5 ms·

I wonder if Facebook Twitter etc. banning violent and bloody content has prevented the public from protesting these things more widely. It is well known that TV

I wonder if Facebook Twitter etc. banning violent and bloody content has prevented the public from protesting these things more widely. It is well known that TV broadcasts of Vietnam led to outrage growing against that war.

baybal2 5y ago
Indeed it was. It is a potent infoweapon. Israel tried hard to prevent release of news coverage with blown to bits Palestinian children on every silly pretext, including "gory content." Yet, when it were blown to bits Israeli children from bombings, they were all over CNN. The world's outrage is clearly not poweless.
- poisonarena 5y ago
  Israeli media and the state doesn't release gory pictures of their dead children from terrorist attacks for propaganda, out of respect for their citizens. Palestinian Media and Hamas have absolutely no problem releasing footage of dead children to manipulate you on the other hand, no matter how out of context, old, fake, or even children they accidentally killed with failed rockets. They know you want to root for the underdog!
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Israeli media and the state doesn't release gory pictures of their dead children from terrorist attacks for propaganda, out of respect for their citizens. Please, I want to be proven wrong here
    - poisonarena 5y ago
      They don't, they dont show it on tv or print or news websites.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  Conversely, in more than a few asymmetric conflicts around the world, the weaker side would often parade around footage of dead children. Often carried in the arms of a weeping parent, with their tears making very visible streaks down the concrete dust on their face. Later, we'd find out that the "parent" was a soldier that found a dead kid in the nearby morgue or hospital for the photo-op. Or that the video clip was from three years ago, when a building collapsed due to shoddy construction. NOTE: I'm certainly not saying that powerful countries aren't responsible for lots and lots of children being killed, because they most certainly are, and in huge, horrifying numbers. Instead I simply ask that we don't pretend that the lies and propaganda are perpetrated only by one of the sides involved.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    > not saying that powerful countries aren't responsible No, but you're making their apology, nonetheless.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Where is he apologizing for anything? He's pointing out that "look at atrocity X" where X is fabricated or at least not what it's purported to be is a propaganda technique as old as time.
      - coliveira 5y ago
        The apology is exactly there, to suggest that every or most atrocities committed by powerful countries is nothing more than a fabrication.
Nursie 5y ago
Did they broadcast violent and bloody content from there? Genuine question. The downside to fb/Twitter etc allowing bloody/violent content would be that you’d get gore trolls and it would turn into /b
- baybal2 5y ago
  They did. Facebook, and Twiter both have plenty of it. The enforcement is obviously very selective. The selective enforcement is much harder to prove than selective endorsement, and much sneakier at influencing the public opinion.
  - pindab0ter 5y ago
    What’s “Fbtw”?
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  Downside for the Twitter/FB stockholders, for sure. Downside for everyone else? In the short term, also yes. In the long term, total upside as we all log out due to said gore trolls.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  They could just close the comments for violent content that should be seen and let the still valuable testimony sink in a respectful silence.
cheschire 5y ago
Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large, if not more so. Journalism finds a way, like internet, and genetically modified dinosaurs.
- quietbritishjim 5y ago
  > Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large That is the parent comment's point: there was more graphic coverage of the Vietnam available to a typical viewer, so the feeling against it was stronger.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    And then they had to criminalize drugs to have a publicly accepted reason to violently suppress the protests.
- pjc50 5y ago
  The Iraq/Afghanistan war protests were large at the start, tapered off, and became a non-issue after a few years. Especially in the middle when we were "winning". Few care about the cost to Afghans. The cost to Westerners has been fairly well hidden from discussion.
Laremere 5y ago
In a similar vein, I wonder if medical privacy laws are hurting us in this pandemic. If every time the hospitals filled up with patients, camera crews went through and documented all of the people suffering and dying, would those who aren't taking the pandemic seriously have their mind swayed? Obviously those medical privacy laws exist for a reason, but perhaps there should be more effort to ethically document suffering? In both cases, as much as I like to think facts are what sway my opinion, an emotional connection is far likelier to motivate action.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- higherup 5y ago
  In a similar vein, they can cover vaccine injury victims as well, might make people consider vaccine injuries seriously as well..But no. Watch this comment getting downvoted, if not flagged before that.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8
- EMM_386 5y ago
  There are many documentary videos inside ERs during the pandemic. They blur the faces of everyone who has not consented to be on camera. In one I recently saw, they interview some very sick patients. They have to use walkie-talkies to speak to them from outside the room. Some of them are having a lot of trouble breathing but still say they don't regret getting the vaccine as they don't trust it. Videos like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2J8zRftJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2J8zRftJE This particular one is closer to the start of the pandemic but there are numerous others.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Wow, the comments on that video. We are just so clueless.
Bayart 5y ago
That form of sanitization came from traditional media and civil society.
cm2187 5y ago
The mandatory draft probably did more than the coverage.
kypro 5y ago
Some of the horrific things I've seen on sites like 4Chan are IMO one of the reasons I'm so empathic and concerned about stuff like this. A few months ago now I saw a really horrific murder there and it messed me up for weeks. I was visibly distant that night I watch it and my girlfriend asked me what was wrong. When I tried to explain I realised there were just no words I could use to invoke a similar emotional response or concern about what occurred. The 9/11 attacks were awful, but I think part of the reason there was such a strong emotional response was simply because for the most part the media showed us exactly what happened. We saw people dead and others desperately trying to escape. We saw the sacrifices emergency responders had to make. We heard from the heartbroken parents who would never see their child again... So yeah, I think you're right, and I'd even go further to say I think it's probably a duty to watch content like this and does us a disservice when the media sanitises terror attacks (such as the ones which have happened in Europe more recently) when they report on them. As awful as it sounds you need to see parents looking at their now deceased and blooded child to even begin to understand the unbelievable suffering involved in these events. Whenever someone says to me something like "terror attacks aren't a big problems, it's just x number of deaths" you know they're saying that because they're getting sanitised information from the media because that isn't a possible any feeling human could have if they saw the suffering involved. I know a similar unemotional rationales are used in support of drone strikes, and I accept the arguments for against their use are complex, but at the very least there needs to be far more caution and accountability. If there is one thing videos of drone strikes have shown me is that there is currently a total disregard for the loss of innocent human lives by people who know there will be zero consequences for their actions.

