9 ms·

The problem with censoring and banning the information outright (in the case of NZ) is that it gives power to the manifesto. So much of what Jacinda Ardern said

by jjcm 8y ago

The problem with censoring and banning the information outright (in the case of NZ) is that it gives power to the manifesto. So much of what Jacinda Ardern said after the shooting was about denying the person a platform: "We, in New Zealand, will give him nothing. Not even his name." "He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety, and that is why you will never hear me mention his name." And yet by the ISPs banning sites and with the New Zealand government classifying the manifesto as objectionable, they've done just that. They've told the people that the manifesto and the video are notorious by their decisions around it. They've put it on a pedestal and said, "this here holds power, and we should be scared of those who consume it".

tootahe45 8y ago
I think one of the core reasons they don't want people to read it is that in the aftermath they're doing everything he wanted and more.
- roca 8y ago
  Some of the things his manifesto says he wanted, like stricter gun control, are indeed happening. Others, like a cycle of revenge attacks, are not, at least not yet. Of course it would be unwise to believe that he told the truth about his aims in his manifesto. Even if we could figure out what he really wanted, figuring that out and then doing the opposite would not be a rational way to respond to an incident like this.
  - pryce 8y ago
    He wanted a the political left and right to fight over gun control. He didn't get that, at least not in NZ.
  - terryd 8y ago
    > Others, like a cycle of revenge attacks, are not, at least not yet. This is why censorship is so dangerous. I immediately thought of 3 attacks following NZ that could be interpreted as reprisals. I was completely unsurprised to see that no further details have been released in the week between then and now. We only know that the perpetrators were migrants from troubled parts of the world, and were already known to authorities - having developed criminal records since their arrival. A priest was stabbed in Canada, 3 people were killed in the Netherlands (3 more wounded), a bus in Italy with 52 children onboard was set ablaze. The spokesman for ISIS called for attacks after several months of radio silence, Erdoğan has been stirring his people up (which has historically resulted in violence). Were you unaware of these events, or do you consider them normal? If you were unaware of them, do you think that is a result of selective reporting? I can tell you that absolutely no in depth reporting has occurred - no effort beyond that of news wire copy-paste.
- telesilla 8y ago
  I read another powerful comment somewhere, to paraphrase: Who cares what he wanted, what his manifesto said. He isn't some wise person we look up to, he isn't a fortune teller. He's a sick person with a twisted view on our world. He doesn't get to say what our future looks like.
  - shard972 8y ago
    Well he does now because the NZ government is carrying it out.... So pointing out hes a lunatic only highlights the insanity of the NZ government.
XorNot 8y ago
No they haven't. What they're doing is preventing the spread of radicalization to vulnerable demographics. They're breaking up the ability of alt-right groups to try and rally around it. You don't get to shoot a bunch of people and have your manifesto spread far and wide. You get forgotten. And your manifesto gets banned. Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. As to the video: go extract release forms from the families of the victims in it if you want to see to see it. See if they're okay with the last terrified moments of their loved ones being distributed as and broadcast worldwide, and the government okaying the sharing of that. It would be illegal to go to a hospital and film people dying in bed without permission - and it would exact significant criminal and financial penalties if you did so. This is worse.
- jjcm 8y ago
  > You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the banning of the information. The banning itself gave it more attention, and realistically it wont stop those who want to find it from finding it. What I'd rather have seen was NZ focusing on the victims and the families. Drown out the manifesto with positivity. Focus the news cycle on the communities that have been affected; show them coming together and embracing each other. Make what is remembered not the shooter or their manifesto, but how the community responded.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - ignoramous 8y ago
    > That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. Pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and taking populist measures, so no surprises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already): 1. Weed out rouge elements (sadly, extensive surveillance is one way to achieve this, another would be with help of citizen-journalists/investigators) within the state, and secure immigration points 2. A focused task force to address internal threats and give them a degree of autonomy. 3. A memorial to immortalize the victims. 4. Govt mandated security at places of congregation of all sizes (malls, stations, places of worship, parks). Edit: /s
hodgesrm 8y ago
NZ's reaction seems pretty reasonable to me. They just had 50+ people brutally murdered. Their political and business leaders seem to be focused on preventing it from happening again. If you want to criticize their response I think you need to show how your proposal would prevent further radicalism. The people involved in the white power movement are dangerous if enough of them get together. That's essentially what happened in Germany in the 1920s.
- pryce 8y ago
  This white supremacist, terrorist massacre in NZ was livestreamed, I'm not aware of that ever happening before. What to do with this footage is in some sense uncharted territory. The video is a graphic video of a massacre and simultaneously propaganda produced by the perpetrator of that massacre. It is a peculiar idea that we as a society cannot legitimately decide that this footage is objectionable in the same way child porn is objectionable, and make it illegal to share it. It is not simply a deeply disturbing act being shown, it also shares with child pornography the property that the footage that could not have been produced without devastating harm to the people involved. The manifesto I feel less strongly about; I read it myself but would never watch the video.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > the same way child porn is objectionable I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to arguments made by organisations like NAMBLA. It's easy to find these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 This whole thread is fucked up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 A bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 There are literally hundreds of comments on HN from a range of accounts defending the posession of images of child sexual abuse.
FooHentai 8y ago
What's interesting is that it really hasn't lent any power or mysticism to either the words, actions, or being of the perpetrator. Nobody's talking about them, their ideals, their actions. All focus is on the victims. It's been far more effective, and without any apparent downsides, than I expected.
steanne 8y ago
it actually seems pretty effective. i don't know his name. i'm sure i've come across it once or twice in reports on the event, but not enough times for it to actually stick.
- ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
  I was thinking about I can’t remember his name earlier. I think that is a fantastic outcome.
peterashford 8y ago
The NZ government did not censor the manifesto. The Chief Censor is independent from government. Likewise, they don't control the ISPs.

