Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.
Moderating discussion forums is not censorship.
Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
41–50 of 337 posts
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#42The approach seems fairly reasonable, it sounds like it's limited to explicitly violent extremist content, and it's being done using pension funds of various governments in a activist investment manner to try to bring about changes
Historically, a combined effort by corporate and government interests to take away your rights was called fascism. But I guess if it is the far left doing it, it's okay.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#43Everyone 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 t…
It's also produced Singapore.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#44Utterly 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.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#45Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#46Everyone 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 t…
That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Huh? The US has been very aggressive about shutting down websites that spread Al-Qaeda and ISIS propaganda on most websites" You mean like archive.org? That's the website I've seen hosting all the ISIS shit.
True, there's a few other "ISIS archives" that are used largely by intelligence analysts, journalists, historians, and academics for study. But I don't think NZ is saying "Hey journalists and academics, don't study a dump of 8chan!"
What NZ has been saying is that there should be no way for an ordinary, unaccredited member of the public to view any archived copies of any of the Christchurch killer's propaganda anywhere online, something normal internet users apparently can do with ISIS propaganda via archive.org. They've been quite consistent about this since day zero, from what I can tell.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#48The US once again a laggard. Unfortunate but not surprising given the current tenants of the WH.
The US would be a laggard here regardless, given its enshrinement of free speech
Perhaps. Unfortunately absolute enshrinement of anything and the inability to critically evaluate when to allow for common-sense deviation from such enshrinement is a bit of a progress-stopper.
Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#49Re: Tech companies and governments sign up to Christchurch Call agreement
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.
I don't understand that statement. I believe North Korea is a totalitarian state with concentrated power in few hands and no tolerance for dissidence. Are you saying they allow non-state actors to speak and take action freely to promote extreme ideologies there?