4 ms·
This is an interesting point. While newspapers would sometimes publish graphic images to show the reality on the ground during war, on social media gore is stri
by tsol 5y ago
This is an interesting point. While newspapers would sometimes publish graphic images to show the reality on the ground during war, on social media gore is strictly not allowed. Even if there were recordings of awful war crimes being committed, would they be able to be shared freely? I imagine it'd be one of those times where you see a link reading "X soldiers committing heinous war crimes", click the link, and are met with "Sorry! This post has been removed for violating community guidelines". If your lucky someone will have linked a mirror in the comments section, but oftentimes that comment gets deleted rather quickly too. I don't know if any social media platform wants to be the associated with pictures of shocking traumatic acts of war.
- avereveard 5y agoIt's not an hypothetical, WWII historical content has been systematically epurated last five years.
- Lascaille 5y ago>It's not an hypothetical, WWII historical content has been systematically epurated last five years. Try and find a copy of the 'Horst Wessel lied' on YouTube any more, for example. Or 'Triumph of the Will.'
- seanw444 5y agoIt's truly a shame that LiveLeak got shut down. It would have been perfect for this conflict.