Thankfully, NZ has no mandatory internet filtering, though the department of internal affairs offers a child porn blocklist which some ISPs apply.
Spark (NZ ISP) gets there ok for me.
Edit: on further testing, some things are broken. 4Chan works fine, which is puzzling.
>Our Spark security experts are working hard to close off the websites attempting to distribute the hateful stuff originating from the perpetrators of the massacre in Christchurch. We hope it causes minimal inconvenience to legitimate internet use by our customers.
Suggests ongoing and continuous effort, but that thread suggests it's a simple DNS blackhole.
I imagine they added the domain(s) to their blacklist and flushed the cache (or removed specific entries). And this doesn't prevent access.
Sounds like using a tragedy for marketing. Maybe I'm being too cynical?
Second, it's very important to not be taken advantage of. Whether it's funeral homes raising the prices of coffins, or governments taking away civil liberties, people have a habit of accepting bad outcomes because they (very understandably) can't think straight. Oftentimes, those decisions are very difficult to reverse when things calm down and the scales fall from your eyes. An alert, vigilant citizenry is the keystone for a democratic society.
If I was the NZ government, I'd be very interested in screening foreign travel into NZ and banning firearms on arrivals. I'd also be very interested in what the AUS government will be doing about domestic terrorism and spillover, and would scream for greater intelligence sharing. I'm highly skeptical that banning a website will even partially address this issue; I'd rather honeypot it and trace any terror cells for physical locations. And I would increase funding for domestic security, and demand machine-readable receipts for said funding available to anybody with the proper security clearance.
There's no unicorn technical solution to the problem of terror and fear. Technical solutions must be weaved into an overall change in social paradigms and political strategy to address the task at hand. I do think that's our place in this world.
No similar event has occurred in New Zealand before.
Guns are not readily available in New Zealand. You can get one suitable for sport, but it is a serious process to get your license first. I presume these guns must have been illegally imported from somewhere.
I think New Zealanders are mostly reasonably liberal, even laid-back, although we do have our share of "rednecks" too.
Size, geography, and population of NZ is somewhat similar to Oregon.
Generally our government is reasonably well run and the less fortunate get some care: I suspect because the families and friends of our politicians have varied backgrounds (it is difficult for politicians to live in an elite bubble).
Generally we don't like being told what to do by our government, or anyone from overseas.
I am from Christchurch, and I think censorship is dangerous, but there needs to be some way to prevent the easy access to forums and videos of violence, hatred, and abuse.
I don't want my friends, or their family watching this mentally damaging video. I know friends and the children of friends that have watched the livestreamed video, because it is easily available.
This block is unprecedented here, and has little legal or technical infrastructure in place to enforce it.
NZ will sort our shit out about this, hopefully without too much interference from the societies that caused this atrocity in the first place.
Why? There is no evidence viewing it leads to violence while there is plenty of evidence of the dangers of censorship. I feel like we are back in the 80s with the PMRC clutching their pearls, talking about how heavy metal music is causing children to worship the devil.
This is your evidence that viewing violence leads to violence and that people like you need to censor what everyone else sees and says.
We've had this argument with violent video games and there is absolutely no solid evidence they make kids more violent. Every study that has come out claiming they do has been debunked.
A recent analysis finds that research on video games is prone to false positives and false negatives, which leads to faulty conclusions.
Another review finds that much of the research on violence and video games is affected by publication bias; essentially, studies that concluded that video games lead to aggression and violence are more likely to be published than studies that find violent video games don’t have an effect on violence. As a result, large reviews of the data conclude violent video games lead to aggression without considering research to the contrary. There is emerging research that finds no link between violent games and negative outcomes, such as reduced empathy, aggression and depression.
> This is the second time in two days that I've had to correct a science-illiterate HN user
We are so lucky to be blessed with someone of your mental magnitude. Thank you so much for putting up with our inferiority, oh great one.
Turns out the AR15 5 shot semi automatic used were sold in NZ. Perhaps no more.
If it is, why is it damaging, yet movies with shootings, explosions and torture aren't?
Can the damage be measured? Is there any grounding in experimental psychology?
If you watched the video without having read the news, and someone told you it was fiction, would it still be equally damaging or would that change the effect it has?
Do you think I have personally seen what I believe are positive or negative affects of real and artistic violence?
Are you a majority or minority believer?
