6 ms·

New Zealand would cave in 24 hours if all the big internet companies presented a unified front against the censorship, making the video available within https a

by burfog 8y ago

New Zealand would cave in 24 hours if all the big internet companies presented a unified front against the censorship, making the video available within https as part of every service. There is no way New Zealand would cut off every email provider, every VPN provider, facebook, twitter, every search engine home page, etc. Failing to take a stand means that ultimately the most intolerant place gets to censor the internet. You may remember that the Taliban banned all photos of humans, even if clothed and male.

Taniwha 8y ago
Yes but humans are basically decent, remember this is a snuff film, not bambi
- PostOnce 8y ago
  They're also blocking 4channel.org (which is the worksafe, e.g. retro gaming, version of 4chan, /pol and /b etc are on 4chan.org) and zerohedge and others not sharing the video. I just wanna read about TurboGrafx and Sega Genesis...
  - erentz 8y ago
    Technical point. "They" in this case is not the NZ government, it's assorted ISPs in NZ who quickly and independently decided to do this after the event.
    - deminature 8y ago
      These sites are usually only blocked via DNS and still accessible via their IP.
    - Taniwha 8y ago
      Yes exactly, the NZ ISPs decided unilaterally to ban access to places that were hosting the snuff film within hours of the terrorist attack, this wasn't a government action. If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by.
      - PostOnce 8y ago
        Well, should we not then also ban Facebook? 4channel.org never hosted the video (and, afaik, never linked to it), but Facebook.com did, so then why is the former banned and not the latter?
        erentz 8y ago
        If you're a customer of one of the ISPs in question (sounds like you are), you could try contacting them and asking the reasoning behind their blocks of these sites, and the reason for the inconsistencies you point to. If they brush you off, then since you're in NZ you may also find various NZ gaming or technical community forums on which people have similar feelings to discuss this and see if you can get a more satisfactory answer as a group. Also you might write to your MP or the relevant minister about this and the subject of net neutrality in the broader sense.
      - erentz 8y ago
        Yeah, it's a little problematic. I've just seen a lot of people misunderstanding and thinking that the NZ Government did this. Personally I haven't read what the motivations were behind the initial block that these ISPs put in very quickly after the attack. (Don't know if there's any threads on NZNOG about it, haven't gone looking.) One possibility, I had was the operations folk were trying to block suspicious sites in case they were being used for communication or would prompt further incidents in what was then an unfolding terrorist attack. That the blocks continue now is something that should be discussed in the NZ ISP community. Do we want ISPs to be able to make unilateral blocking decisions or should they be legally required to be neutral? Maybe this will shape a future net neutrality law.
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        Guilt by association. Amazing. I lost respect for NZ when I read that they're happy with censorship, but this makes it seem even worse. I suppose me coming from an ex-Soviet state makes me view it from a different angle.
      - sampo 8y ago
        > If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by. In 2008 there was a minor diplomatic incident between Finland and Thailand. Finnish police kept a list meant to block child porn websites, they just didn't do a very good job about it. The police had blocked a Thai portal that contained, among other things, memorial pages for a recently passed away Thai princess. Thailand happens to be quite serious about their royalty and offenses about their dignity. The portal probably contained other sections, and maybe some actual cp had been posted in some discussion boards there, who knows. But that's not how the Thai government wanted to see the case, when they were told that a princess' memorial site was blocked in Finland with a police notice about cp. (If you did the same in Thailand, it could be up to 15 years in prison.) There were some talks about Thailand withdrawing their ambassador from Finland, but the diplomatic crisis got resolved. ref. https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html
    - PostOnce 8y ago
      Sort of. The ISPs opt into a filter, but the government runs the filter... and if all the ISPs have opted in, and the government is running the filter, then is it not the government doing the censorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand#Technical_details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea...
      - erentz 8y ago
        From the ISPs statements and what’s been reported though it wasn’t this block list that was used. These ISPs just did it themselves.
        ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
        And it was only some ISPs. I was a bit confused to being with as mine didn't seem to block it.
tuberelay 8y ago
Do you really think the right to distribute a mass killing video designed primarily to be a meme would be the hill that zuck would die on? Also, you act like countries have no leverage against these platforms. Maybe NZ should levy a 50% tax on all advertising revenue made by facebook in NZ?
erentz 8y ago
This delusional trope keeps coming up in threads. FB and Google for all their faults aren't 4chan or 8chan. They don't want to be in the business of distributing snuff films regardless of where the snuff film was made. Note how they started removing it long before it was classified as objectionable in NZ. > Failing to take a stand means that ultimately the most intolerant place gets to censor the internet. You may remember that the Taliban banned all photos of humans, even if clothed and male. Also note how they haven't removed all photos of humans just because the Taliban banned those.
lancewiggs 8y ago
The big (and small) internet companies did present a united front in this issue, immediately blocking the video and other hatred relating to the event. Many people spent countless hours in the aftermath of the attack doing what they could to minimise the harm from this one moron and his muppet allies. To do otherwise would not be human, and, though it isn't the first reason, would also see that ISP rejected by New Zealand households. NZer

