The trouble with Facebook

Written By: - Date published: 10:11 am, March 24th, 2019 - 79 comments
Categories: Christchurch Attack, facebook, International, internet, making shit up, Media, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, us politics - Tags: ,

So just over a week ago a white supremacist gathered together some guns and then went to a couple of Christchurch mosques and shot innocent Muslims all in the name of some imaginary race war that civilised parts of the world had moved on from many years ago.

And what was really funny was the fucker thought that there was some sort of threat to the white way of life.

His use of social media was calculated.  He had a twitter account that would have been noticed by very few people but which stored photos of guns and magazines with crazy stuff written on them.  He had a manifesto that was emailed to various politicians immediately before the event.  He had a head mounted go pro camera which live broadcast on Facebook sickening video of what he did.

And he intends to continue.  He is apparently lawyerless and hopes to turn the trial in the same charade that Anders Breivik did.

Why has social media, originally intended to let people keep in contact with family and friends and display photos of what we are eating turned so evil?  And what do we do?

From Overseas the New York Post offers this description:

New Zealand’s prime minister on Tuesday called for social media companies to take responsibility for what is published on them — after the slaughter of 50 people in two of the country’s mosques was livestreamed on Facebook and widely shared.

“We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published,” Jacinda Ardern said in a speech to Parliament.

“They are the publisher, not just the postman. It cannot be a case of all profit, no responsibility.”

The 38-year-old lawmaker acknowledged that social media didn’t cause the massacre but argued that it did play a role in allowing hate to spread.

“There is no question that ideas and language of division and hate have existed for decades. But the form of distribution, the tools of organization, they are new,” she said.

“Where racism and hatred are given a voice, violence flourishes.”

And this morning David Slack offered this comment:

‘The Wild West’, they call the internet, whenever something happens that’s so depraved, so despicable, we can scarcely believe it. The most you’re likely to get is a shrug.

“I’m sure there’s more that can be done in terms of learning from it” and “we all feel terrible about it”, said someone from Facebook, whose job title is VP public policy, about the murder of 50 people broadcast live on their platform.

The original Wild West no longer exists. In its place came telegraph wires and railway lines and law enforcement and rules and regulations and freeways and burger chains. Most people crave order. 

But not everyone. Some people enjoy chaos and misery and untrammelled hostility, at least from the comfort of a computer desk.

There has been a movement this week among local corporates to review the use of facebook.  From Duncan Grieve at the Spinoff:

A coalition of major New Zealand advertisers is building a coalition to demand change from the tech giants.

New Zealand’s biggest advertisers are working both individually and collectively to try and force change from the tech giants in the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks. At midday on Monday the Association of New Zealand Advertisers (ANZA) and the Commercial Communications Council (CCC) issued a joint statement calling for urgent change to the technology that allowed the Christchurch gunman to livestream his actions for 17 minutes on Friday.

Since then this sentiment has coalesced towards forcing the tech giants to reckon with the consequences of what their platforms allow. Conversations with multiple leaders in communications and marketing across brands and ad agencies suggest that once positions are formalised the next step will be to try and gather international support from a group of major advertisers.

Of course this is not the only example where Facebook poses an existential threat to democracy.  Its ability to circulate fake news is also deeply troubling and the use of fake news by the right arguably affected the result of the last US Presidential election.  Things are that bad that someone has made a living out of pedalling clearly labelled fake news and it seems the faker the news the better.

David Slack is right.  The internet is the wild west.  There is no effective way to review or regulate what is posted and it can be deeply damaging.  Mainstream media has various standards it must adhere to.

So what do we collectively do?  Boycott Facebook until it sorts itself out? Require it to disable live view?  Disable all of our accounts?

One thing I can say is that the status quo should not be an option.

79 comments on “The trouble with Facebook”

  1. greywarshark 1

    Interesting discussion on Radionz this morning with the editor of Norway’s main newspaper concerning publication on social media and public media of reports about everything.
    Surprisingly to me he made a case for public dissemination of stuff like the manifesto. Thoughtful good points to consider.

    media crime
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018687797/lessons-from-norway-on-covering-the-quest-for-justice
    Lessons from Norway on covering the quest for justice
    From Mediawatch, 9:08 am today
    Colin Peacock – mediawatch@radionz.co.nz & @MediawatchNZ

    There’s concern the court case of the man accused of murder in Christchurch could give him unwelcome extra exposure. Espen Egil Hansen – editor of Norway’s paper Aftenposten – has some advice for media here after reporting a similar trial there, and also making Facebook accountable for its actions.

    and
    3MM: Associate Professor Dave Parry
    (Three Minutes Maximum)
    https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018687964/3mm-associate-professor-dave-parry
    The Head of the Department of Computer Science at the Auckland University of Technology looks at what, if anything, can be done around the misuse of social media networks in the wake of the Christchurch terror attack after the alleged gunman live-streamed the massacre on one of the world’s most popular forums.

