
Update on New Zealand - tareqak
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/update-on-new-zealand/
======
OkGoDoIt
I haven't actually seen the video in question, but on a general level I'm
confused why everyone is so up in arms here. Do we _really_ want Facebook to
be even more aggressive in censorship of its content? Do we want them to use
realtime ML to automatically determine if a livestreem video is bad? [1] They
removed the video promptly after receiving reports about it. They also
proactively block people from uploading copies. What more do we want? Maybe we
are misdirecting our anger about the violence?

[1] "Bad" is a very loose term that changes over time. When advocating for
this kind of tech and strict content rules, we are also codifying a set of
moral standards to define "bad", so we should tread carefully. Not everything
is as clearcut bad as this video, and it's not a huge jump to apply this to
other "objectionable" media, which is not the world I want to be pushing for.

~~~
panarky
Facebook built a monster it cannot control.

Their monster is out of the cage and it's making frightening changes to
society, rapidly and globally.

I have an extremely strong bias in favor of free expression, but Facebook
altered the playing field.

Do we _really_ want ISIS beheading videos and terrorist recruitment to
circulate freely, amplified and accelerated by Facebook's social graph? [0]

Do we _really_ want disinformation fanned out instantly to friends of friends
that incites mob violence? [1]

No, I don't want to live in a world where a faceless ML automatically censors
everything I do. But if that's the only way to control the monster Facebook
created, then maybe it's better to switch off the monster entirely.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/22/facebook-
modera...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/22/facebook-moderator-
guidelines-extreme-content-analysis)

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-
re...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/technology/facebook-to-remove-
misinformation-that-leads-to-violence.html)

~~~
adrianmonk
I sometimes wonder if people asked the same questions when postal services and
telephones were invented. People are writing letters to each other and
conspiring about things, and no one can even track it! People are calling each
other on the telephone and plotting crimes with no one the wiser!

I suppose in at least one way they did, because mail fraud is a crime with
special extra penalties. But overall, it seems like we've accepted the idea
that humans are humans, some do good things and some do bad things, and
greater communication amplifies their ability to do both.

Are we now saying that we've amplified as much as we want to, and we should
stop? Or maybe we're saying that, because this is all taking place on a
computer, we now think it should be a solvable problem, when it wasn't before
with a telephone.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
There is an important quantitative difference compared with post and phone
though.

If I want to start an alt newsletter and post it out, or conspire via phone, I
am _very_ limited in reach. A mailshot in the thousands could take days to
stuff, address and stamp, and the costs escalate quickly. Few aside from
fellow nutters and conspiracy theorists will know my little alt postal
newsletter even exists.

Social gives unlimited reach if it goes viral. Thus the overriding aim of
every alt and conspiracy group is to go viral and achieve global notoriety.
Few knew or cared and certainly didn't have access to what a plane hijackers
side of the story was in the 1980s and earlier. Or their propaganda. There
might be _short_ extracts in follow up reports. Giving them the oxygen of
publicity was almost universally considered a bad thing. I _entirely_ share
the view of the NZ Prime Minister in refusing to use his name. Then the US
services showed up.

Yes we should stop as we've amplified too far. What many Americans call
outrageous censorship, often conveniently ignoring it being a private service
rather than speaking against a government, much of the rest of the world might
call reasonable moderation. If FB can't moderate and block it, or find a way
for users to moderate it, perhaps it's time to limit, restrict and censure.

It's certain that if FB won't find a way to do it reasonably and fairly, and
soon, governments will start to compel them and others. Each event and
atrocity makes it that little more certain.

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
This, too, is a "problem" encountered in the past. Back then, it was the
printing press that made communication "too easy":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662)

For some reason, most free societies seem to have, over time, accepted the
free press is a good thing.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Hardly surprising really, two years after the Restoration.

------
save_ferris
I take the viewing metrics they provided with a huge grain of salt, given
their history for playing fast and loose with the truth.

Maybe I'm just down on Facebook, but this deflects pretty hard on the main
point of this whole terrible story: given a free platform to broadcast live
video, there's just no feasible way (at the moment) to prevent someone from
using said platform to broadcast horrific events.

