Terrorist attack in Christchurch, at least 30 believed dead

[Aimless]

It should do.

Sure, and by that reasoning we can scrap laws that protect privileged medical information, laws that protect copyrighted works and other IP, laws that prohibit revenge porn and child porn etc. The video depicts the murders of identifiable people who did not give their consent to be killed, to be filmed while being killed, or to have that film be disseminated all over the world. If you wish to disregard that, then be consistent and call for an end to every other law that restricts speech that infringes on other people's rights.

[RandBlade]

Fair point. Too often privacy is argued to trump free speech when it shouldn't but you're right here.

[Flixy]

There's no absolute free speech anywhere in the world was far as I know. Inciting terrorism, for example, is banned in most places whole definitely speech. Privacy is another. Portrait rought could be seen as one too. All discussions are about where the lines should be so arguing absolute freedom of speech is ridiculous in my opinion because it doesn't exist anywhere.

[Hazir]

There's no absolute free speech anywhere in the world was far as I know. Inciting terrorism, for example, is banned in most places whole definitely speech. Privacy is another. Portrait rought could be seen as one too. All discussions are about where the lines should be so arguing absolute freedom of speech is ridiculous in my opinion because it doesn't exist anywhere.

Interestingly enough I never said that I think it should be. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of picking and choosing which human right is absolute and which isn't. All based on the same principles, namely one's own convictions.

[Aimless]

Or more likely based on decades of international and domestic law jurisprudence, but sure, you go on living with your head stuck up your ass little one *pat pat*

[Lewkowski]

They'd have to justify it under their laws. Given that we're talking about identifying hundreds of thousands—if not millions—I don't think it sounds reasonable. More reasonable, both practically and legally, to target platforms. Spreading the video is a clear violation of privacy rights, but a dragnet that risks inaccurately identifying hundreds of thousands of people is also a violation of privacy rights from which there is little part be gained. Better to start requiring platforms to take responsibility for their content, and to encourage them to adhere to some of the same standards as publishers.

Have you really thought through the implications of the bolded section? All platforms? FB? Twitter? Youtube? Dissenter? This forum?

[LittleFuzzy]

Your right to freedom of speech does not trump another person's right to privacy and dignity you ludicrous child.

Is there an actual Right to Dignity recognized by the legal system(s) over there? Or is that your social engineering instincts for world society again? Privacy and Speech sometimes clash. But I'm not familiar with Dignity as being something that's actually treated as a right, rather than an ideal state. I know that medicos like the term and use it in their professional ethics but that's not the same thing as a legal right. I also know that it's not in the UDHR (that document does mention dignity, but as one of those things which makes us deserving of rights, not as a right itself). But I don't know the EU texts, much less the individual member states.

[Hazir]

Or more likely based on decades of international and domestic law jurisprudence, but sure, you go on living with your head stuck up your ass little one *pat pat*

Of your crumbling leftist order, which failed attempts at social engineering (thank you LF) has brought us where we are.

[Steely Glint]

Alright, who's been letting Hazir listen to alt-right podcasts? Because it wasn't big and it wasn't clever.

[Steely Glint]

Have you really thought through the implications of the bolded section? All platforms? FB? Twitter? Youtube? Dissenter? This forum?

They'll have to hire some people, instead of relying on half-assed algorithms?

[RandBlade]

They'll have to hire some people, instead of relying on half-assed algorithms?

They have people, that's the problem. It takes time for people to go through suspected problems. They actually in order to get these videos down quicker took the people out of the loop and relied MORE on algorithms.

The issue is that publishers choose what they publish. They can edit it before it gets published. Platforms don't choose what gets published.

[Ominous Gamer]

Have you really thought through the implications of the bolded section? All platforms? FB? Twitter? Youtube? Dissenter? This forum?

I could be confusing boards, but aren't there a few things we can't link to because Wraith doesn't want to deal with the legal issues?


If anyone is confused how youtube's content recognition works, turn on your dashcam and your car radio. You'll get dinged for every song that plays. Regardless of road or cabin noise. Its nothing to sneeze at.

[Lewkowski]

They'll have to hire some people, instead of relying on half-assed algorithms?

I don't think you understand the scale of these platforms. For example there were 1.2 MILLION copies of the shooting were attempted to be uploaded to YT in one day. On average every second there are 6,000 tweets posted. Every 60 seconds 136,000 photos are uploaded onto FaceBook.

[RandBlade]

I could be confusing boards, but aren't there a few things we can't link to because Wraith doesn't want to deal with the legal issues?

If anyone is confused how youtube's content recognition works, turn on your dashcam and your car radio. You'll get dinged for every song that plays. Regardless of road or cabin noise. Its nothing to sneeze at.

While its nothing to be sneezed at its still going to struggle versus millions of uploads, many of which are edited to evade the filters. And no human can get through it quick enough.

