8 ms·
Facebook, YouTube Blindsided by Mosque Shooter's Live Video
- jstanley 8y agoWhy should this video be taken down? You can't stop crimes just by deleting the evidence.
- ablation 8y agoBecause it shows the murder of over 40 people?
- ryanmarsh 8y agoAnd what does your local holocaust museum show?
- thieving_magpie 8y agoNot videos of people dying?
- ablation 8y agoEDIT: I'm removing this comment, as I feel it bordered on ad hominem and didn't add anything to the discussion. As you've been downvoted anyway, I don't really think I've anything else to add.
- nkozyra 8y agoThis isn't about stopping crimes, it's about not presenting people with something that can be traumatizing.
- anoncoward111 8y agoDonald Trump's face is traumatizing to me and yet I can't go 5 minutes of public TV without seeing it
- sctb 8y agoYour comments have been too unsubstantive for this site. Could you please increase the amount of information? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoIt's also about stopping the glorification of these heinous acts - you can bet there are people who would find this edifying to watch.
- gbear605 8y agoBecause it encourages other people to copy the act
- thieving_magpie 8y agoI'd imagine they don't want a video of a massacre on their sites. Pretty far-fetched, I know.
- EpicEng 8y agoBecause it's ok to show some empathy for the victims and their families. Most people don't want to see this stuff either. This is one sort of private censorship I have no problem with.
- tracer4201 8y agoIt’s a horrific act against humanity and plastering it everywhere will probably only encourage copy cats. IMO we shouldn’t make the perpetrators famous at all. Don’t put any name on every news channel but refer to them as cowards.
- roywiggins 8y agoIt's not evidence, it's propaganda.
- darkpuma 8y agoI get and sympathize with what you're saying, but in a literal sense it's obviously both. Obviously it's going to be entered as evidence during the trial.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoYes and no. At the trial, the prosecution is not going to need to pull a fresh copy off of YouTube to present as evidence. That is, yes, it's evidence and will be used as such. No, its continued availability on YouTube is not related to it being evidence.
- darkpuma 8y agoOf course it should go without saying that a great deal of evidence has no business getting posted publicly on social media.
- nabla9 8y agoFor the same reason they remove porn. You can still enjoy the murder porn by watching 24/7 hour endless media masturbation. How to report mass murders - Charlie Brooker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
- DrJokepu 8y agoTo protect whatever dignity the victims still have left?
- gnode 8y agoI find this the most convincing argument. While I feel there is a moral journalistic right to accurately report crime, I feel there is also a moral right to not have footage of undignified acts committed against you published, whether this be your murder, or even a practical joke.
- xbmcuser 8y agoSo are you okay with all the propaganda videos of isis and other such groups being posted on social media. This is the just the opposite side of the same coin.
- jstanley 8y agoFWIW, yes, I am.
- xbmcuser 8y ago10 years ago I might have agreed with you but now I feel most humans are too dumb and easily led. Flat earth, anti vaccine, global warming deniers and so much other crap is easily spread and believed. If I owned a platform I would not be happy allowing it to be used to spread this.
- d35007 8y agoI can think of a few reasons. Because it’s upsetting to see innocent people get slaughtered. Because it will be used to radicalize more terrorists. Because nobody is obligated to host it on their platform. Because leaving it up won’t stop crimes either. You can make good counter-arguments to all of those. This isn’t a math problem with 1 answer.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nemild 8y agoI won't speak to censorship, but I will speak to the distribution incentives in social media algorithms. If these attacks got less free distribution, they might be less likely to occur. Part of the incentive around horrific attacks like this is to get free marketing (aka, earned media) for a cause (as the killer makes clear in his manifesto). And to add some data, here's my analysis of Islamic terrorism vs. homicide coverage in the NY Times (as you can imagine, the scarier or more horrific the attack, the more distribution it gets in the press): https://www.nemil.com/s/part2-terrorism.html https://www.nemil.com/s/part2-terrorism.html And comparison of every death type by coverage: https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html
- mtgx 8y agoForget social media for a moment -- doesn't the regular media publicize non-stop terrorist attacks, too?
