It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other.
Not to mention the sections of the traditional or social media that have been experimenting with how much they can anger people against vulnerable groups without quite printing death threats in the paper. Or just, you know, casually advocating the end of rule of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headlin...
There are a lot of people in the West who, while they would refrain from pulling the trigger themselves, would happily either advocate that someone else do so, or watch someone die, simply because they're Muslim. The example that comes to mind is Katie Hopkins calling for refugees to be machinegunned.
We have created conditions of perverse incentives in our media. We reward extremists. We reward unfounded accusations. We reward people saying wacko things. "If it bleeds, it leads."
We need to stop allowing the extremes to "wag the dog."
EDIT: This doesn't mean we should censor people. Rather, it means we need to become a little cynical and self aware of the mechanism of outrage virality itself.
Specifically, we need to stop mindlessly rewarding mass murderers with attention. We need to stop mindlessly rewarding people who act extreme for attention, period.
“[Social media] is like a game where you get 1 point for being fair and thoughtful and 1000 points for character assassination”
This is partly why I spent so much time writing a media literacy guide to explain the incentives behind what we see in our feeds and our newspapers:
If you regularly treat people you are friends with badly it is generally on you and people will choose to disengage from a relationship with you.
If you regularly behave in a destructive manner towards members of a real life group then you at some point run out of individuals in that group that will invite you to real life group gatherings.
This is exactly why sociopaths and psychopaths quickly run out of connections and have to move around a lot.
Counterpoint: the Republican Party in the US still has strong support amongst many people its policies end up hurting.
ISIS, Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda in Iraq, and every other effective terrorist org has telegraphed their intentions. STILL we have, time and again, fallen into the trap they set. It would be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
Just curious, are you one of the people who would say that Pewdiepie has a role in this shooting and all the division as well?
The radical left call everyone that is effective at expressing any other opinion alt-right, which is where the unfounded and silly assertion that Pewdiepie is related to any of this comes from.
- using the N-word (more than once)
- doing a nazi salute and dressing up in nazi garb
- paying two Indians(?) to hold up a sign with 'death to all jews' on it.
On top of that he not only subscribes to quite a number of radical/far right people (Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern), but did a shout-out to a channel that is pretty far down the far-right side of the spectrum (E;R).
Then of course there's the fact that this support works two ways. The 'far right' really seems to like him a lot!
To be clear, I'm not saying he is a white supremacist, a racist, or even 'far right'. I'm really not. I can't read his mind, and obviously it's true that if one wants to troll, the above is a very effective approach.
(Although he could also, I dunno, mix it up by doing some far left stuff. Promote communism, make a Stalin shrine or guillotine the rich jokes. Or do any of many other things that are provocative that aren't as much associate with the far right. defend PHP?)
But the least that I would argue is that he's definitely not part of the middle that is 'caught' in between all this. Not in behavior, and not in effect. And in that context I don't care too much about intent (which we can never really know).
His users were creating some pretty irritating memes out of this tragedy and he took action to moderate things until things calm down.
Similar to Bin Laden's goal of bankrupting his enemies by luring them into never ending wars.
With regards to censorship I never claimed his manifesto was censored. I was pointing out the fact that he in this manifesto said that his goal was to have the left increase censorship of the right to cause a counter-reaction.
That's a pretty intense claim, in what way is OP "providing cover"?
Pick a popular figure that people claim is [adjacently controversial] in some way, now that popular figure has to talk about you to disavow your crazyness etc, but if they do, your plan has already worked: You've just hijacked his audience into hearing about you. And if the popular figure stays silent to stop this, other people who hate the pop figure will trumpet your name even louder and farther in trying to get the popular figure to say something.
Look at PewDiePie’s twitter followers. Many are white nationalists.
He has ~17 million followers — what is your methodology in determining with such precision the demographic profile of his followers?
Stefan Molynux and L. Southern, for two among others.
You can't stop crimes just by deleting the evidence.
If these attacks got less free distribution, they might be less likely to occur. Part of the incentive around horrific attacks like this is to get free marketing (aka, earned media) for a cause (as the killer makes clear in his manifesto).
And to add some data, here's my analysis of Islamic terrorism vs. homicide coverage in the NY Times (as you can imagine, the scarier or more horrific the attack, the more distribution it gets in the press):
And comparison of every death type by coverage:
That means it is very responsible to:
1) partly cloud or obscure methods/reasons for suicice
2) partly cloud or obscure motives for serious crimes
This does NOT mean to lie about the events. Or even make that information to truly not be available. Just hide it ... just a bit so it doesn't pass through everyone's mind who just reads some news.
There have been incidents in the past where news messages lead to copycats in both cases.
The fact of the matter is that crime is not illogical or "evil". Crimes are committed for a specific purpose. Making people realize that "hey you can do this", or making people think about what a crime would accomplish vs what not doing a crime would accomplish will inevitably lead some to conclude the crime is the preferable option, and thus damage others.
The advice from psycologists to the media about how to cover mass murder in a way to avoid causing to more is basically to minimize their coverage.
They take the psycologist's advice when it comes to covering suicide causing more suicide (see the suicide prevention resources in every suicide article you've ever read), but with mass shootings the media can't help themselves. They (at best) cynically want the exposure and ad revenue, or (at worst) think so highly of their reporting's benefit to society that negative side effects won't happen.
Because it’s upsetting to see innocent people get slaughtered.
Because it will be used to radicalize more terrorists.
Because nobody is obligated to host it on their platform.
Because leaving it up won’t stop crimes either.
You can make good counter-arguments to all of those. This isn’t a math problem with 1 answer.
Same reason links to child rape videos should be taken down, it's disgusting. That's the consensus view. We realize not everyone is going to agree and you can go to Gab or 4chan or 8chan or wherever to see that sort of thing if you like.
Removing this terrorist's video is just applying a standing policy to remove reported terrorist videos.
 For all I know the policy started even earlier, but I followed the SCW closely for several years and I noticed a big change in video availability over time.
The evidence won't go away. The point of removing the video is to stop glorifying this atrocity.
2. What am I gloating about?
I posted this link because reddit is a YC company that makes money hosting a lot of hateful content. If it makes you feel better, I'm sure it does so on all extremes of the spectrum.
Whether that is on the clear web or dark web is debatable, but it would be impossible to fully censor any file 100% of the time.
And if it isn't on the internet, it'll be on the sneakernet.
EDIT: I wasn't arguing if it should be removed or not. I was stating my prediction about what I think will happen.
"Regardless of whether asteroids should be allowed to strike the Earth, they will continue to do so"