13 ms·
4chan, 8chan blocked by Australian and NZ ISPs for hosting shooting video
- vondur 8y agoPretty soon it will be available everywhere. How many sites will they block?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AtlasLion 8y agoSoon drugs will be everywhere so why stop these two drug dealers? how many drug dealers will they arrest?
- rudedogg 8y agoWe're kind of figuring out that doesn't work either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Efficacy_of_the_United_States_war_on_drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#Efficacy_of_the_U... ------------------ I think the grandparent was referencing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- moate 8y agoIDK that this constitutes the streisand effect. I don't feel like most people are going to be actively seeking this out now that it's being banned. Part of what fuels the streisand effect is that the thing being covered up was relatively unknown prior to the cover-up. People know the details of this event. They know, generally, what's on the video. The fact that it becomes harder to get isn't going to make Joe-Everyman curious about what the big deal is. He gets that the big deal is that it's a video of actual humans being actually murdered, and he probably has feelings about that.
- ahoy 8y agoSelling drugs should be legal though, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
- michaelt 8y agoAtlasLion is saying the fact the government "can't" or "shouldn't" ban drugs hasn't stopped them putting a lot of effort and resources into trying to.
- Pharmakon 8y agoReplace “drug dealers” with “armed robbers” and you’ll avoid thn inevitable moralizing and nitpicking.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Taniwha 8y agoProbably everywhere necessary. The snuff video has been adjudged obscene, the way the NZ law works it was always obscene, the censor just confirms it. In practice if you access something like this and once you realise what you're seeing you stop watching then the government isn't going to come after you, but if you share it, keep a copy etc etc you have broken the law enough that you're likely in trouble. Because it's illegal to have a copy or to publish it the ISPs are likely liable for having transient copies in their routers (these laws were written for film), the ISPs chose to do this initially purely as a public service but now I suspect that they are likely legally liable if they don't make a good faith effort to block these sites (remember ISPs can IP block and DNS block, they can't edit an SSL query on the fly, so everything at that IP will be blocked, if you're hosting your web site along with a snuff film archive I don't have a lot of sympathy for you). A couple of people have already been in court for sharing it, one is an actual nazi, the other alt-right who may also be an accomplice. Several people have also lost their jobs for sharing it at work or just plain accessing it at work (this is an action by the companies, not the govt). There's no real reason why anyone needs to watch this snuff video, except maybe the police themselves as evidence.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoDon't be naive, it's not being blocked because it's "obscene" or "snuff". There are plenty of sites with _far_ worse than this video on them that aren't blocked.
- Taniwha 8y agoNo, that's exactly why it's being blocked, just because there's worse stuff out there doesn't suddenly make this evil stuff acceptable
- RobertRoberts 8y agoIt's being blocked for political reasons. Just like when the US went to war against Iraq, one argument was "Saddam is a dictator that kills his own people". But there are worse dictators before and after Saddam. You are using the same manipulative cherry-picked argument to justify censorship. Censorship is a weapon used by dictators, not free leaders.
- ars 8y agoIt's on a torrent with a magnet link, it's basically unblockable.
- debt 8y agoI’m wondering if the NZ government have a belief that maybe the shooter’s ability to livestream the shooting increased his desire to commit the shooting in the first place.
- mindslight 8y agoAlternatively, I feel like seeing the plain video without commentary would take away a lot of the glamor from these events. See the mood change of Black Mirror ep01 after he actually fucks the pig. (from a USian perspective) Instead, we let the media setup a vibrant tradeoff of emotional tourism versus steering away from direct confrontation. Just enough so that indulging can be written off as mourning rather than the goreporn it is.
- Pharmakon 8y agoI’m sorry that’s just naive and not at all borne out by history. When executions were a public spectacle (as in Tyburn) they were a huge party. People laughed and drank and cheered as people were hanged or drawn and quartered. I think you underestimate just how turned on a lot of people are by watching people suffer and die. We need to think very carefully before we empower people to engage in thst economy again.
- mindslight 8y agoI kind of addressed that in my second paragraph (which maybe I hadn't gotten in before delay). I think we're already 80% down the slope of engaging in that economy. I agree with people's zeal w.r.t public executions, but isn't a key ingredient of the social validation is that it is a "justified" killing?