- forgottenpass 8y agoYes. The advice from psycologists to the media about how to cover mass murder in a way to avoid causing to more is basically to minimize their coverage. They take the psycologist's advice when it comes to covering suicide causing more suicide (see the suicide prevention resources in every suicide article you've ever read), but with mass shootings the media can't help themselves. They (at best) cynically want the exposure and ad revenue, or (at worst) think so highly of their reporting's benefit to society that negative side effects won't happen.
- candiodari 8y agoExactly there is the huge problem that if you look at how humans learn, you will quickly come to the conclusion that 99.9% of human behavior is copying others' behavior. That means it is very responsible to: 1) partly cloud or obscure methods/reasons for suicice 2) partly cloud or obscure motives for serious crimes This does NOT mean to lie about the events. Or even make that information to truly not be available. Just hide it ... just a bit so it doesn't pass through everyone's mind who just reads some news. There have been incidents in the past where news messages lead to copycats in both cases. The fact of the matter is that crime is not illogical or "evil". Crimes are committed for a specific purpose. Making people realize that "hey you can do this", or making people think about what a crime would accomplish vs what not doing a crime would accomplish will inevitably lead some to conclude the crime is the preferable option, and thus damage others.
- gnode 8y agoIt's important to remember that regardless of your stance on censorship and the legality of the content, Facebook and Youtube are generally intended to be safe-for-work platforms.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoMany consider it a crime to delete evidence of the holocaust. Why would people support deleting the evidence of this atrocity???
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoMany of the same people consider it to be a crime to create content that glorifies the holocaust. The evidence won't go away. The point of removing the video is to stop glorifying this atrocity.
- strken 8y agoTaken down and taken off social media aren't the same thing. Nobody's going to be able to kill the magnet links or stop Wikileaks from distributing his twitter history, but if there's any content that shouldn't appear in your YouTube recommendations this is it.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>Why should this video be taken down?... Same reason links to child rape videos should be taken down, it's disgusting. That's the consensus view. We realize not everyone is going to agree and you can go to Gab or 4chan or 8chan or wherever to see that sort of thing if you like.
- arethuza 8y agoCommon decency and respect for the victims and their families?
- Tomte 8y agoFortunately, nobody is "deleting" the "evidence". It will still be available for trial after Youtube has taken it down.
- philipkglass 8y agoThat ship sailed years ago when Youtube started removing videos of the Syrian civil war [1]. Many of these videos were intended as propaganda for rebel/terrorist groups. They were also useful because the combat footage they contained could be analyzed independently to get casualty counts and locations of fighting. I would personally have preferred that they stayed available, even if they might have worked as propaganda on some people. But Youtube made a decision and stuck to it. Removing this terrorist's video is just applying a standing policy to remove reported terrorist videos. [1] For all I know the policy started even earlier, but I followed the SCW closely for several years and I noticed a big change in video availability over time.
- peteradio 8y agoThis is perverse. Since when did we incentivize murder by free broadcast? Seriously the parent is a disgusting comment.
- anoncoward111 8y agoRegardless of whether you believe Youtube FB and Twitter "should be allowed" to remove such videos from their platform, the reality is that some percentage of people will continue to use their computers to host and view these videos. Whether that is on the clear web or dark web is debatable, but it would be impossible to fully censor any file 100% of the time. And if it isn't on the internet, it'll be on the sneakernet. EDIT: I wasn't arguing if it should be removed or not. I was stating my prediction about what I think will happen. "Regardless of whether asteroids should be allowed to strike the Earth, they will continue to do so"
- SketchySeaBeast 8y agoThat argument doesn't work - people will speed, others will get murdered, emails will get leaked, measles will spread, yet we try to limit those all too.
- minikites 8y agoMight as well not pass any laws ever: https://i.imgur.com/YITBt6c.jpg https://i.imgur.com/YITBt6c.jpg
- asabjorn 8y agoWhen this attacker explicitly says that his goal is to get the US left to censor the right in the hope the right will react strongly is one of the most disconcerting parts of this story. Especially when it seems like the ball is rolling towards his goal. It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other.
