Censorship and the Mosque Shooting



  • [edit - split from the main thread]

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Who is they?

    I covered that too. I find this works better if you read the post.

    Why should speech on the internet be different to that in real life?

    Largely it's not, but anonymity can permit people to proffer ideas that are unpopular and make criticism of officials and policy without fear of retribution.



  • @antipodean said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Who is they?

    I covered that too. I find this works better if you read the post.

    Abbott? Governement? Police? Elected officials? I'm asking you to elaborate more on exactly what you think could happen.

    I find this works better when you spend more time elaborating on your points when challenged, and less time being an arse.

    Why should speech on the internet be different to that in real life?

    Largely it's not, but anonymity can permit people to proffer ideas that are unpopular and make criticism of officials and policy without fear of retribution.

    I don't disagree, but by and large this is not what anonymity is used for on the internet.



  • @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @antipodean said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Well Abbott wants to make it so that you can't use the Internet anonymously. Bit of an overreaction and a considerable leap down the path of 1984. Once they know who you are, they can visit and advise your opinions aren't correct.

    Particularly if you're scathing of elected officials or imbecilic public servants.

    You can say what you like, you just have to be prepared to reap the consequences of what you say. I’ve long thought twitter would be somewhat better platform if everybody required a blue tick.

    I see the merit in this if moderation was fair..but if current social media moderation is anything to go by then this is extremely unlikely. Gab would probably be as close to 'fair' as possible as they base their policies on the US constitution..but then again they are branded as the 'nazi' social media network.

    As a very recent example I've just now received a call from my brother, a certain social justice activist and part-time opinion writer cousin of mine has apparently been informing his thousands of twitter followers that I'm a white supremacist in the wake of this terrorist attack. Not a blue checkmark but he is relatively well known so could get one. It doesn't take much to make this a very dangerous game if people take what he says without question.



  • @Rembrandt said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @antipodean said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Well Abbott wants to make it so that you can't use the Internet anonymously. Bit of an overreaction and a considerable leap down the path of 1984. Once they know who you are, they can visit and advise your opinions aren't correct.

    Particularly if you're scathing of elected officials or imbecilic public servants.

    You can say what you like, you just have to be prepared to reap the consequences of what you say. I’ve long thought twitter would be somewhat better platform if everybody required a blue tick.

    I see the merit in this if moderation was fair..but if current social media moderation is anything to go by then this is extremely unlikely. Gab would probably be as close to 'fair' as possible as they base their policies on the US constitution..but then again they are branded as the 'nazi' social media network.

    As a very recent example I've just now received a call from my brother, a certain social justice activist and part-time opinion writer cousin of mine has apparently been informing his thousands of twitter followers that I'm a white supremacist in the wake of this terrorist attack. Not a blue checkmark but he is relatively well known so could get one. It doesn't take much to make this a very dangerous game if people take what he says without question.

    Maybe a strongly worded letter from a lawyer using words like defamation might be in order?



  • @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @antipodean said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Who is they?

    I covered that too. I find this works better if you read the post.

    Abbott? Governement? Police? Elected officials?

    elected officials or imbecilic public servants.

    I'm asking you to elaborate more on exactly what you think could happen.

    What or who? There are plenty of examples of British police wasting everyone's time looking into hurt feelings and nasty words in the British Politics thread. A job made immeasurably easier for them when your name is applied against all your commentary. Particularly if you make the mistake of saying the wrong thing about a political matter in a sporting forum.

    I find this works better when you spend more time elaborating on your points when challenged, and less time being an arse.

    Clearly I'm not very bright, so if you could be more specific, it would be of immense assistance.

    Why should speech on the internet be different to that in real life?

    Largely it's not, but anonymity can permit people to proffer ideas that are unpopular and make criticism of officials and policy without fear of retribution.

    I don't disagree, but by and large this is not what anonymity is used for on the internet.

    No, that's porn, cat videos and commerce. Still not a reason to change IMO.



  • @Kirwan said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @Rembrandt said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @antipodean said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Well Abbott wants to make it so that you can't use the Internet anonymously. Bit of an overreaction and a considerable leap down the path of 1984. Once they know who you are, they can visit and advise your opinions aren't correct.

    Particularly if you're scathing of elected officials or imbecilic public servants.

    You can say what you like, you just have to be prepared to reap the consequences of what you say. I’ve long thought twitter would be somewhat better platform if everybody required a blue tick.

    I see the merit in this if moderation was fair..but if current social media moderation is anything to go by then this is extremely unlikely. Gab would probably be as close to 'fair' as possible as they base their policies on the US constitution..but then again they are branded as the 'nazi' social media network.

    As a very recent example I've just now received a call from my brother, a certain social justice activist and part-time opinion writer cousin of mine has apparently been informing his thousands of twitter followers that I'm a white supremacist in the wake of this terrorist attack. Not a blue checkmark but he is relatively well known so could get one. It doesn't take much to make this a very dangerous game if people take what he says without question.

    Maybe a strongly worded letter from a lawyer using words like defamation might be in order?

    This gets a little complicated unfortunately. He isn't a particularly well balanced individual and has a young family. My brother is going to try and sort it with his family members. The temptation is of course to escalate but in the long run its not going to do anyone any favours.

    At least publicly he is isn't mentioning my full name and if anyone with any semblance of sense decides to do a little digging they'll find my posts and see that he is lying.



  • @antipodean said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @antipodean said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    @MajorRage said in Christchurch Gunman in Mosque:

    Who is they?

    I covered that too. I find this works better if you read the post.

    Abbott? Governement? Police? Elected officials?

    elected officials or imbecilic public servants.

