10 ms·
New Zealand admits it has access to Facebook takedown portal to censor content
- vkou 4y agoAn argument has been made over the past few years that a free country has to be able to ban or censor a vector of foreign propaganda, in order to protect its freedom and democracy. It's a Pandora's box that cuts both ways.
- 2809 4y agoThe conspiracy nut vibes in that story (And frankly whole website) are off the chart.
- williamcotton 4y agoThe conspiracy nut vibes on this website are following the same trajectory…
- ohiovr 4y agoBlame JFK. It is really his fault. No one called anyone a conspiracy nut till he passed away.
- greenyoda 4y agoThe last paragraphs of the article discuss the U.S. government and California: > Most other governments haven’t admitted that they have access to these portals. However, last year The White House did admit that the United States (US) Surgeon General’s Office is flagging posts for Facebook to censor. > The Intercept’s report on this Facebook content takedown portal claimed that several other United States (US) government agencies have access to the portal, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). > Documents released as part of 2021 lawsuits suggest that the California Secretary of State’s Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC) also has access to the Facebook takedown portal and a similar type of portal on Twitter.
- totetsu 4y agoI’m sure Jacinda Ardern and her current government are being targeted internationally by hybrid warfare type disinformation techniques. My guess is that it’s a reaction to her being held up as an example of a young progressive woman in a position of power and getting through the beginning of Covid without to many deaths by relying on a functional social contract. Read a piece like this with a critical eye to what power struggles behind the scenes produced it. Also in the context of the mass murder in Christchurch live streamed on Facebook.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoSounds exactly like the kind of baseless conspiracy theory that would be made up to try to deflect criticism about authoritarian actions by a government.
- totetsu 4y agoI’m sorry but hacker news is not the correct place for serious discussion of NZ politics, please go to the Trademe forums or the Nzherald comments section.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoThere was no serious discussion of it, just some baseless conspiratorial rambling that I called out.
- abigail95 4y agoIt's a joke, it would be like discussing politics on craigslist.
- lostlogin 4y agoThere is evidence of funding coming in for some radical right groups. I’m not sure an instant dismissal is possible order, but the OP giving a link or two would have been helpful. This is what came to mind for me: https://www.webworm.co/p/fakenews2 https://www.webworm.co/p/fakenews2
- jpollock 4y agoNew Zealand has always had an official censor (Office of Film and Literature Classification [1]), responsible for what works are available in the country. They already have an internet filter which blocks access to certain domains/ip ranges/etc. [2] Of course they would require similar abilities once Facebook came to their notice by broadcasting a terrorist's murder spree. [3] It would have been "You are selling to New Zealanders. We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_Office_(New_Zealand) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_Office_(New_Zea... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
- Taniwha 4y agoIP filters don't really work for something like facebook or twitter though - they block everything or nothing - really you need to get them involved to limit what they send to NZ clients
- Thorrez 4y agoThat sounds like exactly what jpollock is saying. jpollock says New Zealand threatened to block everything.
- Taniwha 4y agoNo, he's talking about the ability to install an IP block for packets coming into NZ, not in other countries - in the past, as I understand it this has largly been used to black hole child porn sites
- jpollock 4y agoI'm talking about NZ's history of censorship, the tools that they already have for Internet censorship, and why the NZ government considered it important. The IP block is a tool. It is also able to intercept HTTP traffic for sub-domain blocks, but everything is https now, so that doesn't work. That leaves IP blocking, which I'm pretty sure NZ would have done if Facebook had refused to block content deemed illegal to import into NZ. NZ has blocked the importation of books and video going back to 1880 (according to Wikipedia)[1]. New Zealanders continue to decide to keep the Classification Office - none of the political parties consider it an "issue". It works for the kiwis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Ze...
- prawn 4y agoIs it really surprising that some users would have "pro tools" of some sort with major websites? Or an API? Like, the ability to batch-report content for review?
- zoklet-enjoyer 4y agoYes
- galaxyLogic 4y agoIt is not surprising. I think reporting is good, not a problem. Reporting is not censorship. Misinformation is an acute problem. Who better to fight against it than a democratically elected government? Who else is on people's side? Mega-corporations? Dictators? This reporting of mis-information should be transparent however. Reporting on misinformation should be made public. Of course.
- prawn 4y agoWould a government agency's filed reports be accessible via FOIA requests?
- galaxyLogic 4y agoThey should be accessible without FOIA requests
- Taniwha 4y agoSo NZ has laws that censor some content, and an official office of the censor that decides which things are illegal and which are not - for example the snuff film made by the Aussie terrorist in Christchurch is illegal in NZ, even though Elon has let it return to Twitter it's still illegal for Twitter (or Facebook) to show it in NZ. You may disagree with censorship, or with what should censored, but most western countries still have censorship laws and media companies need to honour them. If you disagree with the laws in your country, go out and change them, that's what democracy is all about. But you don't get to change other countries' laws. Companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc that want to provide international services need to actively honour ALL the laws in the countries that the operate in - those laws may be contradictory, if a movie can be shown in country A but not country B needs then they need to make sure that can't happen or else they are in legal peril - having a portal that a country can use to declare what is illegal in that country is probably a great idea, the alternative is for say Facebook having an employee who spends all their time monitoring the output of a country's censorship office. Such a portal can be abused, obviously we don't want governments just banning random stuff they don't like, rather than the process of an independent process like NZ's Censor's office, equally we probably don't want to publish the things that are being reported ("look over here, that's where all the child porn is"), I think this is a difficult are - perhaps we should make what's reported here open, but only in categories without giving URLs/details
- speeder 4y agoThe problem is such laws can, and will, be used to self-perpetuate. For example: In Brazil the constitution says you have free speech and the right to criticize government officials... Yet the judiciary branch, although often they rule it is free speech when someone criticize lawmaker, will happily say it is NOT free speech when someone criticize a judge. Cue most recent elections, not wanting to enter in the merits of who deserves to be president, but one obvious case of abuse of office happened when the supreme court ruled that a retired member of the court should be censored and that reporting any news about this subject should be censored too, all because that retired member explained the technical legal details of a past decision, and the supreme court decided that even though everything he said was factual, correct and true, it "could be used for misinformation" and thus should be censored.
