4 ms·

The WTC footage is documentation of a terrorist attack by innocent bystanders. The Christchurch Mosque shooting footage was created by the terrorist with the ai

The WTC footage is documentation of a terrorist attack by innocent bystanders. The Christchurch Mosque shooting footage was created by the terrorist with the aim of becoming viral. It is a component of the terrorist attack itself.

tenpies 8y ago
If no one had recorded anything, but a few months later Al-Qaeda released ground-level videos of the attacks happening, would we ban them then?
- bhl 8y ago
  Facebook already bans ISIS propaganda videos, so it's a small leap to assume that they'll also ban Al-Qaeda released videos as well.
- sjwright 8y ago
  That would entirely hinge on the degree to which the content was editorialised. If the video contains commentary and/or editorialising and/or editing that in any way implied that the occurrence was desirable or righteous, then it is terrorist propaganda and should be restricted without hesitation. If it was an opinion-free, propaganda-free raw unedited video of a newsworthy event that was filmed in a public place, then it probably shouldn't be banned—though publishers should still act responsibly if the material contains deeply offensive or distressing material, or if it has serious privacy implications. And that's just a proposed set of principles I came up with after three minutes of consideration—I'm sure with an extra 15 minutes we could come up with something even better. Point is, this isn't difficult. The fact that there are no bright clear lines doesn't preclude us as a society from drawing a line somewhere.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  They're not illegal, but many sites ban them - I tried to find an unedited copy of the ISIS video with them dropping grenades from a drone a few years back... you often wind up having to go into the same niche news sites, gore sites, or torrent sites which you do to find this video. My options were pretty much 8chan itself or "BestGore" when I looked. I'll also note that ISIS does a lot more editing and commentary to slant the content in their favor than this guy did. About all this guy did was make meme references... I can see an argument that this is quite different.
BonesJustice 8y ago
I hear this argument a lot. Obviously, the perpetrator would prefer that the video spread widely and inspire similar acts of violence. But that is not the only possible outcome of allowing the video to spread and be seen. Humans are largely visual creatures. If we don’t witness something, we have a tendency to treat it as less ‘real’. Doubly so when it happens half a world away: atrocities and their victims become almost theoretical. Actually witnessing a video record changes our perception dramatically. The victims cease to be faceless ‘others’, and we receive a somber reminder that a maniac slaughtered husbands, wives, sons, and daughters—real people that could be your friends, family, or neighbors. The sense of tragedy and the casual brutality of it sinks in, and we are forced to acknowledge the evil among us. In the U.S., where so many of these tech companies reside, we have become so bitterly polarized that many among us demonize nearly half our fellow countrymen on the basis of their political affiliations. At times like this, we could be coming together in our mutual disgust over this atrocity. Seeing it for ourselves is, perhaps, less important than seeing that those we condemn politically react with the same humanity that we do. In a time when some people seem to honestly believe that “those [other half of the country] want to destroy everything everything I care about” we could use a reminder that, hey, we’re all people, and none of us deserve to die like that. And maybe then we could start working together to build a world that isn’t so conducive to hate.
lostlogin 8y ago
I’m not quite sure how to articulate it, but there is another difference too. The Christchurch attack is more personal - it’s showing individuals. The most shocking part of the WTC attacks (for me) were the people jumping, and that was the part where you could see them as people.
rndgermandude 8y ago
The 9/11 attackers wanted attention, too, and they got it. Don't tell me that 9/11 wasn't carried out with the express intent to "go viral".
- jrockway 8y ago
  Indeed. If you want to kill the most Americans, just sell them high fructose cheeseburgers for 99 cents. You probably won't even go to prison! All the talk about social media is just a distraction for the real issues that politicians don't want to face: gun laws. We probably shouldn't be selling crazy people weapons of mass destruction. But sure, blame Facebook for letting people post videos...

tenpies 8y ago

If no one had recorded anything, but a few months later Al-Qaeda released ground-level videos of the attacks happening, would we ban them then?

bhl 8y ago
Facebook already bans ISIS propaganda videos, so it's a small leap to assume that they'll also ban Al-Qaeda released videos as well.
sjwright 8y ago
That would entirely hinge on the degree to which the content was editorialised. If the video contains commentary and/or editorialising and/or editing that in any way implied that the occurrence was desirable or righteous, then it is terrorist propaganda and should be restricted without hesitation. If it was an opinion-free, propaganda-free raw unedited video of a newsworthy event that was filmed in a public place, then it probably shouldn't be banned—though publishers should still act responsibly if the material contains deeply offensive or distressing material, or if it has serious privacy implications. And that's just a proposed set of principles I came up with after three minutes of consideration—I'm sure with an extra 15 minutes we could come up with something even better. Point is, this isn't difficult. The fact that there are no bright clear lines doesn't preclude us as a society from drawing a line somewhere.
shittyadmin 8y ago
They're not illegal, but many sites ban them - I tried to find an unedited copy of the ISIS video with them dropping grenades from a drone a few years back... you often wind up having to go into the same niche news sites, gore sites, or torrent sites which you do to find this video. My options were pretty much 8chan itself or "BestGore" when I looked. I'll also note that ISIS does a lot more editing and commentary to slant the content in their favor than this guy did. About all this guy did was make meme references... I can see an argument that this is quite different.

BonesJustice 8y ago

I hear this argument a lot. Obviously, the perpetrator would prefer that the video spread widely and inspire similar acts of violence. But that is not the only possible outcome of allowing the video to spread and be seen. Humans are largely visual creatures. If we don’t witness something, we have a tendency to treat it as less ‘real’. Doubly so when it happens half a world away: atrocities and their victims become almost theoretical. Actually witnessing a video record changes our perception dramatically. The victims cease to be faceless ‘others’, and we receive a somber reminder that a maniac slaughtered husbands, wives, sons, and daughters—real people that could be your friends, family, or neighbors. The sense of tragedy and the casual brutality of it sinks in, and we are forced to acknowledge the evil among us. In the U.S., where so many of these tech companies reside, we have become so bitterly polarized that many among us demonize nearly half our fellow countrymen on the basis of their political affiliations. At times like this, we could be coming together in our mutual disgust over this atrocity. Seeing it for ourselves is, perhaps, less important than seeing that those we condemn politically react with the same humanity that we do. In a time when some people seem to honestly believe that “those [other half of the country] want to destroy everything everything I care about” we could use a reminder that, hey, we’re all people, and none of us deserve to die like that. And maybe then we could start working together to build a world that isn’t so conducive to hate.

lostlogin 8y ago

I’m not quite sure how to articulate it, but there is another difference too. The Christchurch attack is more personal - it’s showing individuals. The most shocking part of the WTC attacks (for me) were the people jumping, and that was the part where you could see them as people.

rndgermandude 8y ago

The 9/11 attackers wanted attention, too, and they got it. Don't tell me that 9/11 wasn't carried out with the express intent to "go viral".

jrockway 8y ago
Indeed. If you want to kill the most Americans, just sell them high fructose cheeseburgers for 99 cents. You probably won't even go to prison! All the talk about social media is just a distraction for the real issues that politicians don't want to face: gun laws. We probably shouldn't be selling crazy people weapons of mass destruction. But sure, blame Facebook for letting people post videos...