  2. Sabine 2

    good grief, censor ship is strong within the Labour Party. Very very strong.

    the stupid thing about all of this censor ship is that you drive those that you would like to keep under surveillance under ground and those that pose no risk are living in a panopticon.

    Fact is, the video is out there on thousands upon thousands of UBS sticks. there are several hundred of copies out there, and none will carry the fingerprint of the mass murderer who shall not be named.

    at this stage, i would like to know, and maybe you as a Labour Member can answer this to me : When will we have the televised debate/round table with politicians, police, clergy, newspaper opinion makers (hoskins, henry et al, what are their responsibilities in inciting hate), teachers, psychologists and people of the public to discuss how
    a. this could happen without anyone noticing anything
    b. how a white young man of average intelligence, average height, average looks and decent means of finances gets so incited to hate that he believes the only thing good about him is the color of his skin and his decendency and that this gives him a duty and obligation to kill the other.
    c. what we are going to do to prevent this from happening again
    d. what the public at large can do

    what we get is
    a white wash of the biggest proportion. No discussion about white people being terrorists. No that is reserved for non white terrorists only it seems.

    In ten years time, we will have people debating if this even happened, because we refuse to acknowledge that it happened, and it was not a muslim attack on NZ (as we have been told over and over again that it would surely happen to us too) it was a white fellows attack on our Muslim community.

    This censor ship is going a bit far. there are ways to discuss these events without elevating the perpetrator all the while still paying our respects to those killed and injured and their hurt communities. Censor ship is nothing more then a oubliette out of which future myth and legend will arise. Those that enjoy this kind of thing already got their fix and they have it on portable UBS sticks.

    • greywarshark 2.1

      Good points Sabine. I thought that shutting down much, most of the information was wise but not now others point out the likely results.

      • Sabine 2.1.1

        I would really like someone ask Mike Hoskins and that Henry dude and others like them, now that you have read the manifesto, now that you have seen the video, is there anything you would enunciate differently if you could change your words. And will hindsight lead to fore sight?
        I would like clergy to state that those of us who pray do so in good faith, for solace, peace, and growth and not to advocate murder.

        I would like our police to state what they will do to prevent it, what services are offered to the officers that had to attend the site and help remove wounded and dead, and are services offered to the first aid personnel, the hospital staff etc as they to will have most certainly to deal with a lot of psychological trauma.

        and how will we go forward as a group of people, as a nation, as the people of a nation.

        and i fear that our government is refusing to answer these question, and that with this over the board censor ship we will create more harm then prevent it.

        Truth and reconciliation demands transparency. We might not like what we see and hear, but i feel we must.

        • Gabby 2.1.1.1

          I’d like to know which bits Horeskin agrees with.

          • Sabine 2.1.1.1.1

            that is the question is it not? How much racism is in our own ‘real news’ in our newspapers on our radiowaves and it is accepted because …..some opinion maker is making lots of money, advertising is sold, and many people actually agree with it.

            i fear that we are trying to hide this rather, and thus learn nothing.

            • Sam 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Facebook has over a billion active users in every nation on the planet from Vatican City, Auckland and Saudi Arabia, each with vastly different laws. At some point Saudi Arabia is going to want to institutionalise and regulate Facebook as China has done with its great firewall to protect its hardline Wahhabism, which among other things makes it highly illegal to disrespect the Saudi Royal Family and Muhammad. Governed by a council and using bots or human call centres prompts will one day be sent to users explaining that sending certain material with in a certain geography is illegal and maybe punishable with the death sentence or what ever sentence if you ever go to Saudi Arabia.

        • Chris T 2.1.1.2

          That is one weird post.

          What are you actually implying?

    • mickysavage 2.2

      My personal views have hardened about censorship.

      Should his video be prohibited? You bet.

      Should his manifesto? I am still processing this. My gut reaction is that we should not give it credence and that its general availability is injurious to the public good so yes probably.

      Sure the material may still be in existence but this is no reason to try and stop its dissemination.

      And fake news? Shy shouldn’t there be a consequence if Facebook is involved in the systematic spreading of it.

