6 ms·

Facebook removed 1.5M videos of the Christchurch attacks within 24 hours

nutcracker46 8y ago
One point five million uploads and counting. What a fucking waste of time, CPU cycles, and bandwidth. For Facebook, it is Whack-a-mole on steroids and meth. Yet politicians still seem to want more, something along the lines of no anonymity / fully moderated social media. Not going to happen in free countries.
- charlesism 8y ago
  Maybe that will be a rallying cry during the next civil war: "We're entitled to watch snuff films on Facebook!"
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - NavyNuke 8y ago
    There will be a civil war...but it won't be over being able to watch videos on FB...the underlying problem that caused the video is what needs to be addressed
  - frabbit 8y ago
    I think it is more that in order to prevent people watching or reading or thinking or smelling things we do not like we would have to impose a level of control which stops them reading or thinking or smelling things other people deem good and useful.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      to prevent people watching or reading or thinking or smelling things we do not like If a person ever finds himself supporting the distribution of a snuff film, that person might do some introspection and ask how he got to that point. Because that view is straight out of A Clockwork Orange.
- orbifold 8y ago
  Well ultimately platforms like Facebook should be held responsible for the content they distribute in the same way that newspapers were. The safe harbor provisions should not apply to platforms that do way more than just passively host content. Google and Facebook should not be able to hide behind algorithms if the real world outcomes of these algorithms are as bad as they currently are. If they can't find a way to police their platform automatically, they will have to change something else. One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide.
  - newscracker 8y ago
    I agree with your point about these platforms causing more harm, but I disagree with this proposition. > One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. Firstly, real names don't really keep people from doing things that can get either themselves or others in trouble. Facebook, the platform that probably has real names for most of its users, is where so much hatred is spread by people using their real names. People use the same Facebook logins on news and other sites to comment with their real name and say hateful things. Just as most companies and people don't really care much about software security (because the consequences of breaches are not widespread and not expensive enough to take these seriously), most people don't care about legal consequences of their online behavior either. Imposing legal consequences on a platform that by itself violate its users' privacy repeatedly with no real regrets or change of heart is a slippery slope that would lead to many innocent people being processed. Secondly, "fake" names are used by many people who are vulnerable (for various reasons – could be victims of abuse or marginalized groups or people who are discriminated against or activists or dissidents). Not allowing that would cause a lot of real problems for real people (running in millions or hundreds of millions). Such names may also be used by those who value privacy. Not all of them...let me correct myself, not even most of the people who use such names are involved in spreading terror and hatred (however much politicians with self-serving interests might use this argument to try to fool the public). We seem to live in a time where people are openly proud of being bigots and using their real names to prove that on every platform, as if it's a badge of honor. That cannot be solved with identity verification or forcing real names without causing a lot more harm to many more people.
- deogeo 8y ago
  > Not going to happen in free countries. It happened in South Korea [1]. Fortunately, their courts eventually struck the law down. Got fantastically little coverage in western media. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-name_system#South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-name_system#South_Korea
  - lasagnaphil 8y ago
    From that link, there's a explanation for why the court in South Korea rolled back this change: The Constitutional Court said, "The system does not seem to have been beneficial to the public. Despite the enforcement of the system, the number of illegal or malicious postings online has not decreased. Instead, users moved to foreign Websites and the system became discriminatory against domestic operators. It also prevented foreigners who didn’t have a resident registration number here from expressing their opinions online."
    - deogeo 8y ago
      Yeah, I would have preferred a more principled reason, but what can you do.
- caprese 8y ago
  They are probably looking for signatures and do this very easily and in an automated way. It would be more fun to have an application that randomized the pitch, speed, volume and compression of a file, to REALLY make a moderator waste time, CPU and bandwidth. Maybe we can make this standard given the prevalence of how people want to share.
draw_down 8y ago
Haven’t seen too many impassioned defenses of free speech after this. Strange!
caprese 8y ago
Apparently hosting this video is part of a violation of the law in New Zealand, population of 4 million. For Facebook why not just block New Zealand? Looking for thoughtful responses edit: seems there are reports of New Zealand ISPs blocking very many sites and web services. So for Facebook this is also a compelling option to just block the country and continue business as usual, focusing on important things like those user metrics. Censoring videos is an antiquated law forcing silly compliance burdens.
- YUMad 8y ago
  Just having it saved on your pc is a crime there.
- bigbangchina 8y ago
  Many moons ago, our company was advertising on FB in NZ and got 5K worth of sales a day. I think New Zealand is a good testing ground for new FB changes and losing it won't be good either.
- erentz 8y ago
  The PR would be great: “Facebook asked to block snuff film, instead decides to block entire country and continue to distribute the snuff film.” Facebook clearly don’t want to distribute snuff films, child porn, or other objectionable material, regardless of where in the world the operate.
  - caprese 8y ago
    They put themselves in this position of deciding to arbitrarily delete things such that this PR would even be possible. If they weren't in the business of policing the network this way, the deletions would only be in response to a court order - which do happen. Then they would be in the PR favor by deciding to ignore "another country's" court order, and "exiting that market" if it was a better business decision. This is one of the grand luxuries of international business, and Facebook is paying for it - in this case - instead of enjoying the privilege. Someone should tell them PM to change her statement to "Our censorship laws are about to change"
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

