Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement

rnz.co.nz

331–337 of 337 posts

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

#331

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…

>This type of call to action will only further entrench government strangles over freedom of speech.

There is a certain fringe of society which believes that the real reason for the censorship of the Christchurch attack is not because it motivates and inspires further killing, but that it shows he was not a lone wolf and had handlers helping him step through the scene - and the video clearly shows evidence of this.

IF this were true - and I'm not saying it is - then yes, we have reason to be concerned about being lied to in this fashion. If the general public is never able to tell the truth about these kinds of incidents because they are wrapped up in even more dire secrecy, then the incidents themselves become even more dangerous to society as a whole.

Whether we like it or not, there are very powerful actors and groups out there would seek to profit at every turn from terrorising the general public - they're not all jihadi's or right-wing nutcases, but certainly know how to present themselves - and/or their Manchurian candidate co-criminals - as such.

This sort of duplicity is only going to get worse in a culture of utter secrecy - the only thing that can save the general public from the nefarious deeds of those who would use terror to control our minds, is the light of truth.

This means having the courage to let videos of these events be accessible to the general public. This means, not living in a protective bubble provided to us by higher powers, but rather living the kind of life that will be unhindered by such evidence, when it is presented.

This is a very difficult subject, precisely because people are overly sensitive about the kinds of things they wish to be exposed to. In the same sense that the American public are virulently anti-war when presented with real evidence of the effects of War - e.g. Vietnam - they are violently pro-war when they only see one side of the mighty military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex's pitch deck.

If we want to be ruled by terror, we must merely allow the locks of secrecy to be closed around our eyes. If we want to live in a world where different cultures and different religions, and people with vastly different points of view to our own nevertheless get along, we must never hide from the truth, no matter how traumatising it can be.

This move by the coalition governments is a cynical, duplicitous attempt to make it harder for whistle-blowers and evidence seekers to know the truth about these kinds of attacks, and puts us all in the position of being liable for the lies told to us by those who have the means to pull off such operations - i.e. the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex.

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

#332
post #20

This is horrifying

Why? I'm honestly surprised by the brevity of your comment and by how strong your opinion apparently is in one direction.

Imagine the rules that are codified because of this being used by people to ideologically disagree with. Generally laws are very _very_ hard to get rid of.

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

#333

Utterly nonsensical. You don't need the internet to be radicalized, people have been willing to kill in the name of their convictions for as long as humans have existed. I predict even if somehow every white supremacist were booted off the internet, no lives at all would be saved, as they just don't need the internet to kill people, or to learn to hate. This is purely giving up rights for the sake of security theatre…

You don't accept that the internet has enabled people with obscure and extreme views to better find each other, legitimize each other, spread their views and recruit others to their causes?

No, I don't. Neo-nazis have always existed, have always killed people, and have always been very few. Same for any other group you care to name. Violence overall is on a down trend.

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

#334
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being completely disconnected from the killings you sponsor with your taxes is horrifying.

I agree, but that's not really relevant to the discussion about extremism and online censorship. Also I'm Irish, living in Ireland. Apart from maybe funding a health service that's not fit for purpose, it's a serious stretch to say that my taxes are sponsoring the killings of anyone.

It is, because without the "Collateral Damage" video, most people in the US wouldn't have been exposed to the horrors of what their tax dollars were doing at that time.

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

#335

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.

Those killed by extremists have a right more fundamental than free speech violated -- their liberty. However, free speech did not cause their lives to be ended -- another individual's choices did. We have a system to deal with this. It's called courts, the justice system, and prison. It's worked for thousands of years to produce reasonable societies.

Sorry for not responding earlier. I largely agree, but I think we are at a point where we need to weigh the actual costs that are involved and assess how well our approach is working - in my view, increasingly poorly.

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

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

> Magic internet forums might make me into a terrorist

He found an echo chamber that reinforced his beliefs, which happened to be filled with internet edgelords that egged him on.

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

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those killed by extremists have a right more fundamental than free speech violated -- their liberty. However, free speech did not cause their lives to be ended -- another individual's choices did. We have a system to deal with this. It's called courts, the justice system, and prison. It's worked for thousands of years to produce reasonable societies.

Sorry for not responding earlier. I largely agree, but I think we are at a point where we need to weigh the actual costs that are involved and assess how well our approach is working - in my view, increasingly poorly.

> but I think we are at a point where we need to weigh the actual costs that are involved and assess how well our approach is working - in my view, increasingly poorly.

Luckily, we don't need to consult your 'view' to see how these systems operate. Given that violent crime is at an all time low, especially when considering the entirety of history, I think it's safe to say that if we consult reality, things are for the most part working just fine.

Post reply on HN