back to article Click here to see the New Zealand livestream mass-murder vid! This is the internet Facebook, YouTube, Twitter built!

An Australian who murdered dozens in New Zealand on Friday livestreamed the deaths on Facebook, spinning a spotlight onto the abject failure of social media to control harmful content. The 28-year-old shooter, whose name isn't worth publishing, fired on defenseless people attending prayers at two Christchurch mosques, killing …

Page:

            1. Kiwi
              Devil

              Re: El Reg follows common sense!

              The newspapers aren't exactly the origin of this language.

              No, but they are well-known for not exactly being honest these days :)

              As to the rest of your post.. Dammit, I was about to head to bed! Now I have to clear the mind of horrors before I do! :(

        1. Mooseman Silver badge

          Re: El Reg follows common sense!

          "The XX faction has asserted that it committed the cowardly atrocity of killing a busload of schoolchildren."

          I have always been puzzled by the media's willingness to promote the activities of various terrorist groups by publicising their "claims", from the days of the IRA/UDF outrages in Northern Ireland to the modern ISIS, they never say "X organisation has admitted responsibility", it's always "claimed" as if there is a bizarre competition going on.

          1. Kiwi

            Re: El Reg follows common sense!

            they never say "X organisation has admitted responsibility", it's always "claimed" as if there is a bizarre competition going on.

            I cannot think of any specific examples, and it's way too early in the morning to fart around with google etc, but I believe there have been incidents where one group has remained silent and another group has 'filled the void', and also cases of a plane crashing for as-yet-unknown reasons where a terrorist group has claimed responsibility, only to turn out it was something not related to terrorism that caused the crash.

            Hence they say "dumbfuckcowards claimed responsibility" at least until "it is established that dumbfuckcorwards committed the cowardly murders"

    1. John Savard

      Re: El Reg follows common sense!

      I suppose now we'll forget the names of Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson, and so on and so forth? The "Very Proper Charlies" strategy goes against human nature, and isn't likely to be effective against crazy people.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: El Reg follows common sense!

      Even the Mail and the Mirror dutifully made the video available. At that point I think there's no hope left, MSM has jumped off the cliff after social media in search of hits to get that sweet sweet advertising revenue. Nothing actually matters apart from those metrics and whatever generates those hits is deemed to work, extremist videos included.

      It's at this point that I'll mention a new social network I bumped into Kailo, which apparently is built to allow useful debate to take place. I don't know if it'll work (I haven't even tried it, I don't even have accounts with the usual suspects), but it deserves our attention as someone's got to try something new which isn't fundamentally broken where amplifying everything that's wrong with society is considered an acceptable trade off if a few dollars can be made off the back of it).

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: El Reg follows common sense!

        "Kialo requires JavaScript to work correctly.

        Loading Kialo"

        Farewell Kialo.

      2. Pen-y-gors

        Re: El Reg follows common sense!

        Surely a good lawyer can identify some law that has been broken by the Heil when it shared this video. I mean, the Tories have criminalised so much.Possession and distribution of material likely to be of use to a terrorist? That';s always a good one, as it makes it an offence to have Google maps on your phone.

        Please, please, please can someone prosecute the Heil for terrorism offences?

        1. batfink

          Re: El Reg follows common sense!

          I did notice that the Mail's headline the next day blamed Facebook, rather than, I don't know, years of anti-muslim headlines by outlets such as the, er, Mail...

      3. Teiwaz

        Re: El Reg follows common sense!

        Even the Mail and the Mirror dutifully made the video available.

        Pretty sure the 'traditonal media' get ignored in the rush to point the finger at badly monitored and user submission based social platforms.

        Those paid to curate the news and (you'd think) be responsible make the content available by conscious decision rather than just by being ignorant of whatever bile is being uploaded in the millions every day.

      4. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: El Reg follows common sense!

        Forget newspapers and social media, most of the sharing of that video will be by torrent and that's not going to be easy to stop.

        1. Kiwi

          Re: El Reg follows common sense!

          Forget newspapers and social media, most of the sharing of that video will be by torrent and that's not going to be easy to stop.

          Flooding the torrent sites with fake videos might help it. Bury the real one?

          Or will that start a "bidding war" where the other side puts up so many copies of it? Still, at least if they start pumping out copies it increases the chance that sharers of this get caught and prosecuted.

  1. ma1010

    It can be difficult, but..

    Consider that a lot of these sort of freaks are created in "echo chambers" where their fellow travelers on anti-social media feed back and strengthen their twisted, hate-filled views. If the anti-social media platforms really DID manage to block plain hate speech of no benefit to anyone, whatsoever, then it might interfere with the creation of these creatures in the first place. How about trying to apply all this vaunted "AI technology" to help screen out this sort of crap and then let a human make a final decision?