Does my opinion actually matter to you?
Why have you asked me these questions?
Now if by "mentally damaged" you are referring to someone coming to agree with someone else because they listened to their views and arguments then of course videos can influence people, but that's not mental damage. That's just normal evaluation of speech. We may not like the outcome but it's not damage.
I don't really understand the other questions you're asking me though. Like, what does majority/minority believer mean?
yeah, about that
There is no mandatory internet filter in NZ.
There is no mandatory block in place, that much I am sure. Such a thing could not be put in place without me hearing about it, I'm sure about that.
That it actually happened is alarming.
I don't really see much value lost in taking 4chan down, just like it's not a big deal if Stormfront or an Isis affiliated site was blocked.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences.
Of course it doesn't. Who said it does? What it means is there is a governmental, and cultural, commitment to not bestowing authoritative power on the state to determine what people can or cannot say, read, or discuss.
Under that logic, let's also shut down Twitter, Facebook and Reddit.
Also, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
>I don't really see much value lost in taking 4chan down, just like it's not a big deal if Stormfront or an Isis affiliated site was blocked.
Censorship is fine if it's against people you don't like?
>Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want, with no threat of consequences.
It means you get to say whatever you want without the state or other people attacking you for saying it.
No, it means the government cannot prevent you from saying whatever you want. Its frightening how widespread opposition to free speech has become (especially among the younger generation who has been conditioned to accept authoritarianism).
There's nothing like that to be found in mosques. They're echo chambers.
4chan and 8chan claim to be message boards where other people are saying things. This is an important distinction, because if they were claiming it's their own (protected) speech, they're liable for incitement, defamation, and various other crimes and torts in dozens of countries. But they're not. And while free speech laws might protect the content of speech they don't protect the manner of said speech or the forum in which such speech occur (except that in the US, "public" areas are open to all speech.)
You're also missing the crucial distinction that while the words of the posts on 4chan and 8chan might be protected by free speech law, the acts they represent can be crimes, even in the U.S. And as I've already pointed out, NZ's free speech rights aren't as expansive as the US.
Yes they do, the standard may be a bit lower, but they still have to show that a bunch of conditions apply.
A government banning them because there can be some dissent speaches is equal to banning a pub because someone has said unpleasant things.
The best thing you can do as message board owners is flagging the specific message as being offensive. Unless it breaks specific rules/laws, where you must remove the content, of course.
A privately owned space is not a public space...It's literally the opposite of a public space.
A government banning them because there can be some dissent speeches is equal to banning a pub because someone has said unpleasant things.
Nope, not even close. There's a difference between illegal acts and "unpleasant things." It's like the difference between a nuclear weapon and a starter pistol.
The best thing you can do as message board owners is flagging the specific message as being offensive. Unless it breaks specific rules/laws, where you must remove the content, of course.
No, from the perspective of a message board, the best thing you can do is not let shit like that even infiltrate your board. If people want to spread and incite hate, they're free to spend their own resources running a message board where that's okay.
Pushing it further underground out of public view doesn’t make it go away either. You get a further closed echo chamber that will metastasize.
If you want to stop this behavior, you open it to a wider forum and debate and drag the people ideologically out of the muck.
Censorship doesn’t solve anything. Engage with people and see why issues are popping up and engage with them or expect more of this to happen as you close them off from view.
At some point, you need to recognize that what's happening on those boards isn't "free speech", it's "incitement" to commit violent acts, and that has never been protected by any of the free speech regimes, even in the U.S. New Zealand's free speech rights are not as broad or strong as they are in the US.
I wouldn't be surprised if 4chan and 8chan find themselves blocked across most of the globe by the end of the year.
You can say the same about Twitter and Facebook. In fact, the guy had a Twitter where he posted guns and ammunition with slogans on it, days earlier. Had it received more attention, this could've possibly been prevented.
> At some point, you need to recognize that what's happening on those boards isn't "free speech", it's "incitement" to commit violent acts, and that has never been protected by any of the free speech regimes, even in the U.S. New Zealand's free speech rights are not as broad or strong as they are in the US.
It's a bunch of anonymous people posting crap, often for shock value. Sure, there's incitement on there, but nobody takes anybody serious.
Having said that, I was pretty shocked about the reaction on 8chan. I haven't been there before. It's pretty sad to see.