      • Sabine 2.2.1

        you are deflecting Micky.

        i am not advocating for public viewing, i don’t ever click these types of videos as growing i was shown the results of human depravity and i had my fill of gore.

        i am advocating for a debate, with select people being shown select bits and pieces of the video and the manifesto – or all of it, if the families of the victims agree to it and then to discuss white terrorism.

        As for Facebook and fake news i consider you comment to be intellectually lazy. FB is a tool, like twitter – where the video clip was life streamed i might add – or any other social media plat form. So you are going to ban all of these on which the video was shown? We are going to ban Gab? FB? Messenger? Twitter? Google Email? and all of the other tools that can be used to advocate for murder?
        so we are going to ban certain politicians? certain clergy? certain opinion makers? j

        Or just facebook? Because then it is ideological censor ship and you might want to think about that and what else in the future you would be happy to censor.

        • te reo putake 2.2.1.1

          I think there is provision in the law for academic dissection of banned materials, Sabine. But watching for fun is out. I agree with you that banning the platforms won’t work, but modifying them so they are tuned to avoid harm should be investigated. Oh, and suing the pants off them when they contribute to what is generically called ‘evil’ would be nice, too.

          • Sabine 2.2.1.1.1

            where do i mention fun TRP?

            i don’t say anything about fun.

            Are we really so scared of us as a people that we actually will not allow debate and what happened and how? Are we so needy of safety? Do we really want to fool us in to believing that it wont happen again if we just never ever mention his name?

            truth and reconciliation is apparently only for others.

            suing? whom would you sue? Sky News? Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Go Pro, gun builder, gun seller, ammunition maker, ammunition seller, car manufacturer, airplane maker, residence permit granter, his bank, his land lord, his grocery store? how far would you go in suing ‘contribution to what is generally called evil’ . Maybe start calling it human. Cause the only one on this planet that goes around and is massmurdering humans are humans.

        • mickysavage 2.2.1.2

          Where do I advocate banning Facebook?

          Requiring some sort of accountability and mode of behaviour is entirely different.

          • Sabine 2.2.1.2.1

            let me use a term from the forced birther crowd.
            Trap Laws.
            Some states impose regulations that apply only to abortion clinics, sometimes called TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws, which according to Mother Jones and The New Republic impose standards that may be arbitrary or difficult to implement and are aimed at closing abortion clinics. And thus while keeping Roe vs Wade alive will leave you with no access to find an abortion provider as they have been modified and regulated into closure.

            so you modification and you regulate until it becomes useless. You are not banning 🙂 just ‘requiring some sort of accountability. And that serves what purpose and it will achieve what?

            Facebook did remove 1.5 million copies in the first 24 hour. Just think about that number. And Twitter did live stream. And Sky news showed the clip of Telly

            so you actually should rather try to regulate and modification humans. AS thy will still continue to do what you find so objectionable just on a different platform that you as of now would not have hear anything off, that the police might not know anything off and thus you will be able to monitor these people less then before. This is feel good bs that will have no effect what so ever on those that want to terrorise and kill, and it will help non of us to make sense of what happened and how to prevent it in the future.

          • BM 2.2.1.2.2

            Requiring some sort of accountability and mode of behaviour is entirely different.

            How’s this going to work because Facebook will just tell the NZ government to piss off.

            • mickysavage 2.2.1.2.2.1

              Corporations are talking about coordinating with their overseas counterparts to apply pressure.

              We also let Facebook do a whole lot of stuff without understanding exactly what they do or how they do it. The metadata that they hold is extraordinarily powerful. Why wouldn’t we want to regulate them.

              And BM this probably requires an international effort.

          • francesca 2.2.1.2.3

            We prosecute people for watching child /baby porn
            Murder porn, live snuff movies should be no different

            • left_forward 2.2.1.2.3.1

              Excellent point fransesca.

            • KJT 2.2.1.2.3.2

              I agree. But what do we do about the videos that expose State wrongdoing? Such as the Indonesian massacres in West Papua. Or the ones that showed, who was really blowing up trucks on the Venezuelan border.
              There are powerful people who would like to hide them.

              • francesca

                Thats true.
                Something as amorphous as common decency I suppose, and the intention of the filmer.

        • The Al1en 2.2.1.3

          “i am advocating for a debate, with select people being shown select bits and pieces of the video and the manifesto – or all of it, if the families of the victims agree to it and then to discuss white terrorism.”

          Like injecting people with heroin so they can then have a debate about opiate addiction. 🙄

          I don’t think there’s a sane person out there who needs to see that video to have an informed debate about terrorism of any creed or colour.