Content moderation has always, always, always been an afterthought, and these
major platforms don't really seem to have an interest in truly solving this
problem. Massive teams of poorly-paid contractors supplemented with ML tools
seems like an overly optimistic solution to a much harder problem.

~~~
d1zzy
Before everyone brings their torch and pitchfork, do we know how much harm is
being done on open sharing platforms vs the value they bring to society?

I see people quickly jumping on the "stop the internet open sharing platforms"
bandwagon when events like these happen, because the platform may be
associated with the current "cultural villain" but just as we don't ban knives
when they are used to murder people and are being produced by despicable
companies I don't think we should ban the possibility of having open sharing
platforms until we have determined they do more bad than good.

Food for thought: in administrative decisions on improving car
infrastructure/safety of intersections there is an actual value assigned human
life. If the cost to build the improvements is less than the human life
valuation of the lives that would be saved by the improvements then the
project is not done. It's terrible to think of human lives as numbers but it
is a requirement to do so for deciding policy in a world of inherent costs to
anything being done. So before we think about advancing policy changes with
far ranging impact, we should perform such an analysis. We may also realize at
that point that alternative solutions may prove far cheaper than banning open
sharing platforms or regulating them to the point where business is so
expensive nobody cares to do so.

~~~
xvector
I think your comparison is a bit disingenuous. Knives are a necessity. Live
Facebook broadcasts are not.

------
Taniwha
It should be noted that this video has been rated the video as
'objectionable', a technical term making it illegal to share, possess or
distribute.

Note that NZ law is written so that this means it was always in this state
from its creation (not just from the point of classification).

People found doing so could face up to 14 years in prison and/or a $10,000
fine, there's already one person in jail for doing this.

NZ ISPs are blocking the IP addresses of websites that are hosting this video.

~~~
erentz
> there's already one person in jail for doing this.

I'm a little conflicted about this. As a NZ'er the chief censor[1] has always
done a decent job, we've never had to debate the issue of censorship in NZ
much before. In this case the ability to retroactively label something
criminal, and someone to face charges for it feels unjust.

On the other hand, and details are light at this point, this one person who is
being charged allegedly mirrored the live stream during the event, cheered it
on in his comments, and may have posted inciting materials prior to the attack
(a picture of the mosque captioned "target acquired", but it's not clear based
on the public information yet if this was posted before or on the day of the
event).

[1] The idea of a chief censor may seem really appalling to many reading this,
I encourage you to actually research what they do and the legislation they
operate under before casting an opinion on it. Essentially the role is to
provide ratings on media items, and rarely outright censor things. In the past
day to day shit for them meant watching DVDs of rape videos and crap like that
coming through the physical borders.

~~~
ng12
> this one person who is being charged allegedly mirrored the live stream
> during the event, cheered it on in his comments, and may have posted
> inciting materials prior to the attack

Why does that factor in? New Zealand has (or had?) pretty strong protection
for freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

~~~
Nition
It seems like the guy was arrested for more than just posting the video,
potentially a lot more. Particularly this part:

> A second charge alleges that between the 8th and the 15th of March, he
> showed a photograph of the Deans Avenue mosque with the message “target
> acquired” and further chat messaging around inciting extreme violence
> constituting one of the offences.[1]

The 15th is the day of the attack, so as the grandparent comment said, it's
unclear if he posted the image in advance of the attack, but it all sounds
pretty dodgy.

[1] [https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/03/18yo-
in-c...](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/03/18yo-in-court-
over-sharing-footage-of-christchurch-terror-attack.html)

~~~
ng12
He was only charged with uploading the video, though.

~~~
Nition
Oh, do you have a source for that? The article I linked says he was arrested
on two separate charges.

------
temprunberkdk
> No users reported the video during the live broadcast.

I don’t mean to be pedantic, but why do you need to state that. It’s not the
users jobs to report the videos. They aren’t getting paid.

I might be reading this too much but somehow this sentence stands out as a
sore thumb for me.

~~~
yarosv
It may not be a users' job, but responsible users should report it. Like
responsible person should report a crime. Police doesn't know if someone robed
your house. Officer can not live in your house and watch it 24/7, because
"they are getting paid".

~~~
massivecali
Responsible people did report it to the proper authorities, which is not
Facebook. Reporting it to Facebook so they can take it down and prevent people
from knowing what is happening is not responsible.

~~~
bryan_w
Funny you should have this reply. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435955)
where someone makes the case that it _isn't_ the police job to notify
Facebook.

Facebook doesn't seem to be able to win here

~~~
panarky
_> Facebook doesn't seem to be able to win here_

I own a store that has power tools that could hurt people. As a business
owner, it's my responsibility to keep my property secure, and to ensure people
on my property don't use my tools to hurt themselves or others.

I install security cameras and I hire guards. I closely supervise customers
when they use my power tools.

If I didn't do these things and someone used my tools to hurt people, I would
be liable. If I thought a crime had been committed, I would call the police.

But it's not the responsibility of the police to patrol my store. The police
aren't responsible to supervise my customers on my property while they use my
tools.

That's my responsibility.

If someone uses my power tools in my store to hurt someone, I don't say "pat
me on the back, I cut the power to the tools within minutes of the police
notifying me".

If I did that, I'd be guilty of gross negligence and reckless disregard for
human life, because I could reasonably anticipate my tools could be used this
way and I did nothing to stop it.

In many jurisdictions that's a criminal charge sometimes known as involuntary
manslaughter.