- RustLove 4y agoThis is disturbing news about New Zealand's access to the Facebook takedown portal for censorship. It's alarming that the government has such direct control over what content is allowed on the platform and raises concerns about freedom of speech. This is yet another example of the need for more transparency and accountability in the relationship between tech companies and governments.
- lostlogin 4y agoDisturbing to some, and liked by others. I’m a New Zealander and fully support the blocking of that murderers content.
- LAC-Tech 4y agoI'm a New Zealander. I'm ok with the blocking of the video depicting the murders, I am not OK with the shooters manifesto being illegal to possess.
- abigail95 4y agoAlso from NZ. I would be wary of a government telling me that a horrible terrorist attack has taken place, that a video exists with clear evidence of who did it and why, but that I'm not allowed to view it or show it to others. I'm fine with facebook removing it.
- jimjimjim 4y agoWhy would you want to see it? How could viewing it improve your life? There are things in life you can't unsee. Like, really unsee. Awake at 3am can't unsee.
- laputan_machine 4y agoWhat an authoritarian statement. That isn't your decision to make.
- notlukesky 4y agoAll these companies have to be censorship platforms even if it does not make economic sense to them. Otherwise DC and the governing elite will crush them for not serving their interests and their close circle of “allies.” Bet that portal would be shut if New Zealand got close to China or strayed away from the party line.
- zug_zug 4y agoThis may sound defeatist or paranoid, but I heard from somebody that works at a relevant company that most countries have the ability to censor/tap all types of things based on their local laws which may be very self serving politically (e.g. India). I guess this isn't too surprising if you've followed the China/Apple thing.
- TapWaterBandit 4y agoI am starting to think that a middle ground in the censorship wars would be to have a publicly available domain that shows what exactly is being censored in that country that anyone can look at. So that way governments could still use these tools where appropriate (because sometimes there is a good reason for censorship) but journalists/lawyers/activists would still be able to see what is being censored with a little effort which would allow journalists to provide transparency. This could allow for government to still censor but keep the public's trust about how censorship is used.
- ImHereToVote 4y agoYeah, that defeats the purpose of censoring leftist news organizations. Ain't happening, the public must know in their hearts that censorship only affects the far right. Only then can they accept it.
- matkoniecz 4y ago> I am starting to think that a middle ground in the censorship wars would be to have a publicly available domain that shows what exactly is being censored in that country that anyone can look at. that is a bare minimum, but insufficient by itself
- koonsolo 4y agoI wonder if we need some kind of other independent institution for this. Like every proper democracy should have a separation of powers with: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. Maybe the "misinformation office" should follow some kind of law but isn't directly managed by politicians.
- influxmoment 4y agoWell that is exactly how central banks operate which is a funny example because it's clear recently they have been corrupted and play to politics
- TapWaterBandit 4y ago"Misinformation office" is dystopia sounding as hell. And would almost certainly end up just being "chief censor". I'd rather just have a public website available to anyone to view but updated through the normal channels. Last thing we need is another bureaucracy.
- jimjimjim 4y agoGood. Respect the laws of each country. Don't like it? change the law.
- nl 4y agoNote that this "takedown portal" is just a "flag content" portal. It doesn't mean Facebook automatically takes it down but does get immediate attention. This seems a reasonable compromise after the NZ experience with the Christchurch shooter where immediate action to take down the stream would have been appropriate.
- wesleywt 4y agoI hate to break it to HN. Governments always censored TV and Movie content. Perhaps it's time to grow up a little.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoI love that the author has previously written for these illustrious news sites. [0], [1] Given the overall tenor of the articles on reclaimthenet.org matches the others, would love to know who funds it. [0]: https://thewashingtonstandard.com https://thewashingtonstandard.com [1]: https://www.australiannationalreview.com https://www.australiannationalreview.com
- throwaway2037 4y agoI looked at both of those websites. Utterly dystopian. It feels like GPT is writing from an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative view point. This is the future, only now.
- _448 4y agoHere[0] is Meta's Nick Clegg telling Indian journalists that Meta does not take sides in politics. Looks like they provide tools to the ruling political parties to do what they want. This is a way for "possible deniability". [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkp2uQKDbHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkp2uQKDbHw
- that_guy_iain 4y agoI would be shocked if every country doesn't have access.
- my_city 4y agoBut,butI thought only China did censorship! The West doesnt do censorship, thats a thing chinese do! Im totally not racist! </Sarcasm>
- wdb 4y ago“ The OIA response didn’t detail how much content had been censored via this Facebook takedown portal.” Well, it was not part of the question so why should they disclose more details than necessary. Pointless sentence
- areyousure 4y agoIn case anyone was curious, the following was part of the request: > Please provide the number of Facebook posts your department has accessed through the portal, or at least an indication of the scope of interference.
- wdb 4y agoThe question was: “ Has the government, any division of the government, any member of the government, or any organisation acting on behalf of the government, ever had partner access to Facebook’s takedown portal previously found (since removed) at https://facebook.com/xtakedowns/login?” https://facebook.com/xtakedowns/login?”
- fche 4y agocensorship is fine, if it's of opinions i personally disapprove
- chinabot 4y agofacebook is NOT the Internet