7 ms·

The shooting in Christchurch is a tragedy that should not have happened. That said, this massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, regardless of the moti

The shooting in Christchurch is a tragedy that should not have happened. That said, this massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing. It will be inevitably used to suppress citizens' freedoms, it will cause more tension in society that will escalate into more tragical incidents. Also, the video may serve someone to study modus operandi of such an attacker to increase their chances of survival in a similar situation. Either way, the censorship and attempts at rewriting history (removal of Spacey, Jackson), again banning inconvenient books are extremely dangerous and slippery slope to get on.

candiodari 8y ago
But if (most) people don't know, "nothing goes wrong", doesn't it ? And surely that means we can ignore the problems. If ever there was an apt description of youth services, or the justice system. And yes, I get it, in both cases, it merely describes the terrible crimes and abuses happening in 99% of those systems. For the remaining 1% of cases, they are necessary.
telesilla 8y ago
Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? It's not fair to allow these things in the public field where we might see disturbing things without wanting to. Videos and images must be tagged, and therefore given a rating so that I can self-censor.
- sametmax 8y ago
  It's called choosing your friends and information sources. Cause I haven't seen the video once. I haven't been offered to neither. You have to take some responsibility at some point. Always asking the rest of the world to do good by you is only going to lead you so far.
- pests 8y ago
  I usually turn off entertainment that is dis-pleasuring me. Do you need everything to be labeled and rated by someone else before consumption?
  - wldlyinaccurate 8y ago
    Yes. This is the entire purpose of film rating systems like the well-known MPAA system. People want to be informed about the content of a film before watching it so that they can decide whether it is appropriate for them (or their children, or their friends suffering from PTS) to watch.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? Don't search for and click on videos of the shooting? Sure, it won't stop someone specifically trying to get you to watch the video. But censorship doesn't change that. No amount of censorship can keep people from, say, adding some noise to the video to circumvent any filters and sending it to you.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    There are services that don't moderate (censor) content. For the most part they are shit-holes and most people stay away from them. If you want to make it so that no site owner can moderate their own site, you are going to have a huge uphill battle. And I can't imagine why you would want that kind of world.
- x38iq84n 8y ago
  You can choose to skip posts, block users from view, close the tab with that disturbing website, not to view the "breaking news mosque shooting" video. Do you seriously ask for a censorship of media, social or other, just so you do not get disturbed by a video that you chose to watch?
  - thousandautumns 8y ago
    It isn't censorship. Free speech does not equate to Twitter/Facebook/Google having an obligation to host any/all content someone might post on their site.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  I would happily support tagging of such things to allow people to choose to not see things. It's choosing to not allow other people to see things that's problematic.
- rndgermandude 8y ago
  Frankly, not my problem. That's your problem. Today it is you who says we gotta censor what you find offensive, tomorrow President Orange-Nimrod will censor all of CNN because it's OK now to censor things that somebody/anybody finds offensive, and in a few decades time President Jenna Bush Hager will censor all depictions of an Earth that isn't flat because those are offensive to the good god-fearing citizens who are true to the word of the Bible.
  - thousandautumns 8y ago
    The flipside being that you are making the argument that private entities should not be allowed to choose what content they host. You worry about flat earthers censoring non-flat earth depictions, but a much more realistic threat is flat-earthers forcing their insanity to have a larger share of voice than they should by strong arming platforms and people that know better into giving them a microphone, because were they not to do so, they would be accused of "censorship". No one is saying the NZ video should be purged from the internet. But it is foolish to equate censorship with private social media companies scrubbing it from their sites. You are welcome to search out other venues that host the video, or host it yourself. Your rights are not being infringed upon if Twitter and Facebook won't.
    - rndgermandude 8y ago