[Hazir]

Alright, who's been letting Hazir listen to alt-right podcasts? Because it wasn't big and it wasn't clever.

I don't listen to alt-right podcasts and I don't get exposed to much more extreme politics to the right than I see here on this website. I just don't like the smug leftist attitude of some people a whiff more. Just because something has been decided doesn't make it wrong to keep thinking about it.

The post-war western order has turned out a by and large hypocritical mess. No matter which internationally relevant topic you mention there is a chasm miles wide between what we preach and what we actually do (or are willing to do). We obviously have not delivered to large swathes of our own people (Brexit/Trump etc) and any refugee stuck on Turkey can tell you how wonderful our promises are if only we would allow them what our obligations under international law entitles them to do.

And then we get a defense on the basis of the same hypocrisy for people who chose for the side that wants to actually destroy us.

It is that what makes me want to puke. Drop the fucking pretense and do something about the root causes for people no longer feeling a sense of belonging to where they live.

If you are stupid enough to believe that Brexit and Trump are more than the canaries in the mine you'll be unpleasantly surprised in the near future.

[Steely Glint]

I don't think you understand the scale of these platforms. For example there were 1.2 MILLION copies of the shooting were attempted to be uploaded to YT in one day. On average every second there are 6,000 tweets posted. Every 60 seconds 136,000 photos are uploaded onto FaceBook.

And yet, Youtube, for example manages to keep their platform entirely clear of porn and can spot a piece of copyrighted music in another video and then demonetize it at 600 paces. Twitter is fully able to comply with German hate speech laws, in it's domain which is why many accounts are blocked in Germany but not for the rest of the world. This isn't 'can't', it's 'won't'.

And, honestly, good-faith efforts to keep objectionable content off their networks that fail because of volume due to a one off thing like the terrorist attack in NZ aren't really the problem, the problem is what they choose to allow on their platforms because policing hate speech isn't an-cap enough for them and/or bigot ad revenue is just as good as anyone else's.

You asked what the consequences might be for Facebook et al if we expect them to behave like conventional publishers, but what about the consequences if they don't? This isn't the first mass killing where the perpetrator had links to hate groups allowed to fester in spaces provided by one of the major internet companies, eventually governments are going to take an interest and force them to do act - especially if the next incident is in the US and it's that or dealing with gun control. They'd better off doing it on their own terms than having it forced on them.

Also TFW Lewk makes better and more pertinent arguments than Hazir.

[LittleFuzzy]

And yet, Youtube, for example manages to keep their platform entirely clear of porn

No they don't. Porn gets on there all the time. It doesn't have a terribly long lifespan, days at the latest, but it most certainly does make it on.

[RandBlade]

No they don't. Porn gets on there all the time. It doesn't have a terribly long lifespan, days at the latest, but it most certainly does make it on.

And if people were highlighting every single porn upload the second they went up and were calling it a failure of YouTube that they made it on that'd change the discussion. The fact is they're [rightly] given time to find and take down and learn what shouldn't be there in a way people are expecting to magically not happen here.

[Hazir]

And yet, Youtube, for example manages to keep their platform entirely clear of porn and can spot a piece of copyrighted music in another video and then demonetize it at 600 paces. Twitter is fully able to comply with German hate speech laws, in it's domain which is why many accounts are blocked in Germany but not for the rest of the world. This isn't 'can't', it's 'won't'.

And, honestly, good-faith efforts to keep objectionable content off their networks that fail because of volume due to a one off thing like the terrorist attack in NZ aren't really the problem, the problem is what they choose to allow on their platforms because policing hate speech isn't an-cap enough for them and/or bigot ad revenue is just as good as anyone else's.

You asked what the consequences might be for Facebook et al if we expect them to behave like conventional publishers, but what about the consequences if they don't? This isn't the first mass killing where the perpetrator had links to hate groups allowed to fester in spaces provided by one of the major internet companies, eventually governments are going to take an interest and force them to do act - especially if the next incident is in the US and it's that or dealing with gun control. They'd better off doing it on their own terms than having it forced on them.

Also TFW Lewk makes better and more pertinent arguments than Hazir.

I literally can't give a flying fuck for what you think of my arguments . You are part of what brought Brexit about. Good luck with that.

[Steely Glint]

You are part of what brought Brexit about.

Points for originality.

[GGT]

I was appalled at the statement on page 1 from that Queensland senator -- basically blaming Muslim immigrants and Islam for *everything* from social unrest to the NZ massacre. It's familiar propaganda, not just from US right wing groups (including congress and the president) but parts of Europe too. It's like Islam-phobia and fear of immigrants in general has spread across the globe like a virus, and the internet/social media is the vector.

<edited>
The post-war western order has turned out a by and large hypocritical mess. No matter which internationally relevant topic you mention there is a chasm miles wide between what we preach and what we actually do (or are willing to do). We obviously have not delivered to large swathes of our own people (Brexit/Trump etc) and any refugee stuck on Turkey can tell you how wonderful our promises are if only we would allow them what our obligations under international law entitles them to do.

