4 ms·

There is an important quantitative difference compared with post and phone though. If I want to start an alt newsletter and post it out, or conspire via phone,

There is an important quantitative difference compared with post and phone though. If I want to start an alt newsletter and post it out, or conspire via phone, I am very limited in reach. A mailshot in the thousands could take days to stuff, address and stamp, and the costs escalate quickly. Few aside from fellow nutters and conspiracy theorists will know my little alt postal newsletter even exists. Social gives unlimited reach if it goes viral. Thus the overriding aim of every alt and conspiracy group is to go viral and achieve global notoriety. Few knew or cared and certainly didn't have access to what a plane hijackers side of the story was in the 1980s and earlier. Or their propaganda. There might be short extracts in follow up reports. Giving them the oxygen of publicity was almost universally considered a bad thing. I entirely share the view of the NZ Prime Minister in refusing to use his name. Then the US services showed up. Yes we should stop as we've amplified too far. What many Americans call outrageous censorship, often conveniently ignoring it being a private service rather than speaking against a government, much of the rest of the world might call reasonable moderation. If FB can't moderate and block it, or find a way for users to moderate it, perhaps it's time to limit, restrict and censure. It's certain that if FB won't find a way to do it reasonably and fairly, and soon, governments will start to compel them and others. Each event and atrocity makes it that little more certain.

roenxi 8y ago
That argument has a massive unstated assumption in it - that there are substantial communities of people who want to go out and cause irrational harm; but the only thing stopping them is communication difficulties. Restricting Facebook will not stop insane lone-wolf style attacks. That seems unlikely. More relevantly, it seems likely that if such communities exist there is a reason they exist and solving that reason should be an urgent priority.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  No such assumption exists here. It doesn't matter in the least if it is a substantial community or not - this was a one-off event from an individual. Still doesn't follow that he should be enabled. Nevertheless there are groups who wish to cause harm - anti vaxxers and up who benefit from the reach of social. You;re right that restrictions won't stop lone wolf madness, but publicising their actual message and videos encourages every other copy-cat to be "outrageous enough". The phenomenon of copycats is well enough known and seen in all sorts of things, even atrocity and suicide methods.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > Still doesn't follow that he should be enabled. Speaking to this particular incident, showing that video won't enable him, it is far more likely to draw out a knee-jerk response in opposition to whatever he was trying to do. There weren't millions of people uploading his video because of a latent communal desire to watch Muslims being gunned down in mosques; there were millions of people uploading the video so that other people could judge the situation. There is no way that judgment is going to be positive. Uploading or watching that video is not a respectful act; it is judgmental. > Nevertheless there are groups who wish to cause harm - anti vaxxers and up who benefit from the reach of social. We've had well publicised cults and lunatic ideas since the dawn of time. Facebook is, if anything, just as likely to make it easier to leave such communities than cause them to grow. We'll need some evidence to talk to on that point - which I do not have. > The phenomenon of copycats is well enough known and seen in all sorts of things, even atrocity and suicide methods. I dunno, the last time something like this happened in the APAC region (the Port Arthur Massacre) it resulted in mass gun removal from Australian society. New Zealand might well do the same thing. Pretty likely to squelch down on copycat incidents. Showing that video around is going to make it much more likely that NZ bans guns. Nothing like a video to persuade people.
tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
This, too, is a "problem" encountered in the past. Back then, it was the printing press that made communication "too easy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... For some reason, most free societies seem to have, over time, accepted the free press is a good thing.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Hardly surprising really, two years after the Restoration.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  Facebook is not part of the 'press', as in Free Press. They are either a dumb pipe or the publisher, depending on whether it is time to being sued or collect ad revenue.

roenxi 8y ago

That argument has a massive unstated assumption in it - that there are substantial communities of people who want to go out and cause irrational harm; but the only thing stopping them is communication difficulties. Restricting Facebook will not stop insane lone-wolf style attacks. That seems unlikely. More relevantly, it seems likely that if such communities exist there is a reason they exist and solving that reason should be an urgent priority.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
No such assumption exists here. It doesn't matter in the least if it is a substantial community or not - this was a one-off event from an individual. Still doesn't follow that he should be enabled. Nevertheless there are groups who wish to cause harm - anti vaxxers and up who benefit from the reach of social. You;re right that restrictions won't stop lone wolf madness, but publicising their actual message and videos encourages every other copy-cat to be "outrageous enough". The phenomenon of copycats is well enough known and seen in all sorts of things, even atrocity and suicide methods.
- roenxi 8y ago
  > Still doesn't follow that he should be enabled. Speaking to this particular incident, showing that video won't enable him, it is far more likely to draw out a knee-jerk response in opposition to whatever he was trying to do. There weren't millions of people uploading his video because of a latent communal desire to watch Muslims being gunned down in mosques; there were millions of people uploading the video so that other people could judge the situation. There is no way that judgment is going to be positive. Uploading or watching that video is not a respectful act; it is judgmental. > Nevertheless there are groups who wish to cause harm - anti vaxxers and up who benefit from the reach of social. We've had well publicised cults and lunatic ideas since the dawn of time. Facebook is, if anything, just as likely to make it easier to leave such communities than cause them to grow. We'll need some evidence to talk to on that point - which I do not have. > The phenomenon of copycats is well enough known and seen in all sorts of things, even atrocity and suicide methods. I dunno, the last time something like this happened in the APAC region (the Port Arthur Massacre) it resulted in mass gun removal from Australian society. New Zealand might well do the same thing. Pretty likely to squelch down on copycat incidents. Showing that video around is going to make it much more likely that NZ bans guns. Nothing like a video to persuade people.

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago

This, too, is a "problem" encountered in the past. Back then, it was the printing press that made communication "too easy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... For some reason, most free societies seem to have, over time, accepted the free press is a good thing.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Hardly surprising really, two years after the Restoration.
JetSpiegel 8y ago
Facebook is not part of the 'press', as in Free Press. They are either a dumb pipe or the publisher, depending on whether it is time to being sued or collect ad revenue.