      Well, I didn't make this argument specifically here, and my answer would be: it depends. Common carriers, like Telstra (largest mobile Australian ISP), started blocking websites hosting the video. That's not OK for an ISP to do. Same as it isn't OK for e.g. a utility company to cut off power to a "nazi" (whatever that means these days) or to Bernie Sanders supporters because the utility CEO doesn't like "socialism". Private entities actually hosting the content would be a different matter, and the decision should be up to the private entity. Unless such a private entity is a de facto common carrier in itself. I'd argue Facebook, twitter, reddit, google e.g. are de facto common carriers running general purpose platforms - given their size, influence and reach - even according to their own PR. They are analogous to a utility company, and saying "you can host the content on your own server" is like saying "you can just run your own generator for your electricity needs/use solar panels and battery" or like saying "you can always create your own telephone network if you don't like what the companies are doing; all it takes is 2 old cans and a string". In my opinion common carrier and de facto common carriers should not be allowed to outright censor lawful content. Videos of newsworthy terrorist attacks, no matter if it is made by a terrorist (e.g. this one) or just an innocent bystander (e.g. 9/11, Las Vegas), are not illegal and should not be allowed to be censored by such de facto common carriers/de facto utility companies.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- krageon 8y ago
  Tailor your environment to suit your sensibilities. Nobody is prying open your eyes and showing this to you and it is and has been perfectly possible to not see this video anywhere.
m0zg 8y ago
> massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, > regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing Never waste a good crisis. Someone in the government was salivating over this even before the bodies reached room temperature. Happens every time. Does jack squat to prevent anything at all, but the power balance always shifts unidirectionally, towards the ruling class.
fzeroracer 8y ago
It is extremely telling to me that of all the comments here, most of them I've seen express concern not with the fact that 50 people were murdered by white supremacists (a number that seems to be rising year over year) but rather attempting to divert the topic into one about censorship and free speech. I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists because so far, the market place of ideas has not been successful. You're saying that there's a massive wave of censorship, yet white supremacist materials, videos and activity has never been more open and easy to access.
- jimjimjim 8y ago
  I had the same thought and it makes me sad. No suggestions, or ways to help. This is meant to be a meeting place of intelligent, creative, resourceful people. Instead of just saying "it's too difficult, lets do nothing" why not think of answers.
- x38iq84n 8y ago
  > I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists No, you have only missed them. The solution is exactly free speech and more of it. These days people are often suppressed when they voice a concern that touches certain topics, i.e. immigration, religion and particularly Islam, anti-semitism, rapid changes of demographics and many more. Media oppression and flat out censorship do not make a stop to the opinions they try to suppress. They just drive them away, to hidden forums, to non-mainstream platforms, to dark web. So instead of shunning white supremacists from media - tolerate them on and challenge them with arguments, explain how they are wrong, educate them, ridicule their nonsense; but never censor them.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    No, they're not often 'suppressed'. Again, nowadays it is far easier to access white supremacist material than possibly any other time. It's one search, one twitter account, one youtube recommendation away. These are people not operating on hidden forums at all, they're out in the open espousing these views. I keep seeing people repeat this view, but I see none of it. You're attempting to divert away from my point in that you don't propose an actual solution at all. You propose nothing except maintaining the status quo. Arguing against a white supremacist gives legitimacy to their views, because they don't argue on the same level as you or I. They knowingly make illogical arguments that you simply cannot refute and they don't care even if you try.
tim333 8y ago
It's not totally censored and you don't go to jail for sharing it or anything like that - it's just making it harder to get and a bit more obscure which I don't find that worrying. It took me 5 mins to find it for someone else - I didn't actually want to watch it personally.
- ioquatix 8y ago
  Someone is apparently in NZ court for sharing the video as it is now deemed objectionable material. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1903/S00171/sharing-shooting-video-likely-illegal.htm http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1903/S00171/sharing-shootin... I can personally see the logic of this. This is not a video from an innocent bystander, but a video from a murderer designed to perpetuate hate. I'm generally anti-censorship, but I think this is a form of hate speech and society as a whole does not benefit from its dissemination.
white-flame 8y ago
The censorship is also sprouting up conspiracy theories, claiming that they're taking down the video because there's something to hide in it compared to the official reporting. This video is historical fact, the most direct record of an important terrible event that had wide-ranging effect and became global news. Its accessibility helps squash rumors about what people think happened or didn't happen. Combined with the manifesto, it also shows why it happened.