- isostatic 8y agoSo it’s now a left wi g position to not think live footage of murders should be freely broadcast in graphic details with no context or journalistic input?
- jcims 8y agoI would guess the idea is that this act would be used to justify further suppressing the expression of right wing positions under the guise of preventing extremism.
- pjc50 8y agoThe role of media is to get clicks and monetise them into ads. The collapse of a society into violence is, in the short term, great for this, as increasingly worried people hit refresh more often. It's "you'll provide the pictures, I'll provide the war" all over again. Not to mention the sections of the traditional or social media that have been experimenting with how much they can anger people against vulnerable groups without quite printing death threats in the paper. Or just, you know, casually advocating the end of rule of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headlin... There are a lot of people in the West who, while they would refrain from pulling the trigger themselves, would happily either advocate that someone else do so, or watch someone die, simply because they're Muslim. The example that comes to mind is Katie Hopkins calling for refugees to be machinegunned.
- stcredzero 8y agoIt is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other. We have created conditions of perverse incentives in our media. We reward extremists. We reward unfounded accusations. We reward people saying wacko things. "If it bleeds, it leads." We need to stop allowing the extremes to "wag the dog." EDIT: This doesn't mean we should censor people. Rather, it means we need to become a little cynical and self aware of the mechanism of outrage virality itself. Specifically, we need to stop mindlessly rewarding mass murderers with attention. We need to stop mindlessly rewarding people who act extreme for attention, period.
- m_ke 8y agoAnd this is one of the top posts on reddit / the_donald: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/b1czmd/aussie_pede_checking_in_my_senator_fraser_anning/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/b1czmd/aussie_p...
- chris_mc 8y agoCan you post the content here? I don't want to subsidize these fucks.
- clydethefrog 8y agoIt's a post showing the official comment of Australian senator Fraser Anning on the mass shooting, claiming the immigration program is to blame for the mass shooting.
- chris_mc 8y agoThank you! I hate bare links with no explanation, especially to that cesspool.
- maccio92 8y agohttps://i.redd.it/lfr3nhcm99m21.jpg https://i.redd.it/lfr3nhcm99m21.jpg
- fxfan 8y agoWhile that place is vile, I don't see how it's relevant here, unless you specifically go hunting every morning to find whatever bad exists on the other side and gloat that you're better? (in which case you aren't)
- minikites 8y agoIt's one of many examples showing how "both sides" are not the same and "both sides" are not equally responsible for events like this. Lots of traditional media outlets and many ordinary people like to believe that comforting lie.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- joeshmoe23 8y agoThere is an inherent conflict of interests when traditional outlets try to make every crisis into a referendum about social media.
- oysterfish 8y agoWhy on earth did the shooter tell viewers to subscribe to pewdiepie? this is pretty surreal.
- feintruled 8y agoThe Verge article linked above has a compelling reason - it is a meme which will resonate in the media coverage, and it also forces PDP to address it publicly, which raises the crime's profile yet further.
- pjc50 8y agoThere's a long tradition of people yelling slogans before going to war, or assassins yelling the slogan of their cause or religion before murdering. Evidently pewdiepie is someone he was willing to murder for.
- minikites 8y agoPewDiePie panders to the "alt-right": https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18136253/pewdiepie-vs-tseries-links-to-white-supremacist-alt-right-redpill https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18136253/pewdiepie-vs-tseries... https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/10/18134748/pewdiepie-er-pewnews-youtube-hateful-content-anti-semitic https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/10/18134748/pewdiepie-er-pe... https://www.thisisinsider.com/pewdiepie-response-nazi-youtube-channel-2018-12 https://www.thisisinsider.com/pewdiepie-response-nazi-youtub...
- FilterSweep 8y agoWhy is this comment being downvoted? Look at PewDiePie’s twitter followers. Many are white nationalists.
- maccio92 8y agosuch as?
- FilterSweep 8y ago
- mosquethrowaway 8y agoI read his "manifesto" and it didn't look to me that it was an attack of passion or by someone mentally deranged. It was calculated. His references to past events, including Roterham seem to resonate well with the dark side of the internet.