by burfog 8y ago

Taniwha 8y ago

Yes but humans are basically decent, remember this is a snuff film, not bambi

PostOnce 8y ago
They're also blocking 4channel.org (which is the worksafe, e.g. retro gaming, version of 4chan, /pol and /b etc are on 4chan.org) and zerohedge and others not sharing the video. I just wanna read about TurboGrafx and Sega Genesis...
- erentz 8y ago
  Technical point. "They" in this case is not the NZ government, it's assorted ISPs in NZ who quickly and independently decided to do this after the event.
  - deminature 8y ago
    These sites are usually only blocked via DNS and still accessible via their IP.
  - Taniwha 8y ago
    Yes exactly, the NZ ISPs decided unilaterally to ban access to places that were hosting the snuff film within hours of the terrorist attack, this wasn't a government action. If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by.
    - PostOnce 8y ago
      Well, should we not then also ban Facebook? 4channel.org never hosted the video (and, afaik, never linked to it), but Facebook.com did, so then why is the former banned and not the latter?
      - erentz 8y ago
        If you're a customer of one of the ISPs in question (sounds like you are), you could try contacting them and asking the reasoning behind their blocks of these sites, and the reason for the inconsistencies you point to. If they brush you off, then since you're in NZ you may also find various NZ gaming or technical community forums on which people have similar feelings to discuss this and see if you can get a more satisfactory answer as a group. Also you might write to your MP or the relevant minister about this and the subject of net neutrality in the broader sense.
    - erentz 8y ago
      Yeah, it's a little problematic. I've just seen a lot of people misunderstanding and thinking that the NZ Government did this. Personally I haven't read what the motivations were behind the initial block that these ISPs put in very quickly after the attack. (Don't know if there's any threads on NZNOG about it, haven't gone looking.) One possibility, I had was the operations folk were trying to block suspicious sites in case they were being used for communication or would prompt further incidents in what was then an unfolding terrorist attack. That the blocks continue now is something that should be discussed in the NZ ISP community. Do we want ISPs to be able to make unilateral blocking decisions or should they be legally required to be neutral? Maybe this will shape a future net neutrality law.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      Guilt by association. Amazing. I lost respect for NZ when I read that they're happy with censorship, but this makes it seem even worse. I suppose me coming from an ex-Soviet state makes me view it from a different angle.
    - sampo 8y ago
      > If other sites are co-located with the places carrying the snuff film then they're IMHO shit out of luck, it's the company that you keep that we know you by. In 2008 there was a minor diplomatic incident between Finland and Thailand. Finnish police kept a list meant to block child porn websites, they just didn't do a very good job about it. The police had blocked a Thai portal that contained, among other things, memorial pages for a recently passed away Thai princess. Thailand happens to be quite serious about their royalty and offenses about their dignity. The portal probably contained other sections, and maybe some actual cp had been posted in some discussion boards there, who knows. But that's not how the Thai government wanted to see the case, when they were told that a princess' memorial site was blocked in Finland with a police notice about cp. (If you did the same in Thailand, it could be up to 15 years in prison.) There were some talks about Thailand withdrawing their ambassador from Finland, but the diplomatic crisis got resolved. ref. https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000001554805.html
  - PostOnce 8y ago
    Sort of. The ISPs opt into a filter, but the government runs the filter... and if all the ISPs have opted in, and the government is running the filter, then is it not the government doing the censorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand#Technical_details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea...
    - erentz 8y ago
      From the ISPs statements and what’s been reported though it wasn’t this block list that was used. These ISPs just did it themselves.
      - ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
        And it was only some ISPs. I was a bit confused to being with as mine didn't seem to block it.

tuberelay 8y ago

Do you really think the right to distribute a mass killing video designed primarily to be a meme would be the hill that zuck would die on? Also, you act like countries have no leverage against these platforms. Maybe NZ should levy a 50% tax on all advertising revenue made by facebook in NZ?

erentz 8y ago

This delusional trope keeps coming up in threads. FB and Google for all their faults aren't 4chan or 8chan. They don't want to be in the business of distributing snuff films regardless of where the snuff film was made. Note how they started removing it long before it was classified as objectionable in NZ. > Failing to take a stand means that ultimately the most intolerant place gets to censor the internet. You may remember that the Taliban banned all photos of humans, even if clothed and male. Also note how they haven't removed all photos of humans just because the Taliban banned those.

lancewiggs 8y ago

The big (and small) internet companies did present a united front in this issue, immediately blocking the video and other hatred relating to the event. Many people spent countless hours in the aftermath of the attack doing what they could to minimise the harm from this one moron and his muppet allies. To do otherwise would not be human, and, though it isn't the first reason, would also see that ISP rejected by New Zealand households. NZer