4 ms·

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

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.

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.