by jjcm 8y ago

tootahe45 8y ago

I think one of the core reasons they don't want people to read it is that in the aftermath they're doing everything he wanted and more.

roca 8y ago
Some of the things his manifesto says he wanted, like stricter gun control, are indeed happening. Others, like a cycle of revenge attacks, are not, at least not yet. Of course it would be unwise to believe that he told the truth about his aims in his manifesto. Even if we could figure out what he really wanted, figuring that out and then doing the opposite would not be a rational way to respond to an incident like this.
- pryce 8y ago
  He wanted a the political left and right to fight over gun control. He didn't get that, at least not in NZ.
- terryd 8y ago
  > Others, like a cycle of revenge attacks, are not, at least not yet. This is why censorship is so dangerous. I immediately thought of 3 attacks following NZ that could be interpreted as reprisals. I was completely unsurprised to see that no further details have been released in the week between then and now. We only know that the perpetrators were migrants from troubled parts of the world, and were already known to authorities - having developed criminal records since their arrival. A priest was stabbed in Canada, 3 people were killed in the Netherlands (3 more wounded), a bus in Italy with 52 children onboard was set ablaze. The spokesman for ISIS called for attacks after several months of radio silence, Erdoğan has been stirring his people up (which has historically resulted in violence). Were you unaware of these events, or do you consider them normal? If you were unaware of them, do you think that is a result of selective reporting? I can tell you that absolutely no in depth reporting has occurred - no effort beyond that of news wire copy-paste.
telesilla 8y ago
I read another powerful comment somewhere, to paraphrase: Who cares what he wanted, what his manifesto said. He isn't some wise person we look up to, he isn't a fortune teller. He's a sick person with a twisted view on our world. He doesn't get to say what our future looks like.
- shard972 8y ago
  Well he does now because the NZ government is carrying it out.... So pointing out hes a lunatic only highlights the insanity of the NZ government.

