4 ms·

Australian authorities claim the church stabbing video may incite reprisal attacks. Censoring is their attempt at behaviour modification of the few, at the expe

Australian authorities claim the church stabbing video may incite reprisal attacks. Censoring is their attempt at behaviour modification of the few, at the expense of the right to raw information for the many. They want a blindfold mechanism on a per-content basis for the entire internet, at the request of eKaren - the American ex-Twitter staffer whose highly paid job is to threaten Big Tech with takedown orders. The footage belongs to the church, it's not "extremist content". It's similar to security footage of any crime. Mainstream news in Australia routinely shows home invasion footage, road-rage, all kinds of incidents in prime time news. The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. That is what a healthy Australian community does. De-escalation with honest expression, not censoring or strong-arm threats to social media with pretentious power-play politics and "keeping people safe" rhetoric.

defrost 2y ago
Australian authorities assert, with receipts mind you, that the church stabbing video and the unchecked troll accounts on X-Twatter did incite a sustained reprisal riot. > The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. By the time the statement from the priest had made it was many hours after actual reprisal attacks that were stoked by false account on social media. The power of the lord did not apply retrochronologically in this instance. If you're going to comment then at least do so within the realm of actual events that took place in the real world.
- exodust 2y ago
  There were no reprisal attacks on places of worship connected to the attacker's faith. This is what the priest and everyone meant by reprisal. We're talking about the video, nothing more. Your argument is poor if you're bundling trolls and disinformation issues in order to strengthen your argument for censorship of a video. The video is factual. It happened. Regardless if the video existed or not, the hypothetical message: "our priest was stabbed by a terrorist, come to the church now"... would have had same outcome. You don't have receipts. All you have is authorities asserting that a 5 sec clip of crime in the community should be scrubbed from the internet because they say so. Because their idea of a "safe community" is a docile, uninformed and unaware community. The police literally said, "we are the source of truth" in their press conference. > "If you're going to comment..." Should I reach out to you before I comment in future with a summary of what I intend to post?
  - defrost 2y ago
    > in order to strengthen your argument for censorship of a video. I made no such argument. > You don't have receipts. There is extensive coverage of the mob riled up by social media surrounding the church and ripping up material to hurl in anger. You're correct that I personally don't have that footage. So what? > Should I reach out to you before I comment in future It'd be sufficient if you pause before posting before making claims that no attacks in reprise followed that at the church ...
    - exodust 2y ago
      > "...riled up by social media" By social media? Mobs have riled up for centuries, long before social media. We wouldn't blame the phone company for increased vulgar language, would we? Messages about the church incident would have spread regardless of any video. Videos are watched, copied, screen-grabbed, shared in seconds cross-platform. Why walk against the flowing river? Whack-a-mole content takedowns across the whole internet is a waste of time. The Sydney riots footage exposed the worst offenders attacking cops and cars. That was a few idiots out of many. Same for other unrest you alluded to, it would be a few dickheads. And since the Bishop said "don't retaliate", it did have effect, it hasn't blown up. His words were not a useless gesture. Cops made arrests and wider community is in agreement about the criminality of those riots. Social media helped find the offenders. Censorship played no part. A positive option is improving platform features like contextual notes & content warnings, controls for users to fine-tune their social media equalizer sliders. Crowd-sourced community responsibility, trusting the process of shared community information, is a value I will not give up because bratty politicians don't like mean things said about them on X.

defrost 2y ago

Australian authorities assert, with receipts mind you, that the church stabbing video and the unchecked troll accounts on X-Twatter did incite a sustained reprisal riot. > The priest who was stabbed made a clear statement forgiving his attacker and wants peace, no reprisals. It worked. By the time the statement from the priest had made it was many hours after actual reprisal attacks that were stoked by false account on social media. The power of the lord did not apply retrochronologically in this instance. If you're going to comment then at least do so within the realm of actual events that took place in the real world.

exodust 2y ago
There were no reprisal attacks on places of worship connected to the attacker's faith. This is what the priest and everyone meant by reprisal. We're talking about the video, nothing more. Your argument is poor if you're bundling trolls and disinformation issues in order to strengthen your argument for censorship of a video. The video is factual. It happened. Regardless if the video existed or not, the hypothetical message: "our priest was stabbed by a terrorist, come to the church now"... would have had same outcome. You don't have receipts. All you have is authorities asserting that a 5 sec clip of crime in the community should be scrubbed from the internet because they say so. Because their idea of a "safe community" is a docile, uninformed and unaware community. The police literally said, "we are the source of truth" in their press conference. > "If you're going to comment..." Should I reach out to you before I comment in future with a summary of what I intend to post?
- defrost 2y ago
  > in order to strengthen your argument for censorship of a video. I made no such argument. > You don't have receipts. There is extensive coverage of the mob riled up by social media surrounding the church and ripping up material to hurl in anger. You're correct that I personally don't have that footage. So what? > Should I reach out to you before I comment in future It'd be sufficient if you pause before posting before making claims that no attacks in reprise followed that at the church ...
  - exodust 2y ago
    > "...riled up by social media" By social media? Mobs have riled up for centuries, long before social media. We wouldn't blame the phone company for increased vulgar language, would we? Messages about the church incident would have spread regardless of any video. Videos are watched, copied, screen-grabbed, shared in seconds cross-platform. Why walk against the flowing river? Whack-a-mole content takedowns across the whole internet is a waste of time. The Sydney riots footage exposed the worst offenders attacking cops and cars. That was a few idiots out of many. Same for other unrest you alluded to, it would be a few dickheads. And since the Bishop said "don't retaliate", it did have effect, it hasn't blown up. His words were not a useless gesture. Cops made arrests and wider community is in agreement about the criminality of those riots. Social media helped find the offenders. Censorship played no part. A positive option is improving platform features like contextual notes & content warnings, controls for users to fine-tune their social media equalizer sliders. Crowd-sourced community responsibility, trusting the process of shared community information, is a value I will not give up because bratty politicians don't like mean things said about them on X.