          • Sabine 2.2.1.3.1

            actually when we have discussions about opiate addiction we tend to invite social workers, doctors, police, teacher, psychologists and psychiatrists, neurological specialists, we tend to invite those that have cleaned up their gig, we tend to invite those that still do it and we try to find a. why do people use, b. how to stop it before it becomes full blown use, c. how to help families fighting the use by their relatives, d. how the social impact is measured on he larger scale and above all what to do to mitigate risks of abuse, health risks associated with use and what society can do.

            do you have an issue with such a discussion? but you are right, we can also just pretend it does not exist, let them just die of an overdose, or get apprehended when they burglar a dairy to feed their addiction, or kill someone while high.
            sure, why not. Its the easy way out.

            • The Al1en 2.2.1.3.1.1

              Yet one doesn’t have to be an addict to know heroin addiction leads to unsatisfactory outcomes for most, if not all abusers. There is enough medical/societal data out there to make informed judgement calls that don’t necessitate being a junkie to do so… Just like you don’t have to be an ex smoker to know you don’t need to give a kid a packet of smokes before you talk about the consequences of getting lung cancer.

              I happy to have discussions about terrorism. I am also quite able to have them without seeing the death video. How about you? Noting you seem to have done a fair bit thus far.

              Why do you think the video needs to be seen before the cause/effect of terrorism can be discussed?

      • One Two 2.2.2

        Your personal views are well documented on this site and other media, MS…

        They are your views…

        If you’ve been ‘hardening’ then share your list of subject matter which you reckon should also be censored…

        As a note…your long standing repetitive use of ‘fake news’…which fake news makes your censorship wish list?

    • Incognito 2.4

      … and it was not a muslim attack on NZ (…) it was a white fellows attack on our Muslim community. [my bold]

      It was an attack on NZ, most definitely. The way I see it, currently, is that the terrorist perceived a threat to his way of life, his culture, his society, his identity and it filled him with fear and hatred.

      He could not or did not want to accept that our society and culture are ever so slowly changing into something richer and fuller (and more complex) and he could not or did not want to change with it.

      Change is inevitable, like tectonic movement, and it causes disasters. Over time we can only hope to (in fact, we must) become better at avoiding casualties, but we cannot stop the process.

      To me, the question is how we can become more resilient as people and learn to accept and embrace change rather than fearing and fighting against it. Are bans and censorship, for example, sustainable solutions with positive societal impact or will they be futile and stall our collective growing process?

      • SHG 2.4.1

        It was an attack on NZ, most definitely

        way to erase Muslims from the narrative, coloniser

        • Incognito 2.4.1.1

          You missed the bold word in the quote. It is the exact opposite and the Muslim community is included in NZ society as one of us, as our brothers and sisters, and as equals, as far as I’m concerned.

    • McFlock 2.5

      Yesterday I saw a post on a facebook group already claiming it never happened. It was the second post to that group I reported to admins. That one got pulled down – if it hadn’t I’d have left the group and reported it to facebook and internal affairs.

      This guy actually posted that the video was evidence it never happened, it was too “fake” (whether he has anything upon which to base that judgement is another disturbing rabbit hole, whatever the answer might be).

      So far I’ve seen two types of denialist:
      the one who thinks that the illuminati can orchestrate hundreds of actors and all the media to secretly take part in a plot to disarm the population but still can’t take down a youtube video or fb post exposing the entire conspiracy; and
      actual Nazi/fascist/WS/whogivesafuck apologists who know that the more of the fools in the first set they can convince, the longer they can commit their crimes to desensitise and build their base without a committed opposition from the state.

      I say censor away. We as individuals won’t learn anything new, but the last thing we need is for it to be shared amongst his little, weak, sad, pathetic online buddies. We can discuss in general without quoting the fucker chapter and verse. Most critics have said it’s all the same old shit anyway, with excerpts from previous fuckers. Might as well make this fucker’s work harder to get for the next fucker.

      • Anne 2.5.1

        I say censor away. We as individuals won’t learn anything new, but the last thing we need is for it to be shared amongst his little, weak, sad, pathetic online buddies. We can discuss in general without quoting the fucker chapter and verse. Most critics have said it’s all the same old shit anyway, with excerpts from previous fuckers. Might as well make this fucker’s work harder to get for the next fucker.

        Hear, hear.