- Pharmakon 8y agoThat was theory, that the state (or monarch) had to show both their power over life and death, and that the public needed to see thst justice was done. We (the British) figured out that didn’t even remotely work back in 1783, and frankly I don’t think that we require a second run at it.
- dgellow 8y agoI’m honestly wondering what will happen when that kind of content starts spreading on less centralized networks, such as scuttlebutt, or on IPFS, via Mastodon instances, or others. Things can become bad for decentralization advocates if 4chan trolls start to use those networks to share and protect such content from being blocked by governments.
- Nuzzerino 8y agoWorking as designed, I'd imagine? It would be naive to think that wasn't a foreseen use case. Edit: I'm a so-called decentralization advocate and I'd add on to this to say that the big problem we have right now is that people don't think we need decentralization at all. Something like this might change some minds.
- dgellow 8y ago> Working as designed, I'd imagine? It would be naive to think that wasn't a foreseen use case. Sure, from a technical point of view. But governments and the general public won’t necessarily see a lack of control over the content as something good or even legal. I expect to see some clash and fight over those questions if a significant number of 4chan/8chan users start to migrate to decentralized platforms.
- Nuzzerino 8y agoWe already had that fight in the 1990's over Napster and even the WWW in general, and it ended up with massive centralization of the web. Disclaimer: Take the below images with a grain of salt, I wasn't able to verify how they were generated. Internet Connectivity in 2003 vs 2010 via The Opte Project: 2003: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/110263# https://www.moma.org/collection/works/110263# 2010: https://equipping4eministry.com/2015/03/05/a-visual-look-at-the-internet-from-2010/ https://equipping4eministry.com/2015/03/05/a-visual-look-at-... Unfortunately opte.org appears to be down at the moment (the irony) so I had to dig these ones up. To me, this is a visualization of what the current status quo is as far as those in power "addressing" the issue of content. If you can get 99% of the people using the same websites that are compliant with what the governments think are okay, then the 1% doesn't matter too much. So we saw things quietly shifting toward this paradigm. The way I see it is that the <1% who know how to use the dark web are going to not matter to the governments too much, as long as that number of people stays low. Significant numbers of 4chan and 8chan users and others migrating might raise that number to a point where you'll start to see more proactive measures taken. But actions like these taken by Australia and NZ (using iron instead of velvet) will only accelerate the number of people interested in alternatives, and would therefore undermine the status quo strategy I outlined above.
- lumberjack 8y agoI think 4chan has gone too far on this one. They should ban neonazi propaganda. There is a big difference between allowing non-PC talk and allowing outright neonazi/terrorist propaganda. Besides, it is ruining the experience on all boards for all people.
- StreamBright 8y agoYou are mixing up 8chan and 4chan.
- burk96 8y ago8chan is much much worse, but 4chan is certainly infested with that stuff as well
- happytoexplain 8y agoAs somebody who has - embarrassingly - been on 4chan nearly every day since 2004, trust me, the parent post's assertion is a perfectly arguable one.
- StreamBright 8y agohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/15/after-the-new-zealand-terror-attack-should-8chan-be-wiped-from-the-web/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/03/15/after...
- beatgammit 8y agoIsn't their policy basically "anything goes"? Locking things down seems counter to their goals. I know they have "some" moderation in "some" parts of their site, but moderating too much will just drive people away since many are there for "free speech" reasons. I think they'd be happier with the policy of, "if you don't like it, leave" than trying to appease others.
- bduerst 8y agoNo, they specifically censor content like child pornography, torrent links (AFAIK), and some other material. There are situations where the expression of certain speech, like the generation and propagation of child pornography, harms others and should not be allowed. Even the original FS philosophers mostly agreed on this type of censorship.
- reaperducer 8y agoSeems kinda easy to block niche sites like *chan for hosting the video. Politicians and regulators can stand up and say they "did something." When they block Facebook for streaming it live, then I'll be impressed.
- atorralb 8y agoThis. But we both know it will never happen.
- dymk 8y agoBecause it shouldn’t. Why let a terrorist organization not only get away with a shooting, but also get away with taking down any service (which removes content like this swiftly) too?
