies as opposed to live criminal acts of violence on real people, but there are certainly grey areas too. Who hasn't seen people jumping from the World Trade Center fires?

We're drawn to, and learn from, the plight of others, but there are also legal standards to protect real people who are being filmed while being criminally abused, rather than just acting the part in a video portrayal of such.

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

#303

Post by Taniwha » Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:47 AM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #262

Taniwha wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

18 USC 71 ... is the federal obscenity law, it's been much patched in and around child porn, but the basic law is still there. Of course there's been a lot of Supreme Court rulings in and around it culminating in the Miller test ... Your 'shooting video' is really a snuff film, probably one of the few genuine ones (along with those made by ISIS, and just as bad) and certainly falls under the Miller test

You can't just redefine a murder video as pornographic because you don't like it. You mentioned the miller test, so you already know it requires that it depict "sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law". Ignoring the state law requirement (which you haven't cited), the video does not depict sexual conduct.. and there's no way you can twist this into being illegal in the US. I…

18 USC 71 is about 'obscenity', which doesn't just include pornography. These days it includes a bunch of clauses about child porn, but that's mostly about politicians wanting to get their names on the board. The original, base law is more general and its definition comes from common law modulated by many supreme court decisions

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

#304

Post by ufmace » Thu, May 16, 2019, 12:22 PM UTC

roca wrote: post #292

ufmace wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start a slippery slope argument? We're way beyond started. We already have people actively seeking to tie the most mild institutions around to the most vile opinions around any way they possibly can, so that they can ban and silence anyone they disagree with. It's already happening, and only a sincere commitment to freedom of expression for all, even those we disagree with, can stop it. Have you read the Christchurch…

Why would you believe anything in that manifesto?

What do you mean by "believe"? He said that one of his goals was to accelerate the conflict between two sides of the cultural divide. That's a pretty common goal of terrorism. Am I supposed to not believe him, and think he did it for some other reason?

I believe he wrote the truth about what he thinks and why he did what he did. I don't see why he would lie about that. Whether you think any of his points have any validity or agree with any of them is a whole different ballgame.

I also believe that, in a society that aspires to practice freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it is an essential skill to be able to read something you may not agree with, written by someone who took actions that you oppose, and objectively evaluate the content.

Not everyone needs to or can, but some people had better do it, if we are to have any hope of rising above the hate and division associated with these sorts of acts.

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

#305

Post by Grue3 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 12:32 PM UTC

incompatible wrote: post #148

CodiePetersen wrote: post #143

This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…

Are you suggesting that certain countries would describe LGBTQ activities as "terrorist and violent extremist content"? I don't think they would need to, they have special anti-LGBTQ laws already.

Well, at least Russia routinely bans LGBTQ-related websites for extremist content.

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

#306

Post by wpietri » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

CodiePetersen wrote: post #227

wpietri wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely incorrect: > The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. If extremism couldn't be effectively spread, extremists wouldn't bother trying. But they put quite a lot of effort into recruiting and propaganda. For those interested, I strongly recommend Neiwart's "Alt-America": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MT2KCB2/ He's a journalist who in the 80s and 90s was…

Extremism was spreading long before the internet. We literally had a cold war to try to stop the spread of communism not to mention there are countless examples in history where the populace was swayed by extremism. The nazis didn't have internet but they were perfectly capable of getting people lined up for war. It's definitely not the technology, they will find any method they need to spread their message.

Again, read the book. The Internet made all sorts of communication and organizing easier. Most of that is good. Some of it is terrible.

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

#307

Post by ionised » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:01 PM UTC

qball wrote: post #150

CodiePetersen wrote: post #143

This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…

>Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. The interesting thing is that this really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. Consider weapons treaties, like the UN ones banning the use of land mines and cluster munitions. The only countries that have signed them either don't have any reason to use them, or are allied with a nation that hasn't signed that treaty. This is much the same…

> unless they outright block US services from their networks- in which case there will be riots in the streets.

People aren't going to be rioting in the streets because they lose access to Google and Facebook, come on.

People in western democracies put up with a hell of a lot worse than that from their governments without rioting.

> You can't outcompete a free nation. That's kind of its main advantage.

I'd like to believe that was true, but I think China will prove us wrong in the coming decades.

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

#308

Post by ionised » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:07 PM UTC

eadmund wrote: post #294

roca wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It is not some authoritarian ploy. Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not, restricting access to guns and free speech is an authoritarian play: it's using the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good.

> it's using the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good.

That's called civilisation.

And the US doesn't have absolute free speech. It never did.

Just like other democracies, it has restrictions on speech for various reasons, some good and some bad. It's about where an individual country draws their line on the spectrum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Some US states have obscenity laws that other developed democracies don't. Obscenity laws. Just think about how insane that is as a concept.

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

#309

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #301

CodiePetersen wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremism was spreading long before the internet. We literally had a cold war to try to stop the spread of communism not to mention there are countless examples in history where the populace was swayed by extremism. The nazis didn't have internet but they were perfectly capable of getting people lined up for war. It's definitely not the technology, they will find any method they need to spread their message.

Don't you think the medium used to communicate ideas determine how fast and far they spread ? Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda. It's like saying internet didn't reshape the world bec…

> Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda.

Because the printing press, newspapers, filmed movies, radio and television never existed? /s

Mass media has been around for a long time.

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

#310

Post by scottlocklin » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #188

hyperdunc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to his manifesto the largest factor was a visit to France, not online activity.

His manifesto also included memes and copy pasta.He listened to meme music as he drove to the mosque, he said "Subscribe to Pewdiepie" before he shot the first victim. The fact that he was a member of an online community that considered his views normal is extremely significant.

Oh yeah? How about the fact that he drove a car, or ate meat or spoke english or traveled a lot?

The "online radicalization" thing is complete and total bullshit: it's an excuse to ramp up the totalitarian surveillance state in a more obvious way than the "war on terror" -now it's a war on people who read things on the internet. Magic internet forums might make me into a terrorist ... or a hacker; better put me in prison!