And then we get a defense on the basis of the same hypocrisy for people who chose for the side that wants to actually destroy us.

It is that what makes me want to puke. Drop the fucking pretense and do something about the root causes for people no longer feeling a sense of belonging to where they live.

Taking this with your posts in the other thread (citizenship and post WWII order), "dead legalism" is making more sense. Not sure whom you mean by "us"....or which people no longer feel a connection to where they live....but that's the language white nationalists and neo-nazis use. The root cause of alienation is complex and complicated, but we do know it can lead to isolation, information silos, radicalization/extremism, even violence.

Governmental fixes might be flawed, even hypocritical; millions of people DO feel let down, caught in the chasm between lofty goals and legalities. There's no easy or fast solution here. (Wanting simplicity and speed might even be a negative side effect of the virus.)

Not sure what any one person can do to make a difference, but personal insults on forums surely won't make it any better.

[Aimless]

Is there an actual Right to Dignity recognized by the legal system(s) over there? Or is that your social engineering instincts for world society again? Privacy and Speech sometimes clash. But I'm not familiar with Dignity as being something that's actually treated as a right, rather than an ideal state. I know that medicos like the term and use it in their professional ethics but that's not the same thing as a legal right. I also know that it's not in the UDHR (that document does mention dignity, but as one of those things which makes us deserving of rights, not as a right itself). But I don't know the EU texts, much less the individual member states.

EU law treats dignity as both the basis of other fundamental rights as well as a right in and of itself: https://fra.europa.eu/en/charterpedi...o-explanations



The drafters of the ECHR decided against taking the same approach as that of the UDHR, preferring a more pragmatic legalistic approach, perhaps with the hope of minimizing problems with sorting out difficult and sometimes unresolvable concepts in moral philosophy where perspectives may seem to differ greatly between nations. Dignity is, after all, difficult to clearly define in legal terms, even--or perhaps especially--when laws effectively enshrine morality. Even so, over the past couple of decades, dignity has become a more prominent concept in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR.

The view of human dignity as the inherent property of all humans that constitutes the source/basis/core justification/foundational precept for all rights is affirmed in not only the UDHR and the UN charter, but also in the preambles and fundamental articles of a majority of national constitutions all over the world--over 60%--with the notable exception of legal systems that have their origins in British law & philosophy, where the jurisprudence on this matter has evolved more slowly (although it is evolving, even in the US--see eg. Montana constitutional law, some of Breyer's jurisprudence, Obergefell).

Internationally, jurists have for decades treated dignity as having at least the same status as liberty, with some disagreement from contrarian jurists from common law backgrounds. Perhaps this broadly shared approach to dignity is shaped by continental perspectives on the suspiciously Kantian antecedents of the modern human rights framework. For many, it appears to be an effective way to understand inalienable rights and important constitutional protections; if our inherent, inalienable and inviolable dignity makes us deserving--or inherently in possession--of rights, then, if we seek to protect our rights, we must also recognize and protect the right to not have our dignity violated (something which can both enable and be enabled by violations of other rights--rights that are often safeguarded in precisely those fundamental constitutional articles that refer to dignity or are frequently associated with the concept of dignity in rulings). Our intuitions about precisely what protecting dignity entails may, of course, differ--but that is true of every other concept in moral philosophy and law.

[Aimless]

Have you really thought through the implications of the bolded section? All platforms? FB? Twitter? Youtube? Dissenter? This forum?

It's not an unsolvable problem. It requires platforms to do a better job of moderating content and dealing with infractions that also violate the law. It does not make platforms any less free than any publisher. FB apparently now believes the company should be regarded as a publisher: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

As for this forum, we're already supposed to be watchful of illegal or potentially illegal content. Wraith acts like a responsible publisher. If one of us were to post something blatantly illegal, and someone took issue with that, I would expect Wraith to do something about that illegal content.

[RandBlade]

It's not an unsolvable problem. It requires platforms to do a better job of moderating content and dealing with infractions that also violate the law. It does not make platforms any less free than any publisher. FB apparently now believes the company should be regarded as a publisher: https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...lisher-lawsuit

As for this forum, we're already supposed to be watchful of illegal or potentially illegal content. Wraith acts like a responsible publisher. If one of us were to post something blatantly illegal, and someone took issue with that, I would expect Wraith to do something about that illegal content.

In seconds, minutes, hours or days?

[Steely Glint]

Sorry, what are we even talking about here? Their inability to stop the flood of uploads of the video of the shooting, or their habit of cheerily acting as a one of the Internet's premiere platform for hate-speech?

[RandBlade]

I thought we were talking about their inability to stop the flood of uploads.

They're trying their best to stop it and taking it down as soon as its spotted, just as they do with porn etc