XorNot 8y ago

No they haven't. What they're doing is preventing the spread of radicalization to vulnerable demographics. They're breaking up the ability of alt-right groups to try and rally around it. You don't get to shoot a bunch of people and have your manifesto spread far and wide. You get forgotten. And your manifesto gets banned. Because who cares what you had to say - it's irrelevant. As to the video: go extract release forms from the families of the victims in it if you want to see to see it. See if they're okay with the last terrified moments of their loved ones being distributed as and broadcast worldwide, and the government okaying the sharing of that. It would be illegal to go to a hospital and film people dying in bed without permission - and it would exact significant criminal and financial penalties if you did so. This is worse.

jjcm 8y ago
> You get forgotten That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. We see Tiananmen Square pop up all the time not because of its major historical significance, but because of the attempts by certain governments to censor it. There are better ways to forget something collectively as a culture. Right now if you google "New Zealand shooting", half of the articles are about the banning of the information. The banning itself gave it more attention, and realistically it wont stop those who want to find it from finding it. What I'd rather have seen was NZ focusing on the victims and the families. Drown out the manifesto with positivity. Focus the news cycle on the communities that have been affected; show them coming together and embracing each other. Make what is remembered not the shooter or their manifesto, but how the community responded.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ignoramous 8y ago
  > That's the thing though - as long as something is banned, it doesn't stay forgotten. Pretty much this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, govt (democratic ones, esp) are notorious for being short-sighted and taking populist measures, so no surprises here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses Imo, what the govt should considering doing (if they haven't already): 1. Weed out rouge elements (sadly, extensive surveillance is one way to achieve this, another would be with help of citizen-journalists/investigators) within the state, and secure immigration points 2. A focused task force to address internal threats and give them a degree of autonomy. 3. A memorial to immortalize the victims. 4. Govt mandated security at places of congregation of all sizes (malls, stations, places of worship, parks). Edit: /s

hodgesrm 8y ago

NZ's reaction seems pretty reasonable to me. They just had 50+ people brutally murdered. Their political and business leaders seem to be focused on preventing it from happening again. If you want to criticize their response I think you need to show how your proposal would prevent further radicalism. The people involved in the white power movement are dangerous if enough of them get together. That's essentially what happened in Germany in the 1920s.

pryce 8y ago
This white supremacist, terrorist massacre in NZ was livestreamed, I'm not aware of that ever happening before. What to do with this footage is in some sense uncharted territory. The video is a graphic video of a massacre and simultaneously propaganda produced by the perpetrator of that massacre. It is a peculiar idea that we as a society cannot legitimately decide that this footage is objectionable in the same way child porn is objectionable, and make it illegal to share it. It is not simply a deeply disturbing act being shown, it also shares with child pornography the property that the footage that could not have been produced without devastating harm to the people involved. The manifesto I feel less strongly about; I read it myself but would never watch the video.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > the same way child porn is objectionable I agree with you, but a disturbing number of people on HN think that images of child sexual abuse should not be illegal.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    It's weird that this got downvoted, because in every thread about images of child sexual abuse there's always one or two people, and usually different accounts, saying exactly this. They'll claim that it's ridiculous to outlaw a series of bits, or that the abuse has already happened and so how can these children still be affected by the images. A bunch of arguments are very similar (perhaps unknowingly so) to arguments made by organisations like NAMBLA. It's easy to find these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782697 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486398#5487425 This whole thread is fucked up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5825087 A bunch of comments in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4495914#4497226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736545 There are literally hundreds of comments on HN from a range of accounts defending the posession of images of child sexual abuse.

FooHentai 8y ago

What's interesting is that it really hasn't lent any power or mysticism to either the words, actions, or being of the perpetrator. Nobody's talking about them, their ideals, their actions. All focus is on the victims. It's been far more effective, and without any apparent downsides, than I expected.

steanne 8y ago

it actually seems pretty effective. i don't know his name. i'm sure i've come across it once or twice in reports on the event, but not enough times for it to actually stick.

ElCapitanMarkla 8y ago
I was thinking about I can’t remember his name earlier. I think that is a fantastic outcome.

peterashford 8y ago

The NZ government did not censor the manifesto. The Chief Censor is independent from government. Likewise, they don't control the ISPs.