~~~
praneshp
> If someone uses my power tools in my store to hurt someone,

I think you are unable to separate your dislike of facebook from logic. Let's
not pretend that facebook was the cause of hurt, and give the shooter a free
pass.

------
CharlesColeman
> The video was viewed fewer than 200 times during the live broadcast. No
> users reported the video during the live broadcast. Including the views
> during the live broadcast, the video was viewed about 4000 times in total
> before being removed from Facebook.

> The first user report on the original video came in 29 minutes after the
> video started, and 12 minutes after the live broadcast ended.

How long did it take them to react to that initial report and remove the
video? It's notable that they included so many statistics, but left that one
out.

~~~
Nition
It sounds like they didn't respond to the reports on the original video at
all:

> We removed the attacker’s video within minutes of [the New Zealand Police's]
> outreach to us.

They don't say how long it was until NZ police contacted them though, it could
have been right after the reports came though.

~~~
panarky
_> They don't say how long it was until NZ police contacted them_

This is Facebook's deceptive spin.

It's not the responsibility of NZ police to control Facebook's platform, yet
Facebook acts as if they have zero responsibility until they're notified.

The important numbers here are:

(1) how many minutes from the beginning of the livestream until the last re-
uploaded copy was removed?

(2) how many Facebook users viewed even part of the livestream or any of the
re-uploaded copies?

The answers are likely (1) thousands of minutes and (2) millions of views.

Naturally these two numbers are not to be found anywhere in Facebook's
deceptive explanation.

------
WhatIsDukkha
Whats missing from this facebook statement is -

Why would you not ban/tempban/"deplatform" users for
sharing/replicating/liking this on Facebook?

This is pretty directly against the "public interest" just like child
pornography.

This isn't a grey area, it was the murder of 50+ people.

Why would you not just flat ban and forward the accounts of anyone forwarding
this video, again just like child pornography?

~~~
ikeboy
There's nothing illegal about sharing this, unlike child pornography.

~~~
amanzi
This content was classified as illegal in NZ and so Facebook needs to comply
with NZ law if they wish to continue operating here.

~~~
ng12
Classified as illegal after the fact. You can't punish users for sharing a
video that was retroactively declared illegal by a country they don't live in.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> Classified as illegal after the fact. You can't punish users for sharing a
> video that was retroactively declared illegal by a country they don't live
> in.

This comment
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19435419)),
states that according to NZ law, the video was "born illegal." [1]

[1] term inspired by
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_secret)

~~~
ng12
That's why I said "retroactively declared illegal".

~~~
CharlesColeman
I took the comment to mean that there's a set of criteria that makes all
matching videos illegal from when they're created, not just from when an
authority declares the video matches the criteria (which could just be viewed
as confirmation).

------
sketchthat
> In the first 24 hours, we removed about 1.5 million videos of the attack
> globally. More than 1.2 million of those videos were blocked at upload, and
> were therefore prevented from being seen on our services.

Would this be bots uploading the video or are there 1.5 million individuals
trying to re-upload the video to FB? If so are they also having their accounts
banned for praising / supporting terror attacks?

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
_> are they also having their accounts banned for praising / supporting terror
attacks?_

doubt it was just bots.

I followed the topic as it was trending on twitter and many of the accounts
that re-uploaded it were accounts with Muslim names - often accompanied by a
message such as (paraphrasing) "let the world see what terrors are inflicted
by white man". They wanted to ensure the world sees what white man are capable
of. For many it was a moment of "look at what they are doing to our brothers
and sisters". I think they felt it was an injustice that the information is
removed in this case (yet when the attacks were carried out by Islamist's
nobody cared).

There was also a lot of outrage because some MSM's were not immediately
calling it a terrorist act. I can understand quite well why they wanted this
to be seen in all its gory detail. If my family were among the dead I too
would wanted to make sure people know the truth. In fact my pain would be so
big that I would want to show everyone in the hope that maybe somebody gets
radicalized enough and hits back by blowing up a place where such types hang
out. I'm not glorifying revenge or violence, but if you feel yourself into
that kind of situation (that pain), it would take a lot of strength not
wanting to retaliate (or shout out to those who might).

------
ng12
What makes this video so special? Is it because of NZ law? Forget the dark web
or BT, you can find lots of videos of violent terrorist attacks on the
mainstream web (YouTube, Twitter, et al).