- reaperducer 8y agoHow do you define "swiftly?" I haven't been able to follow this as closely as I like, but what I read early on was that it was streaming on Facebook for 17 minutes, and then available as reposts for days afterward. If this is incorrect, help me out by providing the actual numbers.
- dymk 8y ago17 minutes to remove an offending stream, when literally millions of streams which are legitimate, sounds reasonable.
- CompanionCuuube 8y ago> available as reposts for days afterward
- dymk 8y agoGonna need a source on that. It’s impressive how fast they handled it when probably tens of thousands of people are reposting the content with the express intent to get around spam filters and avoid manual review. Should Aus block sms, WhatsApp, and iMessage because the content gets re-shared there too? Should they block Google because you can find links to the content there?
- atorralb 8y ago>video gets livestreamed on facebook >countries block 4chan makes total sense
- ourmandave 8y agoThe instance reminds me of the horrible ISIS beheading videos they used to publish. I don't remember what social platforms and governments did about those because I made it a point to avoid them so there was no chance of seeing the horror. Honestly, who needs the shit popping back in their head during any random moment?
- RobertRoberts 8y agoThe "first" beheading video (American contractor in orange jumpsuit in Iraq) was played on the monitors in the halls and public spaces at the local college for everyone on the campus to see. It seems that if the message is supported (attack a foreign country) the populace will put up with a lot. And it doesn't take anything (just words) to be censored if they disagree with you.
- identity-haver 8y agoJust a thought experiment: so it's after 9/11. Nobody will show a video of the planes flying into the towers. The only place you can watch the video is ISISchan.org, and there are news articles about how many countries banning ISISchan.org & how problematic ISISchan.org is (don't go to ISISchan.org, kids!). Now instead of watching a clip on CNN you've got people absorbing all the extremist propaganda on ISISchan.
- mooseburger 8y ago> ISISchan.org No need for that, 4chan is a free for all. It's where I saw most ISIS execution videos.
- samfriedman 8y agoI think this is really a different situation. The NZ video was made by the perpetrator as a vehicle to disseminate his views. 9/11 videos were made by bystanders as they watched their city being attacked. A better comparison would be videos produced by terrorist organizations which use 9/11 footage to promote their own views: that would be something I could see being argued for a ban.
- happytoexplain 8y agoI'd argue that the shooting video is much worse - psychologically, graphically, and in terms of inspiring others, since the act was so much easier than the extravagant plane attacks. For God's sake, it was a first person video of the murder of individual people, one by one, played for jokes by the murderer ("remove kebab"). I'm not saying it's right or wrong to ban host sites under certain conditions - I just think the analogy is just way too disparate to be viable.
- whymauri 8y agoThe New Zealand video is orders of magnitude more viscerally graphic than the famous videos of the planes flying into the towers. This is not to say one is more tragic than the other, just that the video for the NZ shooting may be one of the worst videos on the Internet. It would never be on CNN, so this comparison doesn't hold very strongly.
- 8y ago
- ars 8y agoI watched this "illegal" video. And not only do I think it should not be illegal, I think watching it should be almost mandatory! Package it with a safety curriculum, and people should watch it to know what to do. In particular: For the most part, those people in the video who ran, lived, those who tried to drop low, or froze up, died. (There were a couple of exceptions.) Additionally, one guy tried to attack the shooter and was killed. But it was just one guy, everyone else was too scared. If instead they had all attacked, some would have died, but not as many. (It sounds like I'm blaming them, I'm not.) There are a lot of safety lessons in that video, and people should watch it.
- Freak_NL 8y agoThe chances of being in such a situation are so incredibly small, that training to deal with it is a wasted effort compared to a host of other stuff — e.g., learning CPR, taking a course in safely driving in wintery conditions, employing elementary fire safety precautions in the house, etc. Even stimulating people to learn to swim if they haven't already saves way more lives! If you normalize an attack like this to the point that you start training the general populace for its (statistically unlikely) occurrence, you have effectively made terrorism in this form that much more effective.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nothal 8y agoI think the fact these attacks are happening regularly all over the world normalizes this already. The odds of you being the victim of a terror attack are low but honestly you don’t need a 15 minute course on tips. Make news distributors run a 2 minute clip on how to effectively maximize your odds of survival during every broadcast coverage of a mass shooting. I think it also changes the narrative in a would be perpetrators mind: if this is about power over others, to some extent others are now prepared to either flee or effectively attack a terrorist en masse.
