
Facebook removed 1.5M videos of the Christchurch attacks within 24 hours - ryan_j_naughton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/facebook-removed-15-million-videos-of-the-christchurch-attacks-within-24-hours--and-there-were-still-many-more/2019/03/17/fe3124b2-4898-11e9-b871-978e5c757325_story.html
======
nutcracker46
One point five million uploads and counting. What a fucking waste of time, CPU
cycles, and bandwidth. For Facebook, it is Whack-a-mole on steroids and meth.

Yet politicians still seem to want more, something along the lines of no
anonymity / fully moderated social media. Not going to happen in free
countries.

~~~
orbifold
Well ultimately platforms like Facebook should be held responsible for the
content they distribute in the same way that newspapers were. The safe harbor
provisions should not apply to platforms that do way more than just passively
host content. Google and Facebook should not be able to hide behind algorithms
if the real world outcomes of these algorithms are as bad as they currently
are. If they can't find a way to police their platform automatically, they
will have to change something else. One thing would be to require people to
provide proof of real identity, so that anyone that redistributes content like
this can be sued and it gets much harder to create fake profiles.

The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger
than any positive value they provide.

~~~
frabbit

       The amount of harm these platforms
       have caused is at this point much
       larger than any positive value they
       provide.
    

That is something for which you really need to provide some proof.

In addition I do not believe that someone watching that video is in any danger
of any sort.

These calls for censorship are just taking advantage of an emotional
situtation to impose very dangerous state control on information.

~~~
deogeo
> The amount of harm these platforms have caused is at this point much larger
> than any positive value they provide.

You want proof of this, but I think the standard should be higher - to prove
that platforms like these cause greater harm than state censorship would.
Censorship that has, even in the US, been used to criminalize anti-war
activism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)

~~~
frabbit
That's a stronger argument for sure.

------
caprese
Apparently hosting this video is part of a violation of the law in New
Zealand, population of 4 million.

For Facebook why not just block New Zealand? Looking for thoughtful responses

edit: seems there are reports of New Zealand ISPs blocking very many sites and
web services. So for Facebook this is also a compelling option to just block
the country and continue business as usual, focusing on important things like
those user metrics. Censoring videos is an antiquated law forcing silly
compliance burdens.

~~~
erentz
The PR would be great:

“Facebook asked to block snuff film, instead decides to block entire country
and continue to distribute the snuff film.”

Facebook clearly don’t want to distribute snuff films, child porn, or other
objectionable material, regardless of where in the world the operate.

~~~
caprese
They put themselves in this position of deciding to arbitrarily delete things
such that this PR would even be possible.

If they weren't in the business of policing the network this way, the
deletions would only be in response to a court order - which do happen. Then
they would be in the PR favor by deciding to ignore "another country's" court
order, and "exiting that market" if it was a better business decision.

This is one of the grand luxuries of international business, and Facebook is
paying for it - in this case - instead of enjoying the privilege.

Someone should tell them PM to change her statement to "Our censorship laws
are about to change"

~~~
solveit
You think refusing to delete a snuff film would give them _good_ PR?
Presumably because they stuck to their principles???

What world do you live in? People by and large do not _actually_ want that
level of free speech.

~~~
caprese
there are companies hosting the file, not sure what your point is because that
is the world I live in