    I believe the author makes a very good point: when these creatures appear, denying them their "15 minutes of fame" as much as possible might well discourage them. Instead of "making a statement for the cause," in a glare of publicity, let them be just another numbered convict in a prison cell. Keep them in solitary for the rest of their lives, letting them out of their cell only 1 hour a day. And make it known to all and sundry that "This is what will happen to you if you do this." Maybe that would help. We can hope.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It can be difficult, but..

      I frankly feel, if someone wants their fifteen minutes of fame, they'll find a way by hook or crook.

      As for jailing the guy, ever considered there may be a bunch of friends ready to bust him out in a hail of explosives and gunfire. I mean, look at El Chapo. Until recently, he made breaking out easy, and few things would shock the Western world like a paramilitary jailbreak to prove that nowhere is safe.

      1. Kiwi
        FAIL

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        If the guy had such friends, he probably would not have ended up in the situation he is in now.

        For a start, he would not have fled Oz to live here (what, you think we won't deport him at the first chance just like the Ozzies do to our citizens?).

        And since a couple of other people were arrested over this, it's a fair bet that all of his friends are now behind bars. How are they going to "bust him out in a hail of explosives and gunfire" when they cannot themselves go anywhere without a couple of prison officers to escort them?

        Also, interestingly, you point to one case of such things, yet far better resourced and far far far far better liked people have not had their people come to "bust him out in a hail of explosives and gunfire" despite having the backing of entire nations, a large number of "friendles" in the target area, and knowing exactly where their person is held.

      2. Kiwi
        FAIL

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        and few things would shock the Western world like a paramilitary jailbreak to prove that nowhere is safe.

        Actually your text could be classified as "terrorist" as it is threatening other people and is intended to create fear in the minds of readers ("...prove that nowhere is safe"). I hope El Reg doesn't view it that way and leaves it in place to show just how stupid some people can get.

        In reality, every where is about as safe as every where else. Lots of people have died from various things including the most common cause of death, "natural causes". I could be killed by my cat knocking the TV over while I sleep, which catches fire and burns me to death or kills me from noxious gasses. I could gasp at yet a new level of silliness in your posts and choke on a cherry. An oncoming driver could swat at a bee in their car and swerve...

        There is no point fearing death, for when your time is up you will be dead. Do what you can to be reasonably safe but do not let that cause you to live in fear.

        49 people lost their lives in horrible circumstances. I do not wish or intend to in any way minimise that or the suffering felt by their loved ones or any others. But across this nation several other people died on the same day from a number of causes, including an old friend of mine who finally succumbed to cancer (we have been out-of-touch for more than a decade).

        It is true, no place will give you eternal life - we are all "born to die", but even in the worst places you're more likely to die from old age, incompetence, or pollution than you are from violence.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: It can be difficult, but..

          Tell that to people in Africa, Afghanistan, and so on. Lots of people die young, and you call that c'est la vie?

          1. Kiwi

            Re: It can be difficult, but..

            Tell that to people in Africa, Afghanistan, and so on. Lots of people die young, and you call that c'est la vie?

            People die young all over the world. My first experience with a person dying was when I was 4 or 5. I still remember when I was 9 or 10 the news coming in that a teenage boy known to our family had died in a car accident and another friend was being charged with 'careless driving causing death' as a result of his actions.

            Dying as a result from injuries obtained in a car accident isn't a peaceful way to die. Drowning in the sea or a river appears to be an incredibly terrifying way to go - I was caught in a sea current as a teenager and only by luck caught a boulder at the very end of my energy. I still remember how utterly terrifying that was (I wasn't a Christian at that stage so was still scared of dying).

            I absolutely value life, as I am sure my posts over the years will have shown.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: It can be difficult, but..

              Neither is being gunned down for being in the wrong place in the wrong time (you can tell this is personal for me). I'm not just talking accidents, I'm talking people being killed in cold blood for the supposed crime of existing, and it's all over the place. For many places, life's cheap and then you die; simple, blunt, but absolutely true, and it speaks to the old Problem of Evil.

              1. Kiwi
                Pint

                Re: It can be difficult, but..

                (you can tell this is personal for me).

                I grew up gay in 1970s rural NZ. Trust me when I say I know what it is like to be the victim of violence simply for existing.

                That scene in "V for Vendetta" where V makes Evy(sp) "no longer afraid" - you can get an idea of why I do not fear things like others do, years of torment wiped the fear away.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        "look at El Chapo. Until recently, he made breaking out easy"

        You've overlooked the fact that he had money to command that. Most miscreants don't.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: It can be difficult, but..

          Friends can substitute for money if they have sufficient motivation. Just look at Afghanistan where such breakouts DO happen.

          1. Kiwi

            Re: It can be difficult, but..

            NZ isn't Afghanistan.