- estebank 8y ago
- DigiMortal 8y agoCensorship is disgusting They'll take away freedom in an instant won't they? Censor it! Take the guns!
- dang 8y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
- DigiMortal 8y agoJust because it's not five paragraphs doesn't mean it doesn't have substance
- dang 8y agoThat's certainly true! But your GP comment wasn't substantive, and you've posted a bunch of other ones that have this same problem. We eventually ban accounts that keep doing that, so this would be good to fix. Fortunately you've also posted a bunch of fine comments, so it shouldn't be a problem.
- DigiMortal 8y agoWell I'll give your point that some of my comments may be short and lack substance. I'll add into more going forward
- DigiMortal 8y agoThey're arresting people for sharing the video This is fucked
- bryanlarsen 8y agoThey're arresting people for sharing the video along with encouraging comments. They aren't arresting journalists for showing clips. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre has always been illegal.
- nothal 8y agoAs I mentioned further up the thread, it was illegal for about 50 years in the US as a hypothetical but it’s no longer a legitimate legal standard. Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn’t illegal (at least, it isn’t not free speech). See Brandenburg v. Ohio and how it overruled the prior Schenk standard.
- bryanlarsen 8y agoToday's illegal speech must incite "imminent lawless action." It could be argued that sharing the video fails that standard. Probably wouldn't fly in the US, but we're not talking about the US.
- estebank 8y agoWould you hold a different view if this were people sharing an ISIS recruitment video? If so, why?
- DigiMortal 8y agoNo, share it all, let the information run free
- tombert 8y agoIt makes me sad how 4chan has largely been reduced to a place where racists and bigots and sexists hang out. When I was a teenager, it felt like the racists in /b/ were doing it ironically (maybe I was wrong?), but now it seems like a place to spout off white-nationalist nonsense, and whenever its called out the people fall back on "it's just a joke bro!"
- happytoexplain 8y agoYou're right, it used to be very non-political, irreverent, and highly offensive, as in offensive humor. Now there's a whole lot of very sincere religious/political/racial hatred.
- ooua 8y agoI also visited 4chan regularly in my teenage years, and this is the thing that jumps out at me. In the past, 4chan was a place where nothing was sacred and people who sincerely believed in anything were ruthlessly mocked. There were always the white nationalist types, but there were enough people making fun of them that it balanced out. That former group has disappeared, and 4chan has become the biggest echo chamber on the Internet. There are stretches of hours and thousands of posts where there isn't a single dissenting political opinion. The irreverence of 4chan was always the appeal. It has morphed into a lockstep belief system in a hero figure. What's the point of a website with anonymous posts and no rules if everyone is carefully agreeing with each other?
- Oribi 8y agoHow can you be ironically racist, and why is that better than racism?
- tombert 8y agoIn hindsight you are right, but I'll give you the mentality that 14-year-old-me had: Basically, the idea of being racist is so absurd, that by being ironically racist I'm poking fun at the racists, not the races. It's not a completely ridiculous notion (though it's abused heavily); satire is a common tactic for comedy. Clearly people go too far, and I don't think it's a good excuse to say "it's just satire".
- m23khan 8y agodespicable websites such as rotten.com and liveleak should also be banned -- they really mess up human brain. Some reddit subreddits are extremely graphic and twisted too.
- nothal 8y agoShould we maintain websites displaying photographic evidence of the holocaust? The Vietnam war? Combat footage from Iraq/Afganistan?
- m23khan 8y agothere is a difference -- platforms which show case human misery, violence, gore and carnage for sake of entertainment and/or profit making should be banned. Overall, even web search engines and ISPs need to be vigilant during indexing/hosting of websites and come up with some method of periodic review of websites being visited/hosted and tag them as appropriate or non appropriate. Somebody profiting from somebody's death or misery or injury is not cool and goes against the very grain of civility.