baybal2 5y ago

Indeed it was. It is a potent infoweapon. Israel tried hard to prevent release of news coverage with blown to bits Palestinian children on every silly pretext, including "gory content." Yet, when it were blown to bits Israeli children from bombings, they were all over CNN. The world's outrage is clearly not poweless.

poisonarena 5y ago
Israeli media and the state doesn't release gory pictures of their dead children from terrorist attacks for propaganda, out of respect for their citizens. Palestinian Media and Hamas have absolutely no problem releasing footage of dead children to manipulate you on the other hand, no matter how out of context, old, fake, or even children they accidentally killed with failed rockets. They know you want to root for the underdog!
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Israeli media and the state doesn't release gory pictures of their dead children from terrorist attacks for propaganda, out of respect for their citizens. Please, I want to be proven wrong here
  - poisonarena 5y ago
    They don't, they dont show it on tv or print or news websites.
jiggawatts 5y ago
Conversely, in more than a few asymmetric conflicts around the world, the weaker side would often parade around footage of dead children. Often carried in the arms of a weeping parent, with their tears making very visible streaks down the concrete dust on their face. Later, we'd find out that the "parent" was a soldier that found a dead kid in the nearby morgue or hospital for the photo-op. Or that the video clip was from three years ago, when a building collapsed due to shoddy construction. NOTE: I'm certainly not saying that powerful countries aren't responsible for lots and lots of children being killed, because they most certainly are, and in huge, horrifying numbers. Instead I simply ask that we don't pretend that the lies and propaganda are perpetrated only by one of the sides involved.
- coliveira 5y ago
  > not saying that powerful countries aren't responsible No, but you're making their apology, nonetheless.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Where is he apologizing for anything? He's pointing out that "look at atrocity X" where X is fabricated or at least not what it's purported to be is a propaganda technique as old as time.
    - coliveira 5y ago
      The apology is exactly there, to suggest that every or most atrocities committed by powerful countries is nothing more than a fabrication.

