5 ms·

I think this is a very unfortunate situation, but the thought of Facebook disabling her account at the behest of the police, that doesn't feel right. We seen t

I think this is a very unfortunate situation, but the thought of Facebook disabling her account at the behest of the police, that doesn't feel right. We seen that we cannot always trust the police perspective in shootings, so instead of disabling the account, perhaps Facebook should have instead continue to record the feed but disable the comments.

nness 10y ago
If you think about it from Facebook's perspective though, do you really want to be responsible for broadcasting a video where the women, her child or a police officer is shot or killed on camera?
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  FB isn't responsible; they are a platform. The person broadcasting is "responsible". And even if they were, yes, why should that be a problem? At worst it'll be flagged mature (and deleted?).
  - adamsea 10y ago
    FB isn't a platform; it's a business, it makes money. If something interferes with FB making money ...
  - douche 10y ago
    At best it will go viral, and the clicks and ad revenue will rake in millions.
  - stevenwiles 10y ago
    Uh.. The fact that FB is fully capable of pressing a button to turn off the stream suggests that they are, in fact, responsible for its broadcast.
2bitencryption 10y ago
"Mr. Zuckerberg sir, an incredibly violent and hostile individual with a gun is livestreaming a standoff with the police. It's very likely this livestream will involve somebody brutally dying or getting horrible maimed. Also, this stream could jeopardize an important police operation underway to neutralize this dangerous person. Should we pull the stream?" "No! Of course not! The internet is the land of Freedom! Hosting this content isn't bad for us at all!"
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Entertaining strawman, but a sane 'no' would look more like "There's no reason to think the stream will lead to maiming, and you're just lying to me when you say that the subject streaming her own view could jeopardize the police operation." Edit: I think I misread the first sentence, I suppose you meant a content warning rather than cause and effect, but that's not a great reason to turn off cameras pointed at police.
dogma1138 10y ago
Why not? cutting off the lines of communication is pretty standard procedures in standoff situations. Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  Cell phone jammers disrupt service in a large area.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Depends on the jammer, you can buy ones that only work over few feet, you can build ones that can jam an entire block.

nness 10y ago

If you think about it from Facebook's perspective though, do you really want to be responsible for broadcasting a video where the women, her child or a police officer is shot or killed on camera?

MichaelGG 10y ago
FB isn't responsible; they are a platform. The person broadcasting is "responsible". And even if they were, yes, why should that be a problem? At worst it'll be flagged mature (and deleted?).
- adamsea 10y ago
  FB isn't a platform; it's a business, it makes money. If something interferes with FB making money ...
- douche 10y ago
  At best it will go viral, and the clicks and ad revenue will rake in millions.
- stevenwiles 10y ago
  Uh.. The fact that FB is fully capable of pressing a button to turn off the stream suggests that they are, in fact, responsible for its broadcast.

2bitencryption 10y ago

"Mr. Zuckerberg sir, an incredibly violent and hostile individual with a gun is livestreaming a standoff with the police. It's very likely this livestream will involve somebody brutally dying or getting horrible maimed. Also, this stream could jeopardize an important police operation underway to neutralize this dangerous person. Should we pull the stream?" "No! Of course not! The internet is the land of Freedom! Hosting this content isn't bad for us at all!"

Dylan16807 10y ago
Entertaining strawman, but a sane 'no' would look more like "There's no reason to think the stream will lead to maiming, and you're just lying to me when you say that the subject streaming her own view could jeopardize the police operation." Edit: I think I misread the first sentence, I suppose you meant a content warning rather than cause and effect, but that's not a great reason to turn off cameras pointed at police.

dogma1138 10y ago

Why not? cutting off the lines of communication is pretty standard procedures in standoff situations. Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.

TorKlingberg 10y ago
Cell phone jammers disrupt service in a large area.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Depends on the jammer, you can buy ones that only work over few feet, you can build ones that can jam an entire block.