
The mass shooting in New Zealand was designed to spread on social media - Tomte
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/15/18266859/new-zealand-shooting-video-social-media-manipulation
======
100ideas
This bellingcat post provides a more primary sources and deeper analysis than
than theverge article: [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-
world/2019/03/15/shi...](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-
world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-
mosque-massacre/)

------
hashberry
Is anyone disturbed by the amount of media coverage by the mainstream media?
Here is how the New York Times is covering it, multiple articles saying the
same thing. They want their own content to go viral:
[http://nytimes.com/trending](http://nytimes.com/trending)

\- New Zealand Shooting Live Updates: Attack on Christchurch Mosques Leaves 49
Dead

\- A Mass Shooting of, and for, the Internet

\- In Christchurch, Signs Point to a Gunman Steeped in Internet Trolling

\- The New Zealand Massacre Was Made to Go Viral

\- New Zealand Massacre Highlights Global Reach of White Extremism

\- Christchurch Mosque Shootings Were Partly Streamed on Facebook

------
fixermark
I don't think that, as a global society, we have much psychological protection
against weaponized Streisand Effect yet.

------
dsfyu404ed
I don't agree with their conclusion that this shows the internet is
"inadvertently moderated" but I do agree with them not basically writing a
biography of the perpetrator.

------
Buldak
Every mass shooting or act of terror nowadays is met with calls not to lend
exposure or notoriety to the perpetrators. Often I find it hard not to view
such exhortations cynically (I suspect an ulterior motive when someone like
Ben Shapiro urges quiet about a mass slaying of Muslims), but I generally
think it makes sense. Still, we surely need to examine and discuss the causes
of such violence to prevent it from happening again. And I wonder how exactly
we are supposed to do that while also heeding an injunction against
publicizing them.

~~~
pjc50
> causes of such violence to prevent it from happening again.

It's fairly clear what the cause of a mosque shooting is: Islamophobia. It's
also clear that there's not enough will to tackle the global far right that
radicalise people like the shooter. Few countries are going to block 8chan at
the router. So it's going to happen again.

(Although what is unusual here is that the terrorists survived and have been
arrested. No doubt their names will be referenced in the next 4/8chan
manifesto.)

~~~
malms
> It's fairly clear what the cause of a mosque shooting is: Islamophobia.

I disagree.. It's like saying people who murdered journalists in france were
victim of "jounalistophobia".

It doesn't make sense to me. Shooter are mostly mentally ill / violent people
FIRST at the root, and then find a motive which is picked randomly in their
education.

~~~
pjc50
> Shooter are mostly mentally ill / violent people FIRST at the root

Whenever someone says "mentally ill", what diagnosis are you giving and on
what basis? The other Islamophobic mass shooter, Breivik, was declared sane by
a court. These kinds of incidents are not spontaneous breaks in sanity but
deliberate, premeditated crimes planned out like bank robberies.

> "jounalistophobia"

In both cases it's _radicalization_. The perpetrators are given some people to
hate, and an encouragement to violence, and some emotional support in planning
the attack.

~~~
lm28469
When a court determine someone to be sane it just means that he fully knew
what he was doing.

You can absolutely be sure that you want to kill people, knowing the
implications of your acts and going though with it, that makes you sane for a
court.

Now is someone showing so much hate and violence mentally ill in a way? I
guess it depends on who you ask. Imho these kinds of views/acts are not very
compatible with my definition of mental sanity.