Nursie 5y ago

Did they broadcast violent and bloody content from there? Genuine question. The downside to fb/Twitter etc allowing bloody/violent content would be that you’d get gore trolls and it would turn into /b

baybal2 5y ago
They did. Facebook, and Twiter both have plenty of it. The enforcement is obviously very selective. The selective enforcement is much harder to prove than selective endorsement, and much sneakier at influencing the public opinion.
- pindab0ter 5y ago
  What’s “Fbtw”?
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
Downside for the Twitter/FB stockholders, for sure. Downside for everyone else? In the short term, also yes. In the long term, total upside as we all log out due to said gore trolls.
pvaldes 5y ago
They could just close the comments for violent content that should be seen and let the still valuable testimony sink in a respectful silence.

cheschire 5y ago

Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large, if not more so. Journalism finds a way, like internet, and genetically modified dinosaurs.

quietbritishjim 5y ago
> Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large That is the parent comment's point: there was more graphic coverage of the Vietnam available to a typical viewer, so the feeling against it was stronger.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  And then they had to criminalize drugs to have a publicly accepted reason to violently suppress the protests.
pjc50 5y ago
The Iraq/Afghanistan war protests were large at the start, tapered off, and became a non-issue after a few years. Especially in the middle when we were "winning". Few care about the cost to Afghans. The cost to Westerners has been fairly well hidden from discussion.

Laremere 5y ago

In a similar vein, I wonder if medical privacy laws are hurting us in this pandemic. If every time the hospitals filled up with patients, camera crews went through and documented all of the people suffering and dying, would those who aren't taking the pandemic seriously have their mind swayed? Obviously those medical privacy laws exist for a reason, but perhaps there should be more effort to ethically document suffering? In both cases, as much as I like to think facts are what sway my opinion, an emotional connection is far likelier to motivate action.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
higherup 5y ago
In a similar vein, they can cover vaccine injury victims as well, might make people consider vaccine injuries seriously as well..But no. Watch this comment getting downvoted, if not flagged before that.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8
EMM_386 5y ago
There are many documentary videos inside ERs during the pandemic. They blur the faces of everyone who has not consented to be on camera. In one I recently saw, they interview some very sick patients. They have to use walkie-talkies to speak to them from outside the room. Some of them are having a lot of trouble breathing but still say they don't regret getting the vaccine as they don't trust it. Videos like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2J8zRftJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2J8zRftJE This particular one is closer to the start of the pandemic but there are numerous others.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Wow, the comments on that video. We are just so clueless.

Bayart 5y ago

That form of sanitization came from traditional media and civil society.

cm2187 5y ago

The mandatory draft probably did more than the coverage.

kypro 5y ago

Some of the horrific things I've seen on sites like 4Chan are IMO one of the reasons I'm so empathic and concerned about stuff like this. A few months ago now I saw a really horrific murder there and it messed me up for weeks. I was visibly distant that night I watch it and my girlfriend asked me what was wrong. When I tried to explain I realised there were just no words I could use to invoke a similar emotional response or concern about what occurred. The 9/11 attacks were awful, but I think part of the reason there was such a strong emotional response was simply because for the most part the media showed us exactly what happened. We saw people dead and others desperately trying to escape. We saw the sacrifices emergency responders had to make. We heard from the heartbroken parents who would never see their child again... So yeah, I think you're right, and I'd even go further to say I think it's probably a duty to watch content like this and does us a disservice when the media sanitises terror attacks (such as the ones which have happened in Europe more recently) when they report on them. As awful as it sounds you need to see parents looking at their now deceased and blooded child to even begin to understand the unbelievable suffering involved in these events. Whenever someone says to me something like "terror attacks aren't a big problems, it's just x number of deaths" you know they're saying that because they're getting sanitised information from the media because that isn't a possible any feeling human could have if they saw the suffering involved. I know a similar unemotional rationales are used in support of drone strikes, and I accept the arguments for against their use are complex, but at the very least there needs to be far more caution and accountability. If there is one thing videos of drone strikes have shown me is that there is currently a total disregard for the loss of innocent human lives by people who know there will be zero consequences for their actions.