That's not true, and it's notable that you had to create a new account just to make this FUD claim. Those murderers may all have used Twitter and Facebook to try to disseminate their idea vomit, but they were radicalized and incited by 4chan and/or 8chan. Also, Twitter and Facebook make the effort to remove those posts once they are made aware of them. 4chan and 8chan revel in keeping up those promote, and even promote them to show just how "free speech" they are.
More than a dozen mass murderers in the past few years took 4chan and 8chan seriously enough to murder hundreds of people. Mass murder might be an abstract concept to basement dwellers, but I know people who were shot at in the Santa Barbara, Vegas, and Thousand Oaks shooting, and it sure as fuck isn't an abstract concept to me or the thousands of other people who knew the victims of those shootings.
This isn't a specific platform problem but a problem with a subset of humanity.
But in those rare instances where a bar crosses over into openly supporting that type of speech, the police start taking an interest and monitoring that bar and its customers. And if a line gets crossed with respect to incitement, conspiracy, etc., the local municipality will usually pull the bar's liquor license and get it shut down to prevent future such crimes from being organized or incited at that bar.
So, really, you're actually quite spot on with the bar analogy. 4chan/8chan are exactly like a skinhead bar that's getting shutdown because the customers kept inciting each other to kill people and actually followed through.
Incidentally the police did nothing.
Edit: this was early 90s.
If I understand correctly, you're making an argument that goes around this: Exposure to freedom of speech is dangerous to society.
From this, you're proposing: All online discussion should be curated.
I don't want to live in such a world, so I kindly disagree with your proposal. Adults should be able to talk about whatever they want, and no third party should decide what they can or cannot read.
For this to be possible, communities with a very light handed approach to moderation should be allowed to continue to exist. This includes those that allow anonymous posting, as there's enough precedent in human history on perfectly fine ideas that are now generally accepted have been met with hostility. If posting safely is not an option, many will choose to not post at all. Thus ideas would get repressed.
If I understand you correctly, you're making the argument that inciting someone to commit violent acts of murder is freedom of speech which is good for society.
I believe in freedom of speech. I've defended it in court. What happens on 4chan and 8chan isn't free speech. It's acts of incitement that just happen to take the form of text.
Adults should be able to talk about whatever they want, and no third party should decide what they can or cannot read.
You don't understand that free speech relates to the words and ideas. Free speech means that the people on 4chan and 8chan can use whatever words they want, and spread whatever ideas they want. So long as they aren't committing criminal acts such as incitement. The words and ideas are protected, not the acts they represent.
I agree. And if 4chan and 8chan were solely about the sharing of ideas, I would be opposed to banning them...in the US, where the law would protect such speech, however abhorrent it is. But 4chan and 8chan long ago crossed over the line into being more than just sharing ideas...they're now websites where people incite and plan violent crimes.
This is a quite excessive claim. While posting in these communities is extremely easy, they are also extremely moderated. I'm somewhat familiar with the sites, and I know that while hateful posts do happen, they do get removed and posters do get banned fairly quickly. Often, within seconds. What could pass legally as actual incitement is extremely rare. Most communities and regular threads in these places are extremely friendly.
Ultimately, freedom of speech isn't about being able to say whatever you want, but about others being able to say that which you don't like. Few people understand that.
There are many SFW boards on 4chan related to specific hobbies. I have learned a lot from diy, fa, mu, g, and ck. There are many NSFW boards on 4chan that do contain posts inciting violence.
The same situation is present on reddit, but due to advertiser interest, subs get banned.
There were crazy people before 4chan and there will be crazy people after. Removing a site does less than helping those in need before they become radicals.
Can you cite any evidence that people are planning crimes on a public-only anonymous forum that has no vetting of its members?
Again, there are Nazi forums that are public, there are also Nazi networks that are certainly not public and where such attacks may have been planned, but 4chan? That would be a pretty absurd place to plan anything.
As for incitement, at least in the legal sense in the US, the bar for that is quite high:
If you can prove that statement then it certainly deserves to get shutdown, but you cant
if you read something in the newspaper and it makes you angry and/or sparks an extreme reaction, should that newspaper be banned? or a TV network, or any other news source?
Its a slippery slope if you go down this road IMO
Too many non-lawyers on this board think that saying "slippery slope" makes two things on the opposite ends of the spectrum one and the same, and that's not true at all. The law is perfectly capable of handling degees of difference. After all, there are no less than 5 degrees of homicide (more, depending on jurisdiction).