        This crack-pot (don’t give a hoot what some shrinks say, he’s a crack-pot) has done far more damage than is apparent on the surface. He’s exposed young people to horrific images that could impact on them psychologically for years to come. He’s probably triggered all manner of unpleasant memories in older people that they may now have to struggle with all over again. But most of all he’s unleashed an aggressive hate-virus that could have consequences everywhere. The latter impact has yet to be determined, but the likely-hood of various copy-cat incidents here and overseas I imagine is very high.

        We can’t burn them at the stake anymore so censor them and censor their supporters. 👿

      • Sabine 2.5.2

        would you have applied the same standard to the germans after world war two?

        should we ban any speech of goebbels, goering, hitler, hess, himmler, and all the others? should we ban any footage? should we ban footage of the allies freeing the concentration camps? should we ban the footage of goering at the nuremberg trials? should we have banned Hanna Arendt from witnessing the trials of eichman and her book banality of evil? should we ban footage of stalin? pol pot? mao? all people that have committed unspeakable harm and created unfathomable misery?

        or should we just make an exception this one time to make it easier on us? So that we can pretend again that this kind of stuff won’t happen here? So that we can go back to being perfectly numb in our believe that we are better then this?

        • McFlock 2.5.2.1

          I think to this day some Nazi works are indeed still banned in the region they took root, no?

          And forget after WW2, I suspect that anyone in London distributing copies of mein kampf could well have been hung for treason.

          With distance and time, the impact lessens. But the fucker’s rant is a recruitment piece, make no mistake. Right now the priority is to make sure it recruits nobody else to the fucker’s cause.

    • reason 2.6

      ” at this stage, i would like to know, and maybe you as a Labour Member can answer this to me : When will we have the televised debate/round table with politicians, police, clergy, newspaper opinion makers (hoskins, henry et al, what are their responsibilities in inciting hate), teachers, psychologists and people of the public to discuss how
      a. this could happen without anyone noticing anything
      b. how a white young man of average intelligence, average height, average looks and decent means of finances gets so incited to hate that he believes the only thing good about him is the color of his skin and his decendency and that this gives him a duty and obligation to kill the other.
      c. what we are going to do to prevent this from happening again
      d. what the public at large can do ”

      +100 Sabine … critical thinking plus compassion is whats needed now.

      NZ needs to reclaim its humanity.

      ” Truth and reconciliation demands transparency. We might not like what we see and hear, but i feel we must. “

    • Maggie 2.7

      “the stupid thing about all of this censor ship is that you drive those that you would like to keep under surveillance under ground and those that pose no risk are living in a panopticon.”

      And unfettered free speech makes detecting dangerous people next to impossible as they drown in the multitude alt-right whiners. The Police have said that’s already the case and perhaps even why the shooter didn’t show on the radar.

      I think your fear over censorship is causing you to be a little reactionary. We’re only just a week on from the tragedy and people are still processing how they feel yet you’ve gone and tied to the mast of a sinking nameless ship.

      You’re absolutely right that we need to have those discussions but not just with politicians and clergy and whatnot. Why sit around complaining about things that have no base in reality when we could and should be having those discussions here and at home. This isn’t a censorship issue, it’s a critical thinking and humanity issue.

      • RedLogix 2.7.1

        Perhaps another way to look at it is from a simple psychological perspective.

        One of the most striking aspects of the 9/11 event was how the media replayed in high rotation the same devastating images in the immediate days and weeks after. I’m certainly not the only person to have said this; the effect was to reinforce the direct emotional trauma, driving the sense of horror deeper into our collective cognition.

        My instinct is that Ardern has done the right thing in the immediate aftermath, acknowledge as little as necessary about the horror, and focus on the recovery and healing. Then later we can address the evil from a position of balance and strength.

        • Maggie 2.7.1.1

          Yes. Studies have shown that repeated exposure to media of a traumatic event contributes significantly to the occurrence and degree of PTSD.

    • KJT 2.8

      The problem with silencing the people, we don’t like, empowers those who want to silence us!

    • KJT 2.9

      Exactly.

      Many things available on the internet bother me.

      But so does the platform given to people like Hoskings and Brash on TV.

      As they say. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

      Publicity about Brash’s extreme views, lost him most voters. Without the publicity he may have been Prime minister

  3. Anne 3

    So what do we collectively do? Boycott Facebook until it sorts itself out? Require it to disable live view? Disable all of our accounts?

    Too late. The genie is out of the bottle and can’t be returned.

    Yesterday on O.P. @ 4.3, I outlined my experiences 25 plus years ago and I have avoided sites like Facebook precisely because of them.