One point five million uploads and counting. What a fucking waste of time, CPU cycles, and bandwidth. For Facebook, it is Whack-a-mole on steroids and meth. Yet politicians still seem to want more, something along the lines of no anonymity / fully moderated social media. Not going to happen in free countries.

charlesism 8y ago
Maybe that will be a rallying cry during the next civil war: "We're entitled to watch snuff films on Facebook!"
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- NavyNuke 8y ago
  There will be a civil war...but it won't be over being able to watch videos on FB...the underlying problem that caused the video is what needs to be addressed
- frabbit 8y ago
  I think it is more that in order to prevent people watching or reading or thinking or smelling things we do not like we would have to impose a level of control which stops them reading or thinking or smelling things other people deem good and useful.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    to prevent people watching or reading or thinking or smelling things we do not like If a person ever finds himself supporting the distribution of a snuff film, that person might do some introspection and ask how he got to that point. Because that view is straight out of A Clockwork Orange.
orbifold 8y ago
Well ultimately platforms like Facebook should be held responsible for the content they distribute in the same way that newspapers were. The safe harbor provisions should not apply to platforms that do way more than just passively host content. Google and Facebook should not be able to hide behind algorithms if the real world outcomes of these algorithms are as bad as they currently are. If they can't find a way to police their platform automatically, they will have to change something else. One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger than any positive value they provide.
- newscracker 8y ago
  I agree with your point about these platforms causing more harm, but I disagree with this proposition. > One thing would be to require people to provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles. Firstly, real names don't really keep people from doing things that can get either themselves or others in trouble. Facebook, the platform that probably has real names for most of its users, is where so much hatred is spread by people using their real names. People use the same Facebook logins on news and other sites to comment with their real name and say hateful things. Just as most companies and people don't really care much about software security (because the consequences of breaches are not widespread and not expensive enough to take these seriously), most people don't care about legal consequences of their online behavior either. Imposing legal consequences on a platform that by itself violate its users' privacy repeatedly with no real regrets or change of heart is a slippery slope that would lead to many innocent people being processed. Secondly, "fake" names are used by many people who are vulnerable (for various reasons – could be victims of abuse or marginalized groups or people who are discriminated against or activists or dissidents). Not allowing that would cause a lot of real problems for real people (running in millions or hundreds of millions). Such names may also be used by those who value privacy. Not all of them...let me correct myself, not even most of the people who use such names are involved in spreading terror and hatred (however much politicians with self-serving interests might use this argument to try to fool the public). We seem to live in a time where people are openly proud of being bigots and using their real names to prove that on every platform, as if it's a badge of honor. That cannot be solved with identity verification or forcing real names without causing a lot more harm to many more people.
deogeo 8y ago
> Not going to happen in free countries. It happened in South Korea [1]. Fortunately, their courts eventually struck the law down. Got fantastically little coverage in western media. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-name_system#South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-name_system#South_Korea
- lasagnaphil 8y ago
  From that link, there's a explanation for why the court in South Korea rolled back this change: The Constitutional Court said, "The system does not seem to have been beneficial to the public. Despite the enforcement of the system, the number of illegal or malicious postings online has not decreased. Instead, users moved to foreign Websites and the system became discriminatory against domestic operators. It also prevented foreigners who didn’t have a resident registration number here from expressing their opinions online."
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Yeah, I would have preferred a more principled reason, but what can you do.
caprese 8y ago
They are probably looking for signatures and do this very easily and in an automated way. It would be more fun to have an application that randomized the pitch, speed, volume and compression of a file, to REALLY make a moderator waste time, CPU and bandwidth. Maybe we can make this standard given the prevalence of how people want to share.

draw_down 8y ago

Haven’t seen too many impassioned defenses of free speech after this. Strange!

caprese 8y ago

Apparently hosting this video is part of a violation of the law in New Zealand, population of 4 million. For Facebook why not just block New Zealand? Looking for thoughtful responses edit: seems there are reports of New Zealand ISPs blocking very many sites and web services. So for Facebook this is also a compelling option to just block the country and continue business as usual, focusing on important things like those user metrics. Censoring videos is an antiquated law forcing silly compliance burdens.

YUMad 8y ago
Just having it saved on your pc is a crime there.
bigbangchina 8y ago
Many moons ago, our company was advertising on FB in NZ and got 5K worth of sales a day. I think New Zealand is a good testing ground for new FB changes and losing it won't be good either.
erentz 8y ago
The PR would be great: “Facebook asked to block snuff film, instead decides to block entire country and continue to distribute the snuff film.” Facebook clearly don’t want to distribute snuff films, child porn, or other objectionable material, regardless of where in the world the operate.
- caprese 8y ago
  They put themselves in this position of deciding to arbitrarily delete things such that this PR would even be possible. If they weren't in the business of policing the network this way, the deletions would only be in response to a court order - which do happen. Then they would be in the PR favor by deciding to ignore "another country's" court order, and "exiting that market" if it was a better business decision. This is one of the grand luxuries of international business, and Facebook is paying for it - in this case - instead of enjoying the privilege. Someone should tell them PM to change her statement to "Our censorship laws are about to change"

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]