- shiado 8y agoIt's telling that they don't ban Facebook, the site which was actually used to stream it.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoWhat happens when a video of "something" bad happens, a person is put in jail immediately for that "something", but the video is "banned"? And "something" is not even reported on... This is a great tool for stifling opposing politics of _any_ kind. And seems like the easiest way to start an oppressive tyranny than a method of stopping terrorist propaganda. Psychos don't need videos like this. Just watch movies, there are many that are far worse than the New Zealand shooting videos... (and plenty have propaganda in them as well)
- erentz 8y agoYou’re making the same mistake everyone is making by assuming that the censor in this case is answerable to the Govt and can censor anything he/she likes or is told too. I understand because in the US system that is probably how it would work, it would be a federal agency, and the censor would be appointed by each new president and take his marching orders from the president. Your argument requires beforehand authoritarian capture of all branches of the NZ government to make sense. At which point the whole suggestion is moot.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoNo, I am viewing this as a general world-wide trend, censoring for _any_ reason you can get people to agree with first. Then, when people agree to censorship in general, they won't fight it when it get's really bad, mainly because they won't know it's happening. (consider China) The actual "really bad" results of this is years away still. But this is how freedom of speech is stripped away. Under the guise of safety, one tiny piece at a time. Would George Washington have fought the British if the British had succeeded is censoring every pamphlet? Would India have succeeded in escaping the power of Britain if Ghandi couldn't speak openly? If the cost of censorship is tyranny world wide, it's not worth it. We _need_ freedom of speech, even if it allows kooks the same platform, that is cost we should be willing to pay.
- erentz 8y agoYoure responding to a thread about the New Zealand mosque attacks and the Office of Film and Literatures classification of this video as objectionable and expressing concern that this can be used for political purposes to quell dissenting political opinions, which I have explained why that can’t be used that way in NZ and you’re mistaken in your understanding of how censorship works in NZ. Now you say you’re concerned about censorship as a concept generally in far away historical and authoritarian regimes. These things do not follow and your concern has no relation to this thread. It’s borderline bait.
- post_break 8y agoScary how an ISP can just up and decide to block a website for hosting what they think is offensive. I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. What's scarier are the people cheering this as if it's a win.
- Jerry2 8y ago>I guess it's the norm for China and Russia. I guess it's the norm in Australia and New Zealand now as well. And let's not forget that Sci-Hub has been blocked in a bunch of countries (including the US) and their domains have been taken away [1]. It looks to me that Australia, in particular, is the testing ground for FIVE EYES censorship efforts. Australia recently passed a draconian anti-encryption law [2] which will impact a number of multi-national companies. Other members of FIVE EYES are gauging the fallout from this and are probably waiting for some tragedy to strike before they can enact similar laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Legal_situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub#Legal_situation [2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130391/encryption-law-australia-global-impact https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/7/18130391/encryption-law-a...
- plugger 8y ago> It looks to me that Australia, in particular, is the testing ground for FIVE EYES censorship efforts. Australia recently passed a draconian anti-encryption law [2] which will impact a number of multi-national companies. Other members of FIVE EYES are gauging the fallout from this and are probably waiting for some tragedy to strike before they can enact similar laws. Australia doesn't have free speech in so far as the US does with the first amendment. Australia doesn't have a citizen Bill of Rights either. This combined with Australian's penchant for not taking risks does bode well for using it as a Five Eyes testing ground to remove what some would consider basic rights.
- fourier_mode 8y ago> what they think is offensive. This is not a a daily instance of "he says", "she says" offensiveness. This is an act of terror, and these platform served as a propaganda media which ought to stopped.
- vijaybritto 8y agoSo facebook live streamed the video and also gives the bad guys a massive platform. Will they be banned?
- rc_kas 8y agoI hate 4chan so much, its a diseased cesspool of morons. However, I hate the idea blocking them. Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Edit: Also, facebook pro-actively took down the video as soon as they became aware.
- krapp 8y ago>Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Is it really, though, or do people just like the slippery slope fallacy a bit too much? Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments tend to work.
- AckSyn 8y agoYou must not work for government, because once they have a foothold into socially and even legally dubious methods/ideas, they'll continue to encroach on rights and abilities like the zerg creep. Don't allow it to happen in the first place and it won't happen. History is rife with examples.
- rc_kas 8y agoIf Trump had the power to censor bad websites, think about how much effort he would currently be putting into censoring any website that talked about him badly. We should be glad he has no such power.