    There has been an underbelly of ultra right-wing extremists in NZ dating back to the 1970s and a handful of them were members of the Labour Party. But the powers that be, including the police, didn’t want to know.

    • Incognito 3.1

      If everybody would boycott FB and close their accounts, FB would be gone.

      If FB would close all our accounts and go, we would …

      • Anne 3.1.1

        If FB would close all our accounts and go, we would …

        start up another one with a different name.

      • KJT 3.1.2

        I understand the powers that be, said that about the printing press. Which also started as a money making enterprise.
        Used by Thomas Paine, Wilberforce and Emmeline Pankhurst, as well as Hitler.

  4. Pat 5

    “Why has social media, originally intended to let people keep in contact with family and friends and display photos of what we are eating turned so evil? And what do we do?”

    Im not sure that that was ever the intention of social media….my limited knowledge of its origins was as a site to ‘rate’ the attractiveness of uni students and the driver to expand its use were purely commercial…not much of social benefit there id suggest.

    • bwaghorn 5.1

      Face book is what you want it to be .
      I get little snippets of friends past and present lives.
      I get updates on the local dog trial results.
      I get to laugh at silly videos and watch awesome people on people are awesome. ( most a crazy )
      I delete and block anything I dont like .

      • Pat 5.1.1

        I wouldnt disagree with that to any great degree ( although I have great concerns about its business model and the social impacts) but the point I was making is its origins were hardly altruistic so it cannot have “turned evil”…..it was always of dubious intent.

        • Sabine 5.1.1.1

          i think it works as intended.

          it is what people make it.

          • Maggie 5.1.1.1.1

            It really doesn’t work as intended. Even with heavy filtering and blocking there is no way to prevent accidental exposure to stuff that could be traumatic. I had my own experience with that when the feed autoplayed a disgusting video of a kitten being tortured. I was physically sick and had nightmares for two weeks, I couldn’t stand to hear cat’s meow without remembering the screams of that poor kitten even though I’d only seen a couple of seconds of the video. I didn’t consent to that video and although I had previously set my account to not autoplay an update to the app undid those settings.

            Facebook is a public arena and as such we need to ensure that the material publicly posted on there isn’t traumatic. Many younger people using facebook may not have the common sense to not watch or read the dodgy shit.

            I keep wondering how the conversation around free speech would go if instead of it being about some dickheads manifestos it was about some pedophile posting My Little Pony memes on facebook to educate others on how to have safe sex with children.

      • Sabine 5.1.2

        and report the shit that just vile.

        for once i agree with you.

    • KJT 5.2

      We can say the same thing about newspapers, books, TV and any communication medium.

      • Pat 5.2.1

        Im not sure that that is the case….the origins of those aforementioned wernt in ‘Rating the attractiveness” of uni students….I’d suggest their origins were somewhat more serious and of purpose

        • KJT 5.2.1.1

          Don’t think that is the point.
          Equally. “Great art was the dirty post cards of it’s day”.

          Or. From another Veiw, “propagating religion to the savages”

          • Pat 5.2.1.1.1

            lol…maybe, but then again maybe not

          • Pat 5.2.1.1.2

            reflecting , your argument holds water in specific cases but I would suggest it fails in the broad sweep…. as is usually the case it depends on intent.

  5. Sabine 6

    Interesting how we don’t advocate for boycott or censor ship of twitter where the life stream was also shown. And which as a social media tool is also responsible for a fair amount of ‘fake news’ – on either side of the aisle. And Sky News who should the video on telly broadcast to anyone and who only got ‘5 days of air’ to make up for their naughtinessness.

    • Cinny 6.1

      Sabine, I just posted a link on OM. Clip is just over 10mins long, first story up.

      Christchurch in context: Media as accessory to the crime? | The Listening Post

      • Kat 6.1.1

        Cinny, that episode highlights why I try and call out the fish wrap aka the herald every time they publish some blatantly biased political propaganda by the usual poodles who we are now all hopefully aware of.

        The “white redemption” angle is interesting and needs further investigation. The media versus the media, screening by the media, at a media outlet near you could be the bleeding edge journalism of the times.

        I would have to think that Jacinda Ardern’s response was purely her humanity on display and not some act to be part of an organised “white redemption” by media. The media, including farcebook, wittingly or unwittingly, have been using the Goebbels playbook for over half a century.

      • patricia bremner 6.1.2

        Cinny this is selective reporting, where items that told stories about the victims and their families were ignored, and one or two iconic pictures of Jacinda were presented to prove their point. White redemption?

