91–100 of 373 posts
The video of the 757s hitting the WTC isn't purged from the internet, why should this video be? The world is dark and full of terrors (but getting better every day), and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't change that.
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.
>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. Because of course, censorship only blocks the material you personally don't want others to view and never material you personally would want others to view. I can see a lot of politicians, especiall…
Regardless, censorship on the internet is inherently ineffective. If this speech is banned from Facebook, it will move to other forums. If it's made illegal, it will move to the "dark web".
The only real solution to combat this sort of thinking is to debate it directly, refuting arguments rather than shutting them down entirely.
The video of the 757s hitting the WTC isn't purged from the internet, why should this video be? The world is dark and full of terrors (but getting better every day), and sticking our heads in the sand doesn't change that.
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 but you'd have to be completely tone deaf or trolling to make such a simple comparison between these videos.
The US has shootings this big most years now. Las Vegas festival shooting, 2017, 59 dead. Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2017, 27 dead. Orlando nightclub shooting, 2016, 50 dead. Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But for a high body count, you need a good assault rifle like the AR-15 family, the choice of most mass shooters. Streaming your mass shooting is fully supported by off the shelf products…
The US has shootings this big most years now. Las Vegas festival shooting, 2017, 59 dead. Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2017, 27 dead. Orlando nightclub shooting, 2016, 50 dead. Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But for a high body count, you need a good assault rifle like the AR-15 family, the choice of most mass shooters. Streaming your mass shooting is fully supported by off the shelf products…
People should be able to live their lives largely free of unwanted exposure to this stuff. We shouldn't have to outlaw people who want to investigate it in order to achieve that.
The US has shootings this big most years now. Las Vegas festival shooting, 2017, 59 dead. Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2017, 27 dead. Orlando nightclub shooting, 2016, 50 dead. Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But for a high body count, you need a good assault rifle like the AR-15 family, the choice of most mass shooters. Streaming your mass shooting is fully supported by off the shelf products…
The US has shootings this big most years now. Las Vegas festival shooting, 2017, 59 dead. Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2017, 27 dead. Orlando nightclub shooting, 2016, 50 dead. Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But for a high body count, you need a good assault rifle like the AR-15 family, the choice of most mass shooters. Streaming your mass shooting is fully supported by off the shelf products…
Is this something GoPro should be ashamed of? 99.99999% of gun owners aren't criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same people who gathered around TVs on 9/11 after the first strike and then saw the 2nd strike live? So most of the country?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 nobody knew there would be a second attack on the other tower. I distinctly remember everyone including myself thinking about the B52 that accidentally ran into the Empire State building. We were all at work so it wasn't like we were watching TV. You're assuming at the time that everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, which is false. Nobody knew that until well after the second p…
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.
As with any idea, people come to believe and subscribe to ideologies because they are genuinely pursuasive and they are persuasive because they contain substantial - and often meaningful/relevant - truths (if biased and omitting other relevant truths). However, censorship is exactly the wrong thing to do. If these pockets of knowledge are cordoned off, and inaccessible to causal observers then fewer people will know…
4chan (and even more so, 8chan) are the pure essence of no censorship, yet everything from Holocaust denial to rampant racism and sexism thrive and fester and spread. The most persuasive ideas are those that are short, easy to digest, and blame someone who's not you for your misery. The truth, well, it can be messy and complicated, and I'm not sure you can get there without shutting down the puerile voices screaming memes of hatred.