It's quite possible to ban a newspaper that says "Kill all the X this weekend" without it having any bearing on a newspaper that opines "X people should die." If you can't see the difference between the two, then I won't bother responding further.
What exactly isn't true? The guy did have that Twitter.
> ...and it's notable that you had to create a new account just to make this FUD claim.
I created this account three days ago to comment on an entirely unrelated matter.
> Those murderers may all have used Twitter and Facebook to try to disseminate their idea vomit...
So you agree that Twitter and Facebook are linked to the murderers?
> ...but they were radicalized and incited by 4chan and/or 8chan.
That's a pretty questionable claim. The guy had a manifesto similar to Breivik. Would you say Breivik was radicalized by 4chan? He holds specific political beliefs, whereas on places like 4chan, no belief is taken serious at all. There are real Neo-Nazi forums where there is serious discussion on Neo-Nazi ideals, but 4chan isn't one of them.
> More than a dozen mass murderers in the past few years took 4chan and 8chan seriously enough to murder hundreds of people.
Again, these forums are made up of pure shitposting. Nobody knows anybody. Nothing on there is taken serious, even things that should be taken serious. It's a brain dump.
4chan and 8chan have numerous skinhead forums. They are two of the most popular forum sites for skinheads and white nationalists.
This is objectively not true. You can repeat it all you want, and you might even believe it because it's true for you, but plenty of people take the stuff on 4chan and 8chan at face value and take posts their seriously.
I never said anything like that. I said I haven't been on 8chan before today. You shouldn't lump both together like that anyway, it's disingenuous.
> 4chan and 8chan have numerous skinhead forums.
I wouldn't qualify /pol/ or /b/ as "skinhead forums" by any reasonable standard.
> They are two of the most popular forum sites for skinheads and white nationalists.
4chan has subforums for anime, lgbt, video games, porn and all kinds of other things. It's a popular site in general and there's people from all over the political spectrum.
Isn't that kinda helpful for law enforcement. There are so many ways those planning violence could interact privately, that they'd do it all in the open is a massive help, no?
No. It used to be like this. Maybe in the mid-2000s when 4chan was first getting popular, it could have been seen as this. It might have been seen like this during the early 2010s, does anyone remember Anonymous and how it started basically from /b/?
It used to be a troll site -- it's not anymore. It's literally a cesspool of white supremacy. Seriously, go read what's on /pol/ right now. It's not shock value, it's sympathy.
Do get argued against in /pol/ all the time. It literally acts as a safeguard against these twisted beliefs.
If it doesn't happen in 4chan, then I'm worried. Because these fascists/racists/etc. might end up in a members-only, non-public-viewable fascist/racist/etc echo chamber, with not a trace of voices of reason.
As someone who frequents 8chan, I can tell you this categorically is not the case and /pol/acks are very serious.
On there you have literal Nazis, MAGA people and white identitarians all disagreeing and trolling each other. They can't even agree on everything being a Jewish conspiracy.
What you can't say is that this is some sort of organization that poses a threat as such. It is a bunch of random people on the internet that do not know each other and that vaguely share certain beliefs.
This is an obvious advantage to all of this happening in the open, over it happening in some members-only curated hate forum where any voice of reason is just removed and banned.
I'm baffled with how irrational some people can get, irresponsibly calling for the suppression of public, anonymous image boards.
You have no idea who is posting there, or why, and yet you take the posts at face value? Interesting.
I guess you're implying though that there's some sort of elaborate false-flag operation going on there?
Without it, I would not be nearly as interested in OSS development or RMS' contributions to GNU+LINUX. There are boards which tend towards topics you may consider "incitement to commit violent acts" but this is a function of a website allowing user content. HN or Reddit or any other popular website could have been used for this announcement just the same.
Removing a website will not remove the people who use it, they will find other places.
i believe that imageboards are highly valuable and that the problems that can be seen within them are reflective of greater societal issues that we refuse to acknowledge.
Edit: I am blocked from some sites.
Snuffing the Medium will not remove the Cause nor the Means.
I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but it's wrong.
The fact that banning 4chan won't solve anything isn't lost on anyone with a working mind, especially not the government. But hey, that's how they stop the violent peace protests and not loose the next election in advance.