        There are many shades of fake news and this is one meant to question Jacinda’s honesty and sincerity. It was made to look as if she hogged the limelight!! The truth was an overseas photographer took the picture and flashed it round the world.

        There is a meme being presented at home and abroad that Ms Ardern is positioning herself for political reasons. This is being amplified by right wing press worldwide.

        Meanwhile 1.5 billion Muslims are praising her and New Zealand for the support aroha and consideration, saying all she has done is humble and caring, even putting her picture up on Dubai’s tallest building. While here pictures of the lost are posted daily, and stories of survival are told.

        It just shows how themes/memes are decided and pictures and prose are chosen to present them…. sometimes selectively regardless of the actual truth.

  6. I don’t use social media like FB,… never have , never will. That’s kept me from all this, but it just seems to me that simple guidelines of decency need to be observed by these platforms . What happened was not ‘decent’. It is of interest only to Police and pathologists and the like.

    There comes a time when absolutist views need to be laid aside for the common good and decency of people and society,… so thus it seems there needs to be a policing of lewd, objectionable content. Now we run into the whole issue of censorship and what constitutes objectionable material.

    It just seems a no brainer to me if these social media outlets wish to exist they must draw up a framework of what constitutes objectionable material and exercise simple self policing. Easier said than done when someone posts something more or less in real time,… but done it must be.

    The wild west is great for its wide open freedoms but we are actually not talking that. We are talking the same sort of atrocity’s that happened to the Native Americans and other hapless people that should not have happened and should have been policed. Well its the same for FB and co. This is where govts should have a moral conscience and demand those platforms draw up a proper and fit for purpose foundation that matches and befits one of a decent civilized society.

    Then there is the ‘time factor’ .

    Such as archaeology , an example being the battle of Towton,.. or , the battle of Visby on the island of Gotland. Excavations of mass graves of the combatants. They were real people too. The difference is that those political conditions that caused those wars are long past by many century’s. It no longer has any effect on the memory’s of present living generations.

    That is completely different from recent memory or real time coverage. It is at that point that decency, and empathy for victims is paramount and this perhaps should form the foundation for censorship. To prevent horror and panic , grief , terror and copycat crimes.

    Yes , I do believe these social media platforms owe it to us all to be policing their material vigilantly and cease hiding behind the defense of being simply ‘ amoral’ as a justification as to their stance.

    • WeTheBleeple 7.1

      Thank you for your awesome post. (and others!)

      The time factor is something I was considering last night. I think at least several generation so no martyrs or families or descendants are traumatized by his name/manifesto etc again.

      I also really liked what Anne had to say re: young minds. Nobody should have to be subject to deliberately poisonous memes, especially the vulnerable.

  7. One Two 8

    The answer to any perceived problems, is with those who use private company media platforms … and believe said platform should conform to [billions of individual moral standards]

    Take responsibility…walk away…own your involvement in creating the platforms…

    FB was designed as a data capture…that is the start and end of why the platforms exist…monetizing the plarforms is a side discussion…

    As for the premise that these platforms were developed outside of ‘evil intent’… all major platforms are part of the wider ‘security complex’…

    Google – ‘Don’t be evil’

    • Thing is , most people know inherently what is basically wrong and objectionable from what isn’t. For those who would seek to justify what is obviously wrong to most are a minority. Therefore these social media platforms need to be responsible and vigilant.

      No one would want to see images of their loved ones brutal deaths sprayed across the global media in such a tacky and disgusting manner.

      • One Two 8.1.1

        Wk..I enjoy reading your comments here…

        Thing is, censorship is already happening with online platforms, search engines and retailers…

        And it is happening on subject matter which many, including on this site feel empowered to insult, abuse and belittle others over…it would follow that a percentage of those folks would support more censorship..possibly outright banning of material and debate…

        Pause to think about example of topics I am likely referring to…

        So in expecting digital platforms to be ‘responsible and vigilant’…well…they’re already doing it on subjects which should absolutely be public domain…

        And that’s the core problem…who should decide what is/is not up for discussion in the modern day, public square of the digital world…

        ‘Most people’…’the herd’…’herd mentality’…

        Pass.

        • WILD KATIPO 8.1.1.1

          I just reckon that the old saying… ‘ do unto others as you would want done unto you’ applies here regards censorship… as in , … ” No one would want to see images of their loved ones brutal deaths sprayed across the global media in such a tacky and disgusting manner ”.

          I think its a simple thing , really.

          I really don’t think we need to have great screeds of pontificating pages on the whys and wherefores of the limitations of free speech etc, … its just plain old fashioned decency that should be our guides.

