4 ms·

Has it been argued that Facebook didn't act quickly enough to shut down the Christchurch stream and remove copies of the video posted that weekend? I thought th

Has it been argued that Facebook didn't act quickly enough to shut down the Christchurch stream and remove copies of the video posted that weekend? I thought the consensus was that they responded as well as could reasonably be expected.

watson_ian 8y ago
On Australian radio - yes. 'It took Facebook 29 minutes to realise the content was there' and then another 30 minutes to take it down after being reported. It was first reported ~14 minutes in. This hour lapse is why the video was so widely shared. In the Australian publics mind, as the perp was our citizen, we have a lot to answer for. The livestream was purely to broadcast to his own people (see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon), so the concept here is removing the platform that provides an incentive - in this situation - to do the deed. Since the guy thrives on being noticed, NZ has actually barered photographs of him unpixalted from the 1st appearance in court. Today they announced total bans on photos and videos until further notice of him at the trial. Bit of a long winded answer, but this is the link that a lot of the foreign commentary is missing. While the reach is wide of the legislation, there is no 'what about before the internet existed?' claims on how this tech makes things better. It was also considered when people used facebook live for suicide broadcasting.
- easymodex 8y ago
  >see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon Those names were actually the names of terrorist victims in recent attacks. I thought that was the case but I'm not 100% sure though, can't really check or find any source.
  - theobeers 8y ago
    It was a mixture of things, including other killers like Alexandre Bissonnette, victims like Ebba Åkerlund, historical events like the 1683 Battle of Vienna, memes like "Crab Rave," etc.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The reason why it was so widely shared is because he posted the link to his live stream to 8chan. It was virtually guaranteed to be recorded and disseminated from there, regardless of how long it stayed up after. Given the amount of content posted on FB, 30 minutes from being reported to being reviewed doesn't strike me as unreasonably long. I mean, it's comparable to police response times, and in those cases, minutes can literally mean human lives.
  - watson_ian 8y ago
    I actually agree - I thought a one hour turn around time was not bad. But it actually involved people calling Facebook to make them aware. But also the point it was posted to 8chan is thier point as well. He wouldn't have been able to do that if it was detected quicker, is that deterrant (considering he was caught) enough to potentially make the perp 2nd guess his actions? Of course the counter argument is simple - never stopped anyone before either. There is an element of best of both worlds here. We want the tech to be able to distinguish a unique horror and prevent in ASAP but everything else should be OK. I totally get the counter arguments why people are strongly dissenting of this law and everything it stands for. The best counter argument I heard yesterday was media. Why can TV show graphic details with a warning, but essentially now online journalism will only be able to write up text articles until someone takes the time to fine tune this legislation. There are so many unintended consequences being raised because it was a 3 day hatchet job of legislation and the process of doing this needs to stop. Edit: I want to add, I personally believed this was a reining in the internet type of bill that had been speculated with recently. Now that I have heard industry bodies domestically speak about it, the intention of the law I still kind of agree with to an extent. The way it is written (and the gaps it has), how it is solidified and the way it came about is totally not OK.

watson_ian 8y ago

On Australian radio - yes. 'It took Facebook 29 minutes to realise the content was there' and then another 30 minutes to take it down after being reported. It was first reported ~14 minutes in. This hour lapse is why the video was so widely shared. In the Australian publics mind, as the perp was our citizen, we have a lot to answer for. The livestream was purely to broadcast to his own people (see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon), so the concept here is removing the platform that provides an incentive - in this situation - to do the deed. Since the guy thrives on being noticed, NZ has actually barered photographs of him unpixalted from the 1st appearance in court. Today they announced total bans on photos and videos until further notice of him at the trial. Bit of a long winded answer, but this is the link that a lot of the foreign commentary is missing. While the reach is wide of the legislation, there is no 'what about before the internet existed?' claims on how this tech makes things better. It was also considered when people used facebook live for suicide broadcasting.

easymodex 8y ago
>see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon Those names were actually the names of terrorist victims in recent attacks. I thought that was the case but I'm not 100% sure though, can't really check or find any source.
- theobeers 8y ago
  It was a mixture of things, including other killers like Alexandre Bissonnette, victims like Ebba Åkerlund, historical events like the 1683 Battle of Vienna, memes like "Crab Rave," etc.
int_19h 8y ago
The reason why it was so widely shared is because he posted the link to his live stream to 8chan. It was virtually guaranteed to be recorded and disseminated from there, regardless of how long it stayed up after. Given the amount of content posted on FB, 30 minutes from being reported to being reviewed doesn't strike me as unreasonably long. I mean, it's comparable to police response times, and in those cases, minutes can literally mean human lives.
- watson_ian 8y ago
  I actually agree - I thought a one hour turn around time was not bad. But it actually involved people calling Facebook to make them aware. But also the point it was posted to 8chan is thier point as well. He wouldn't have been able to do that if it was detected quicker, is that deterrant (considering he was caught) enough to potentially make the perp 2nd guess his actions? Of course the counter argument is simple - never stopped anyone before either. There is an element of best of both worlds here. We want the tech to be able to distinguish a unique horror and prevent in ASAP but everything else should be OK. I totally get the counter arguments why people are strongly dissenting of this law and everything it stands for. The best counter argument I heard yesterday was media. Why can TV show graphic details with a warning, but essentially now online journalism will only be able to write up text articles until someone takes the time to fine tune this legislation. There are so many unintended consequences being raised because it was a 3 day hatchet job of legislation and the process of doing this needs to stop. Edit: I want to add, I personally believed this was a reining in the internet type of bill that had been speculated with recently. Now that I have heard industry bodies domestically speak about it, the intention of the law I still kind of agree with to an extent. The way it is written (and the gaps it has), how it is solidified and the way it came about is totally not OK.