Everyone wins here. The terrorists win, the government gets popularity, the peace loving people get internet brownie points and moral satisfaction to overcome their insomnia till the next time, the media gets their clicks and ad revenue and the people on 4chan get their kicks.
Think of Gab for example. The site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. The only reason the site exists in the first place, is that those people were pushed out from Twitter, outside of the realm of "allowed" mainstream opinions. The problem is that by pushing them out, you don't make them disappear, you make them less visible and more radicalised and dangerous.
So what is new? The internet is 30 years old now. So that's not new.
My controversial opinion is this: Pro-military and nationalist propaganda campaigns by the military since 2001, including a major push into video games, has radicalized a disenfranchised youth, who are seeing their world worse off than their parents. In other words, a military recruitment campaign went awry.
It's only a matter of time until it will be shutdown.
I've seen nothing of the sort.
The closest I can find is this WP perspective urging giants like Facebook and Youtube to "deal with the crisis that they have helped create".
Removing /pol/ would certainly remove /pol/ users, they would need to find another place and it takes time for these sorts of communities to regroup.
We are ineffectively blocking websites through very crude technical means that are not designed for censorship.
I am just saying you are requesting something that has deeper implications... My opinions on censorship are not relevant to that.
I used to be very much on the side of 'free speech', but it's become increasingly clear to me that deplatforming and censoring, while indeed unpleasant, is effective and necessary.
Also, imminent doesn't mean immediate. It depends on the circumstances of the crime...if a crime takes a long time to plan and carry out, "imminent" can actually mean weeks before the actual commission of the crime.
> In America, under the First Amendment, I can say something like "if Donald Trump gets elected, someone should assassinate him for the good of the nation." That statement may be immoral, and destructive of the very American values it purports to defend, but unless it calls for imminent action or expresses an objectively credible intent to do harm, it's protected speech.
Incitement is a specific call to action, not a general, broad-based statement. In the US, it must further be for "imminent" unlawful acts, though the "imminence" required varies based on the act incited.
If Michael Cohen were to say to Roger Stone, "kill Donald Trump by poisoning his Big Mac tomorrow" that could be incitement if Cohen had previously or afterwards tried to convince stone to actually do it. (Alternatively, it could also be seen as conspiracy, and frequently prosecutors charge conspiracy instead of or in addition to incitement because they usually both apply and it's much easier to prove conspiracy.)
I know - I gave it to illustrate how narrow incitement is, if even that doesn't qualify. And it's not really mine, but given by popehat.
That describes pretty much every online community. I've seen a lot of hate, real threats, etc. on Facebook
>Even @Bitchute is removing the video mirrors.
>Earlier today Bush said he was aware that footage of the shooting had appeared on social media and police were doing everything they could to get it removed.
>"It shouldn't be in the public domain."
>Facebook Australia-New Zealand policy director Mia Garlick said videos which appeared to show the Christchurch shootings had been taken down.
>"New Zealand Police alerted us to a video on Facebook shortly after the livestream commenced and we quickly removed both the shooter's Facebook and Instagram accounts and the video."
>Spark managing director Simon Moutter said the company was working to close off websites attempting to distribute the footage.
>"Our Spark security experts are working hard to close off the websites attempting to distribute the hateful stuff originating from the perpetrators of the massacre in Christchurch. We hope it causes minimal inconvenience to legitimate internet use by our customers."
>Vodafone NZ spokesman Richard Llewellyn said: "Industry players are working at a technical level now to block some of the hate sites involved in this content."
>Spark spokesman Andrew Pirie said technical staff had identified three primary sites where footage had been posted but there were a number of "copycat" sites popping up.
>The internet providers had joined forces to block access to these sites, he said.
Which makes sense, if Reddit wants to ban the Christchurch video. Banning just that video and not the many others posted and discussed daily would be a difficult needle to thread as a coherent policy.
That comes into play only after you know there's something to see.
Your shutting down rightwing websites and free speech the phase hate speech" is nothing more than an essuse to take away NZ freedoms and religious rights in Orwellian attack on right wing voters and attack on freedom of association and discrimory laws both of which are illegal in NZ.
leftwingers are currently the only ones with free speech so what you are doing is outright illegal no matter the jusifcation
It makes me incredibly sad how blatant calls for violence and racist and backwards ideologies are freely pushed on Twitter. Please stop giving these people a platform.