    I'm asking you to elaborate more on exactly what you think could happen.

    What or who? There are plenty of examples of British police wasting everyone's time looking into hurt feelings and nasty words in the British Politics thread. A job made immeasurably easier for them when your name is applied against all your commentary. Particularly if you make the mistake of saying the wrong thing about a political matter in a sporting forum.

    I find this works better when you spend more time elaborating on your points when challenged, and less time being an arse.

    Clearly I'm not very bright, so if you could be more specific, it would be of immense assistance.

    I thought it was quite clear I'm asking you for some reality around the situation you are proposing. Your points around whats happened here (Britain) helps to explain that.

    Unlike others, I don't believe that we are really heading down a 1984 path with what has happened. Nobody is telling people what they should think anymore than they used to. If you go back through time, you'll always find isolated statements which have led to legal proceedings.

    Why should speech on the internet be different to that in real life?

    Largely it's not, but anonymity can permit people to proffer ideas that are unpopular and make criticism of officials and policy without fear of retribution.

    I don't disagree, but by and large this is not what anonymity is used for on the internet.

    No, that's porn, cat videos and commerce. Still not a reason to change IMO.

    Porn, cat videos and commerce are not. Abuse, bullying, grooming, radicalization (whatever that means) are.



  • So I see on Reddit that Telstra in Oz have blocked 4chan, 8chan and Liveleak. Interestingly, not Facebook where he streamed the damn thing.



  • @Kirwan said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    So I see on Reddit that Telstra in Oz have blocked 4chan, 8chan and Liveleak. Interestingly, not Facebook where he streamed the damn thing.

    I mentioned it earlier but some NZ mobile carriers are blocking sites too. It's a different list than the Aussies, also the list seems to vary between carriers

    Unhelpfully the headlines overseas are 'NZ blocks ____' when it's actually service providers



  • @Kirwan said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    So I see on Reddit that Telstra in Oz have blocked 4chan, 8chan and Liveleak. Interestingly, not Facebook where he streamed the damn thing.

    Also Zerohedge & Dissenter (NZ only) who aren't hosting it and Bitchute who is a competitor to youtube and if it was put up I would be pretty certain would take it down quick..I'd check but on a work computer so can't right now.

    Just like the synagogue attack where the terrorist had a Gab account so they removed Gab off of the internet..but weirdly kept facebook and twitter active despite him having accounts there which also had similar racist rantings.

    Considering facebook and twitter's part in sharing the video & inflaming the culture war with how their systems are moderated its all pretty galling.



  • @Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    @Kirwan said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    So I see on Reddit that Telstra in Oz have blocked 4chan, 8chan and Liveleak. Interestingly, not Facebook where he streamed the damn thing.

    Also Zerohedge & Dissenter (NZ only) who aren't hosting it and Bitchute who is a competitor to youtube and if it was put up I would be pretty certain would take it down quick..I'd check but on a work computer so can't right now.

    Just like the synagogue attack where the terrorist had a Gab account so they removed Gab off of the internet..but weirdly kept facebook and twitter active despite him having accounts there which also had similar racist rantings.

    Considering facebook and twitter's part in sharing the video & inflaming the culture war with how their systems are moderated its all pretty galling.

    Feels more like anti-competitive behaviour to me.



  • @Kirwan yeah I believe it is. Facebook and twitter are dying but are the big guys still. By branding competitors as racists and having payment processors refuse service on alternative platforms they then get to stem the tide of people moving away from them.

    Bitchute is particularly BS. They have moderation already, I use it from time to time as Youtube has been going insane with their algorithm to the point of where you can't find what you want unless its hosted by The New York time, THe guardian, CNN etc. They also have the ability to automatically back up your videos from Youtube onto it so a lot of creators are running through both for fear of Youtubes next censorship blitz. They have every chance of becoming what youtube used to be liked for.

    Of course now certain morons out there on twitter and facebook will reference any share I have had on bitchute and say "See he uses a platform for white supremacists that was so bad it had to be banned!"



  • @Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    @Kirwan yeah I believe it is. Facebook and twitter are dying but are the big guys still. >

    I am always interested in hearing this. If facebook is "dying" what is slowly taking its place? I genuinely don't know



  • @Hooroo The younger generation are using it far less frequently with Instagram and Snapchat preferred platforms. Minds.com is a great alternative and I think there is another called memo which works on the blockchain (I don't understand how it works). These platforms are more resistant to the privacy & censorship issues that facebook has been causing.



  • This post is deleted!


  • Fuck, where does this sit?

    I saw about 4-5 seconds at work on Friday before I knew wtf was going on. Noped out as soon as it dawned on me it wasn't real. Had already let my boss know but how does it work in terms of retrospective application of the law?



  • I have a problem with firing people for watching or sharing a real world event. I don't like that sort of sheltering from an actual event.

    Sure up to each individual if they wish to view reality but don't like someone stopping others from orientating myself in the real world and learning what people and nature are capable of.

    Ostrich burying it's head in the sand, to reference a metaphor



  • This part is concerning

    "It is an offence to share this material as soon as it is produced, and the timing of the official classification does not affect the ability for police and enforcement agencies to prosecute offences under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act 1993, Shanks says."

    So you can be prosecuted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it. Am I reading that right?



  • @Rembrandt said in Censorship and the Mosque Shooting:

    So you can be prosecuted for something that wasn't a crime when you did it. Am I reading that right?

    It means a snuff film/kiddie porn/torture/pro terrorism films can be considered illegal even if the government has got around to classifying the specific video yet.

    It's a crime immediately, not after the fact



  • @Duluth I see, makes sense but certainly open to abuse.


Log in to reply