candiodari 8y ago

But if (most) people don't know, "nothing goes wrong", doesn't it ? And surely that means we can ignore the problems. If ever there was an apt description of youth services, or the justice system. And yes, I get it, in both cases, it merely describes the terrible crimes and abuses happening in 99% of those systems. For the remaining 1% of cases, they are necessary.

telesilla 8y ago

Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? It's not fair to allow these things in the public field where we might see disturbing things without wanting to. Videos and images must be tagged, and therefore given a rating so that I can self-censor.

sametmax 8y ago
It's called choosing your friends and information sources. Cause I haven't seen the video once. I haven't been offered to neither. You have to take some responsibility at some point. Always asking the rest of the world to do good by you is only going to lead you so far.
pests 8y ago
I usually turn off entertainment that is dis-pleasuring me. Do you need everything to be labeled and rated by someone else before consumption?
- wldlyinaccurate 8y ago
  Yes. This is the entire purpose of film rating systems like the well-known MPAA system. People want to be informed about the content of a film before watching it so that they can decide whether it is appropriate for them (or their children, or their friends suffering from PTS) to watch.
manfredo 8y ago
> Can I ask you: how can I, who does not at all want to see any graphic images, avoid these without censorship? Don't search for and click on videos of the shooting? Sure, it won't stop someone specifically trying to get you to watch the video. But censorship doesn't change that. No amount of censorship can keep people from, say, adding some noise to the video to circumvent any filters and sending it to you.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  There are services that don't moderate (censor) content. For the most part they are shit-holes and most people stay away from them. If you want to make it so that no site owner can moderate their own site, you are going to have a huge uphill battle. And I can't imagine why you would want that kind of world.
x38iq84n 8y ago
You can choose to skip posts, block users from view, close the tab with that disturbing website, not to view the "breaking news mosque shooting" video. Do you seriously ask for a censorship of media, social or other, just so you do not get disturbed by a video that you chose to watch?
- thousandautumns 8y ago
  It isn't censorship. Free speech does not equate to Twitter/Facebook/Google having an obligation to host any/all content someone might post on their site.
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
I would happily support tagging of such things to allow people to choose to not see things. It's choosing to not allow other people to see things that's problematic.
rndgermandude 8y ago
Frankly, not my problem. That's your problem. Today it is you who says we gotta censor what you find offensive, tomorrow President Orange-Nimrod will censor all of CNN because it's OK now to censor things that somebody/anybody finds offensive, and in a few decades time President Jenna Bush Hager will censor all depictions of an Earth that isn't flat because those are offensive to the good god-fearing citizens who are true to the word of the Bible.
- thousandautumns 8y ago
  The flipside being that you are making the argument that private entities should not be allowed to choose what content they host. You worry about flat earthers censoring non-flat earth depictions, but a much more realistic threat is flat-earthers forcing their insanity to have a larger share of voice than they should by strong arming platforms and people that know better into giving them a microphone, because were they not to do so, they would be accused of "censorship". No one is saying the NZ video should be purged from the internet. But it is foolish to equate censorship with private social media companies scrubbing it from their sites. You are welcome to search out other venues that host the video, or host it yourself. Your rights are not being infringed upon if Twitter and Facebook won't.
  - rndgermandude 8y ago
    Well, I didn't make this argument specifically here, and my answer would be: it depends. Common carriers, like Telstra (largest mobile Australian ISP), started blocking websites hosting the video. That's not OK for an ISP to do. Same as it isn't OK for e.g. a utility company to cut off power to a "nazi" (whatever that means these days) or to Bernie Sanders supporters because the utility CEO doesn't like "socialism". Private entities actually hosting the content would be a different matter, and the decision should be up to the private entity. Unless such a private entity is a de facto common carrier in itself. I'd argue Facebook, twitter, reddit, google e.g. are de facto common carriers running general purpose platforms - given their size, influence and reach - even according to their own PR. They are analogous to a utility company, and saying "you can host the content on your own server" is like saying "you can just run your own generator for your electricity needs/use solar panels and battery" or like saying "you can always create your own telephone network if you don't like what the companies are doing; all it takes is 2 old cans and a string". In my opinion common carrier and de facto common carriers should not be allowed to outright censor lawful content. Videos of newsworthy terrorist attacks, no matter if it is made by a terrorist (e.g. this one) or just an innocent bystander (e.g. 9/11, Las Vegas), are not illegal and should not be allowed to be censored by such de facto common carriers/de facto utility companies.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
krageon 8y ago
Tailor your environment to suit your sensibilities. Nobody is prying open your eyes and showing this to you and it is and has been perfectly possible to not see this video anywhere.

m0zg 8y ago

> massive wave of censorship across MSM, NZ ISPs, > regardless of the motivation, is very disturbing Never waste a good crisis. Someone in the government was salivating over this even before the bodies reached room temperature. Happens every time. Does jack squat to prevent anything at all, but the power balance always shifts unidirectionally, towards the ruling class.

fzeroracer 8y ago

It is extremely telling to me that of all the comments here, most of them I've seen express concern not with the fact that 50 people were murdered by white supremacists (a number that seems to be rising year over year) but rather attempting to divert the topic into one about censorship and free speech. I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists because so far, the market place of ideas has not been successful. You're saying that there's a massive wave of censorship, yet white supremacist materials, videos and activity has never been more open and easy to access.

jimjimjim 8y ago
I had the same thought and it makes me sad. No suggestions, or ways to help. This is meant to be a meeting place of intelligent, creative, resourceful people. Instead of just saying "it's too difficult, lets do nothing" why not think of answers.
x38iq84n 8y ago
> I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists No, you have only missed them. The solution is exactly free speech and more of it. These days people are often suppressed when they voice a concern that touches certain topics, i.e. immigration, religion and particularly Islam, anti-semitism, rapid changes of demographics and many more. Media oppression and flat out censorship do not make a stop to the opinions they try to suppress. They just drive them away, to hidden forums, to non-mainstream platforms, to dark web. So instead of shunning white supremacists from media - tolerate them on and challenge them with arguments, explain how they are wrong, educate them, ridicule their nonsense; but never censor them.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  No, they're not often 'suppressed'. Again, nowadays it is far easier to access white supremacist material than possibly any other time. It's one search, one twitter account, one youtube recommendation away. These are people not operating on hidden forums at all, they're out in the open espousing these views. I keep seeing people repeat this view, but I see none of it. You're attempting to divert away from my point in that you don't propose an actual solution at all. You propose nothing except maintaining the status quo. Arguing against a white supremacist gives legitimacy to their views, because they don't argue on the same level as you or I. They knowingly make illogical arguments that you simply cannot refute and they don't care even if you try.

tim333 8y ago

It's not totally censored and you don't go to jail for sharing it or anything like that - it's just making it harder to get and a bit more obscure which I don't find that worrying. It took me 5 mins to find it for someone else - I didn't actually want to watch it personally.

ioquatix 8y ago
Someone is apparently in NZ court for sharing the video as it is now deemed objectionable material. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1903/S00171/sharing-shooting-video-likely-illegal.htm http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1903/S00171/sharing-shootin... I can personally see the logic of this. This is not a video from an innocent bystander, but a video from a murderer designed to perpetuate hate. I'm generally anti-censorship, but I think this is a form of hate speech and society as a whole does not benefit from its dissemination.

white-flame 8y ago

The censorship is also sprouting up conspiracy theories, claiming that they're taking down the video because there's something to hide in it compared to the official reporting. This video is historical fact, the most direct record of an important terrible event that had wide-ranging effect and became global news. Its accessibility helps squash rumors about what people think happened or didn't happen. Combined with the manifesto, it also shows why it happened.