- erentz 8y agoNeeds to be noted, because a lot of people are very confused about this as you seem to be: The government cannot direct the rating and censoring of material in NZ. It’s an independent commission operating under the strict legislation that establishes it and checked by the judicial system. If NZ had a Trump he could not order anything to be censored. That’s not how it works. Like a lot of parliamentary systems, NZ agencies and commissions operate independently under the laws that establish them. In the US it’s very different, each new President comes in an appoints a huge number of positions that direct these agencies and those positions have tremendous political influence of them. Hence you can have a new EPA director appointed by someone like Trump who comes in expressly to cut down the EPA and who answers to Trump for his marching orders. This may be where some of this confusion comes from.
- sexydefinesher 8y agoI dont think the people here saying nazist ideology should be confronted in the public have actually used 4chan/8chan (anyone thats ever been there knows /pol/ isnt limited to /pol/). Its not a place of discourse but of propagation and fuels hate and dehumanization. Id encourage you to go there try out your debate theory.
- everdrive 8y agoAs a bit of an aside, has anyone noticed that 4chan is not using HTTPS lately? I assume it's due to the new ownership. Does anyone have more info?
- LinuxBender 8y agoDo you mean not enforcing it? You can use the addon "HTTPS Everywhere" to avoid going to port 80 by mistake.
- everdrive 8y agoWell, to be frank, what I really meant was "do you think the lack of HTTPS was intentional so nefarious actors could be passively identified." But, I didn't want to pose an allegation like that with so few facts.
- LinuxBender 8y agoThe boards have a code that is created per message that when used in conjunction with the thread id, can give the IP. HTTPS only prevents your ISP from seeing what you are seeing, but there are very few truly "anon" sites. To be semi-anon, one would have to sit near an open WiFi and use a unique MAC address and a browser that has never logged into Google. Most people won't make this effort.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoMaybe there is another reason this video is being banned. I saw this video, I made myself watch it. (judge me) Then I went back to my tv show. There were scenes of soldiers attacking the "heroes" in a bowling alley, and it made me horrified and sick. And I realized Hollywood is glorifying this shit. Hollywood is promoting shootings like this. An hour before, and this tv show was entertainment to me. Now I feel like a twisted sicko for enjoying violent entertainment just like what is in the New Zealand video. This video changed me, it made me see violence in a new light. It's sick to be entertained by re-enactments of this in the same way as the original.
- vricius 8y agoEven more disturbing is playing counter strike or another FPS after watching it. You're brain can look at the NZ shooting and a first person Counter Strike stream and it wouldn't interpret them any differently.
- computerex 8y agoIt's good that the ISP's decided to act on their own in this case, and they weren't ordered by the courts. But can't say I am a fan of this. Why participate in censorship? Once something is on the Internet, it's not gonna go away. It's trivial to get the shooting footage for those who want to see it. Censoring is a band aid at best. These tragedies happen because of an underlying problem. Address gun laws, address xenophobia. Those are the real problems. Censoring the footage is just going to create more curiosity. It is giving exclusivity to a killer. The act of censoring the footage is giving credence to the killer. Besides, I think there are legitimate uses of this footage. We live in a world where mass shootings are increasing. But there is no public awareness in countering these situations. I think at this point we should train students from a young age, and adults, on what to do if in an active shooter situation. The fact that this isn't done is incredibly scary to me. I personally saw the footage, so that I can potentially pick up things from it and potentially save my life if god forbid I end up in a situation like that. I am so incredibly saddened and frustrated by the lack of training for these situations in our society. With a proper response I think so many lives could have been saved. In this instance, killer went into the mosque and all the people formed 2 giant clumps/clusters around the 2 door exists on either side of the central entrance the killer entered from. Killer just unloaded on the right hand side cluster, then left hand side cluster. He faced practically zero opposition. One brave man successfully tackled him to the ground but by that time it was already too late. I understand that in a panic situation like that it's fight or flight and most people understandably lose their heads and try to flee, and it is very hard to coordinate a counter attack to something like this. But this is why I say we need to bring this type of training in schools and in our day to day lives. I know it's a morbid reality where such a thing is necessary but alas such is the reality right now. If everyone had rushed the killer instead of forming 2 giant convenient clusters for the killer to unload into, I think so many lives would have been saved.
- dmix 8y agoI thought we learned this was a bad idea with the whole movie + music industry the past decade?