          In fact , … the MSM in NZ already practices that. When I was at TV3 there was one chap I spoke to who covered the CHCH earthquakes and said as a cameraman,… ”If I had panned the camera just a little further on there were several body’s”,… Well,… that cameraman was acting in decency towards the family’s of those who had lost loved ones.

          Why cant these social media outlets do the same?

  8. Lets face it. The internet has provided a platform for disassoctiave behavior whereby individuals can mass communicate, unite in ideas and yet be detached from any direct consequences because there is no direct , traceable physical action. Hence the advent of the online troll.

    These types can feel safe from any real repercussions from their toxic , radical and even murderous viewpoints . The internet has spawned a whole generation of these types who prior to that , – would not have even dared to express their toxic anti social opinions , – barring the mass congregations of them in public halls, places and the like in former times. Thus they are even more the cowards. The internet has given them a safe place, barring the few who cross the lines where they can be easily traced or those with high public profiles who do the same.

    Even groups like ISIS used the internet extensively for their recruiting. So also do the white supremacists or any other radicalized groups.

    FB and their ilk are benefactors of these trollish geeks and nerds and sociopaths and hater patrons. Therefore those same platforms have a responsibility to deny objectionable material the same as any other broadcaster, – despite patronage from the fringes . The fact that they are privately owned does not let them off the hook under any circumstances.

    It is time for them to disassociate themselves and deny access from the peddlers of hate.

    As humanly run organizations they are still liable to and subject to the universal and very , very real laws of morals, values and good conscience just like the rest of us.

    Our common law is based upon much of this. And out of this springs far more intricate and precise legislation’s. It should not be avoided by those same country’s who wish to set themselves up as the leaders of freedom of speech.

    From such laws is the structure of humanity based upon. If they wish to participate in human society and profit from their business, – then they must adhere to those laws. They are not above those laws and there are absolutely no exceptions.

    Just subservience to which all of us who are law abiding are more than happy to adhere to.

    It is summed up here :

    ———————————

    1 Corinthians 13:4-8 New International Version (NIV)

    ———————————

    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

    5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

    6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

    7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

    8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

    That’s All I Have To Say About That- Forrest Gump Quote – YouTube

  9. Sabine 10

    We can set the tone of the debate or others.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-new-zealand-mosque-shooting_n_5c906f58e4b0d50544ff1406

    He said:

    The shooter says he’s not a conservative, not a Christian and that he identifies as an eco-fascist, which would make him a supporter of the Green New Deal. He adds that he disagrees with Trump on politics.

    Limbaugh didn’t go so far as to endorse the theory, but gave it plenty of airtime and told his listeners: “You can’t immediately discount this. The left is this insane. They are this crazy.”

    but moderating, regulating, disappearing, not naming, etc will only help the likes of Rush Limbough and others like him to use the myth created to advance his own cause of misery.

    • reason 10.1

      Sabine is calling for us to be mature, compassionate and rational adults … true world leaders. …. ” Limbaugh didn’t go so far as to endorse the theory, but gave it plenty of airtime and told his listeners: “You can’t immediately discount this. The left is this insane. They are this crazy.”

      but moderating, regulating, disappearing, not naming, etc will only help the likes of Rush Limbough and others like him to use the myth created to advance his own cause of misery. ” … BM was pushing this very shit here on TS … disrespectfully and disgracefully the day after 100 Muslim NZers were targeted and murdered he was trying to blame ‘lefties / greenies ‘ …… maybe wayne mapps rhetoric of ‘ the green taliban’ had unhinged him….. and people like james / pukish etc

      The truth needs to be spread …. not Govt censorship …. we need to be informed …. so we are not so easy to manipulate …. into wars and other anti humane injustices

      Here’s the truth ………….

      https://twitter.com/hashtag/50lives?src=hash

      https://twitter.com/KhaledBeydoun/status/1107041541938401281

  10. Maggie 11

    The problem isn’t just Facebook, it’s the media in general.

    This study highlights the disparity in media coverage and asks why some terrorist acts get more coverage than others. If you follow the link you can download the report for free. It makes for sobering reading.

    Terrorist attacks BY Muslims receive 357% more press attention
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138

  11. SHG 12

    I’m not yet convinced that this guy is actually a white supremacist. His manifesto has too many trolly in-jokes for me to quickly assume that he’s anything other than an amoral Internet attention whore.

    The manifesto reminds me of this scene.

  12. Infused 13

    The internet should never be regulated.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago