7 ms·

Consider this angle the next time there is a mass shooting, and the attack is foreshadowed by troubling social media posts by the perpetrator. In those circumst

by tbabb 8y ago

Consider this angle the next time there is a mass shooting, and the attack is foreshadowed by troubling social media posts by the perpetrator. In those circumstances, there are often cries of "why was nothing done to prevent this?" I'm not advocating a specific side here, only pointing out that the two positions are fundamentally at odds with each other.

philipov 8y ago
You seem to be implying this is inconsistent or hypocritical. These positions are each advocated by different people who passionately disagree with the other side.
- markovbot 8y ago
  Is it not possible for one person to believe both of the following? 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time?
  - philipov 8y ago
    So, you agree with me?
    - markovbot 8y ago
      no i just suck at making sentences apparently. See other reply, which made the same point much better.
  - Matticus_Rex 8y ago
    Why is it not possible to believe both? I believe that governments shouldn't exist, but given the fact that they obviously do, that they should do certain things. There's no necessary conflict in either set of beliefs.
    - markovbot 8y ago
      bleh, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tried to update my comment a little bit, i think i just phrased it poorly
  - vkou 8y ago
    > 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts Why shouldn't LE monitor public social media posts? Should they also ignore Billy standing on the street corner, shouting about how he's going to shoot up <those ______ers in ________>? I understand not wanting the police to listen to your phone calls, or read your private messages. I don't understand the police having to shut their ears, and close their eyes, at public messages that you broadcast to the world. Should I be allowed advertise a murder-for-hire business on Facebook, without any risk of the police getting involved involved? Is there some magical property of the Internet that is supposed to protect me from this? > 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time? They do occasionally do something 'useful' about it. I have first hand experience. Last month, in my city, they've arrested an off-his-meds individual in my area, within hours of making specific threats of violence against a number of public establishments. (That he has had a bad history with.) I'd prefer it if he got medical treatment, for his issues, but the US being what it is, he's far more likely to get five to ten years of jail time, instead. Of course, oftentimes, they also don't do anything about it. Sometimes, it's because the regional prosecutor can't be arsed to deal with the threats, so they do a catch-and-release. Sometimes, it's because the police themselves can't be arsed to take the threats seriously. I don't have any stats for how frequently these sorts of situations turn out one way, or another.
FakeComments 8y ago
Someone once made the same point about the warantless wiretaps to me: “The American people said ‘never again’, and the NSA pwned the whole planet, to try and deliver on that, for $20B/yr. They did an impressive job of an impossible task.” Honestly, I still feel conflicted — because the truth is that the warrantless spying is what many people wanted, post-9/11.
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  And the reality was, the intelligence we had under warrants could have helped prevent 9/11. The information wasn’t acted on and wasn’t sufficiently prioritized, but it was available
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
filmgirlcw 8y ago
I disagree those two positions are at odds. You can be vehemently against social media monitoring by government agencies and warrantless wiretaps and still point out the many times law enforcement and others in a position to help ignore signs of distress. Moreover, there isn’t proof that this type of monitoring actively stops mass shootings or other attacks. Sometimes it does — for sure (though mostly when communication is happening through email and not social posts) — but we’ve seen plenty of anecdotes where concerning public postings were pointed out to authorities and nothing was done.
- thomastjeffery 8y ago
  The key word here being, "warrantless".
- craftyguy 8y ago
  I suspect that the set of people who publicly "appear distressed" (definition of which is entirely subjective) is quite a bit larger than the set of people who commit violence. I also suspect that the former is not necessarily a superset of the latter. In other words, casting a wider net means you'll scoop up a lot of innocent people, with possibly devastating results for them.
- tbabb 8y ago
  > vehemently against social media monitoring by government agencies and warrantless wiretaps Does reading publicly published information constitute wiretapping? > we’ve seen plenty of anecdotes where concerning public postings were pointed out to authorities and nothing was done This is what I'm getting at-- responding to obviously-troubling social media posts seems entirely reasonable after the fact. Perhaps it is? But at the same time it carries an implication of law enforcement pre-emptively acting based on the content of public speech, which has its own worrying implications, as evidenced by the examples in the article. Earnest question: What's the legal boundary in other circumstances? Can/should law enforcement take action if a person uses a megaphone in the town square to announce they're going to use their AR-15 to kill all the $x people? If they published an op-ed in the local newspaper to the same effect? (If yes, how is facebook/twitter different from a town square / op-ed column?)
rexpop 8y ago
There are preventative measures that don't involve warrantless wiretaps. Why do mass shootings occur, in your estimation, in the first place?