~~~
RIMR
It's a first-person video of someone slaughtering dozens of unarmed civilians
for fun, and it was streamed live.

There is no other video like this one in the world. There's plenty of gory
videos out there, but this one crosses a line nothing else I have ever seen
has.

~~~
megous
There are videos of mass executions (similar to this, in that the guns are
used) recorded by the perps. I mean yeah, shooting people is horrible, but
it's pretty tame to what other stuff is out there, that I've seen and just
couldn't finish watching. And I'm pretty desensitized by now. I've seen some
Shabiha torture videos, and those are much much worse on the emotions.

~~~
Balgair
Both the government forces and terrorist forces (al-shabab, etc) of lower
Somalia live-stream/broadcast/record their executions on Twitter from time to
time. Though I've not seen it done on Twitch, I'd be very surprised if that
hasn't been done yet. Typically this is by firing squad.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+kismayo+city+executi...](https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+kismayo+city+execution&oq=twitter+kismayo+city+execution&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.10747j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
(it should be the first link, I'd rather not directly link to the images out
of courtesy to others)

Look, I'm not going to get into the issues around the death penalty, but the
fact remains that a lot of governments and semi-governments use SV tech just
as they would use any radio/TV station/newspaper that is under their
jurisdiction. Death is horrible, no question. But it's not like these events
are being hidden away on sketchy websites that you have to hunt for. In many
parts of the world, such types of death are celebrated and proudly posted to
as many 'legitimate' news sites as possible by 'official' semi/governmental
agencies.

It's been less than 100 years since the US has had 'strange fruit' herself. I
mean, we literally sold postcards with the results on them.

------
monochromatic
I have no desire to search for or watch this particular video, but I’m
guessing the Streisand Effect is out in full force already.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
It was promptly shared on horrible sites like 8chan and KiwiFarms, and then a
Torrent was shared to alleviate the bandwidth pressure on those websites.

It was in full force before I even heard about the shooting.

~~~
tungwaiyip
It truly horrifies me when I learned there are groups who celebrate mass
murder by posting video to Internet. They go out of their way to mutate their
posting in order to evade Internet service's detecting. Who are these people?
I never know this dark side of humanity exist and it horrifies me.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/18/inside-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/18/inside-
youtubes-struggles-shut-down-video-new-zealand-shooting-humans-who-outsmarted-
its-systems/?utm_term=.54c5e0ad55af&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1)

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
> Who are these people? I never know this dark side of humanity exist and it
> horrifies me.

Here you go: [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-
webs-...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-
community-of-stalkers.html)

They're terrible people who largely manage to avoid doing illegal (merely
unethical) things as a _hobby_.

~~~
Taniwha
BTW Kiwi-farms has NOTHING to do with New Zealand, the name is a sick pun by
sick people

------
skybrian
I'm wondering if there's any way to know how many people are involved in
uploading this millions of times. (Apparently this also happened on YouTube.)

Is this like a denial-of-service attack where a few people have lots of
automation? Are there "booter" services? Maybe Krebs will write about it
someday.

------
lancewiggs
Nothing in that statement takes responsibility for Facebook being a fermenting
ground for hate, disinformation and isolation of perspectives that promotes
extremism. And other social media sites are equally to blame.

------
Jedi72
I didlike Facebook immensely but this isn't their fault. They are a huge
victim in this case. If the shooter had set ten open-source video stream boxes
around the globe instead (seems possible) who would we be getting mad at then?
The powers that be are rushing to look like they're doing something, and
apparently 4chan and 8chan are now blocked in Australia. Same day that
Vladimir Putin introduced sweeping internet cencorship laws in Russia...

------
minikites
>No users reported the video during the live broadcast.

This line would be suspect coming from YouTube or Snapchat, but Facebook has
lied so many times that it's become impossible to believe them.

~~~
judge2020
I'm predicting "Whoops! Someone reported it, but our ML service detected it as
a false flag so no human was able to review the report. Our mission is to give
people the power to build community and bring the world closer together, and
we will make an effort in the future to prevent this from happening again."

------
thrwynm
Email and Usenet include metadata, and no one really complains about an
infringement of their liberty. Social media networks are more anonymous than
either, harder to police, and they are far larger in scale than any other
websites. Some form of metadata may curb anonymous abuse. In the case of
repressive countries, it could be masked.

And before anyone talks about VPN and Tor...try posting to HN from a Tor
browser and see what happens to your post...blacklists exist. And the average
shitposter isn’t going to go to the trouble.

The Arab Spring is widely seen as a triumph of social media over repression,
but its effects were short-lived and those who posted were often tracked down
and persecuted.