by tbabb 8y ago

philipov 8y ago

You seem to be implying this is inconsistent or hypocritical. These positions are each advocated by different people who passionately disagree with the other side.

markovbot 8y ago
Is it not possible for one person to believe both of the following? 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time?
- philipov 8y ago
  So, you agree with me?
  - markovbot 8y ago
    no i just suck at making sentences apparently. See other reply, which made the same point much better.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  Why is it not possible to believe both? I believe that governments shouldn't exist, but given the fact that they obviously do, that they should do certain things. There's no necessary conflict in either set of beliefs.
  - markovbot 8y ago
    bleh, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks. I tried to update my comment a little bit, i think i just phrased it poorly
- vkou 8y ago
  > 1. Law enforcement shouldn't monitor social media posts Why shouldn't LE monitor public social media posts? Should they also ignore Billy standing on the street corner, shouting about how he's going to shoot up <those ______ers in ________>? I understand not wanting the police to listen to your phone calls, or read your private messages. I don't understand the police having to shut their ears, and close their eyes, at public messages that you broadcast to the world. Should I be allowed advertise a murder-for-hire business on Facebook, without any risk of the police getting involved involved? Is there some magical property of the Internet that is supposed to protect me from this? > 2. since they obviously already do this, why aren't they using the information they're collecting to do something useful like stop mass shooters who post about it online ahead of time? They do occasionally do something 'useful' about it. I have first hand experience. Last month, in my city, they've arrested an off-his-meds individual in my area, within hours of making specific threats of violence against a number of public establishments. (That he has had a bad history with.) I'd prefer it if he got medical treatment, for his issues, but the US being what it is, he's far more likely to get five to ten years of jail time, instead. Of course, oftentimes, they also don't do anything about it. Sometimes, it's because the regional prosecutor can't be arsed to deal with the threats, so they do a catch-and-release. Sometimes, it's because the police themselves can't be arsed to take the threats seriously. I don't have any stats for how frequently these sorts of situations turn out one way, or another.

FakeComments 8y ago

Someone once made the same point about the warantless wiretaps to me: “The American people said ‘never again’, and the NSA pwned the whole planet, to try and deliver on that, for $20B/yr. They did an impressive job of an impossible task.” Honestly, I still feel conflicted — because the truth is that the warrantless spying is what many people wanted, post-9/11.

filmgirlcw 8y ago
And the reality was, the intelligence we had under warrants could have helped prevent 9/11. The information wasn’t acted on and wasn’t sufficiently prioritized, but it was available
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

filmgirlcw 8y ago

I disagree those two positions are at odds. You can be vehemently against social media monitoring by government agencies and warrantless wiretaps and still point out the many times law enforcement and others in a position to help ignore signs of distress. Moreover, there isn’t proof that this type of monitoring actively stops mass shootings or other attacks. Sometimes it does — for sure (though mostly when communication is happening through email and not social posts) — but we’ve seen plenty of anecdotes where concerning public postings were pointed out to authorities and nothing was done.

thomastjeffery 8y ago
The key word here being, "warrantless".
craftyguy 8y ago
I suspect that the set of people who publicly "appear distressed" (definition of which is entirely subjective) is quite a bit larger than the set of people who commit violence. I also suspect that the former is not necessarily a superset of the latter. In other words, casting a wider net means you'll scoop up a lot of innocent people, with possibly devastating results for them.
tbabb 8y ago
> vehemently against social media monitoring by government agencies and warrantless wiretaps Does reading publicly published information constitute wiretapping? > we’ve seen plenty of anecdotes where concerning public postings were pointed out to authorities and nothing was done This is what I'm getting at-- responding to obviously-troubling social media posts seems entirely reasonable after the fact. Perhaps it is? But at the same time it carries an implication of law enforcement pre-emptively acting based on the content of public speech, which has its own worrying implications, as evidenced by the examples in the article. Earnest question: What's the legal boundary in other circumstances? Can/should law enforcement take action if a person uses a megaphone in the town square to announce they're going to use their AR-15 to kill all the $x people? If they published an op-ed in the local newspaper to the same effect? (If yes, how is facebook/twitter different from a town square / op-ed column?)

rexpop 8y ago

There are preventative measures that don't involve warrantless wiretaps. Why do mass shootings occur, in your estimation, in the first place?