            Lots of people here have money and motivation, yet such breakouts DON'T happen.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: It can be difficult, but..

              Money, maybe, but I don't think enough motivation. Put it this way: I'm putting an armed storming of the US SuperMax facility as a matter of WHEN, not IF.

              1. Kiwi
                Pint

                Re: It can be difficult, but..

                Money, maybe, but I don't think enough motivation. Put it this way: I'm putting an armed storming of the US SuperMax facility as a matter of WHEN, not IF.

                I got to see enough of NZ's prisons visitng a young lad within my family to see how quickly that would fail, and he was only in a place that was "medium security" by NZ's relaxed standards!

                Short of tanks and attack aircraft, I am pretty sure they're not getting very far. They may try storming the place with hand-held weapons, but the guards will be laughing at their twitching corpses a few minutes later.

                Not that I watch enough TV to know what "supermax" prisons are really like, just seen enough in real life to know you ain't getting without some heavy equipment, and even in NZ you'd be spotted and, well, spotted long before you got it near the place.

      4. Pen-y-gors

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        Excellent point. They better not lock him up then, just in case. Let him go at once. Same applies to any violent and dangerous criminal really.

        And of course, the same goes for Revoking Article 50, which it seems is now the preferred option of a majority of living voters (as opposed to religiously upholding the wishes of dead ones). There's a risk there maay be riots, so maybe we better not. Or we just go ahead and lock up the rioters.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It can be difficult, but..

          "Excellent point. They better not lock him up then, just in case. Let him go at once. Same applies to any violent and dangerous criminal really."

          To the bottom of the ocean, you mean. Makes you wonder why they didn't take the bin Laden route, given how dangerous some people can be by their mere existence.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It can be difficult, but..

      Agreed. While driving them to underground sites might seem like it is no better, or even arguably worse, on underground sites they can't poison the minds of those whose minds aren't already poisoned. Because people whose minds aren't already poisoned aren't going to seek out those underground white nationalist forums in the first place.

      1. Kiwi
        Black Helicopters

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        Agreed. While driving them to underground sites might seem like it is no better, or even arguably worse, on underground sites they can't poison the minds of those whose minds aren't already poisoned. Because people whose minds aren't already poisoned aren't going to seek out those underground white nationalist forums in the first place.

        An interesting argument. But how many of these people are 'fertile minds' just waiting for the right seeds to be sown? Some will act alone out of brokenness, others - well, we've had leaders raising hate-fuelled armies for a very long time, even before the discovery of interesting amounts of electricity.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It can be difficult, but..

          You can't do anything about demagogue leaders like Hitler who spread their hate into a nation's consciousness, at least not from a social media perspective, but you can at least stop the nutjobs like the ones who did this NZ massacre from helping increase the size of audience who would be initially receptive to such a message.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: It can be difficult, but..

            Can you? Or will the Darknet crowd start copying and spreading their stuff into the mainstream like a plague, beyond the ability to control (I hear this particular video had reached that stage already with YouTube overwhelmed with the whack-a-mole routine)?

            1. Kiwi

              Re: It can be difficult, but..

              Or will the Darknet crowd start copying and spreading their stuff into the mainstream like a plague,

              Given the number of miscreants inhabiting "Darknet", given the stuff they'd love to have "mainstream", and given the lack of their stuff appearing in mainstream places, I think you give them waaaaaaaay too much credit.

    3. stiine Silver badge

      Re: It can be difficult, but..

      Only if I get to define what speech is allowed.

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        I'm sorry, you mustn't say that.

    4. Mario Becroft

      Re: It can be difficult, but..

      A highly punitive approach. May or may not work as well as you think it does. Plenty of research on this.

    5. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: It can be difficult, but..

      These people are existing in echo chambers because their views and opinions are considered to be unacceptable by most of us. The view in this case is a tribal one. The scumbag felt that "his people" - meaning people that looked superficially the same as him, were having their culture and homelands eroded and occupied by people of different appearance and culture. Which is quite a piece of hypocrisy for an Australian!!

      However, because these people with these views and feelings feel that they can't be heard, they do things like this so they can't be ignored. And the harder you try to ignore them, the more they will escalate.

      As unpalatable as it seem, they need an outlet.

      1. Kiwi

        Re: It can be difficult, but..

        As unpalatable as it seem, they need an outlet.

        It should not be 'unpalatable', although sadly so many find it so.

        It is common for people, especially during their teenage years, to have some quite "far out" and sometimes downright scary ideas and ideals. Most of us experience(d) this.

        The cure, for most, is to voice these ideas in a place where someone will show you the error of your ways. If you have bad ideas and others can show you why, then you no longer have bad ideas.

        Of course, some people cannot be influenced, and others instead of finding a voice of reason find waiting ears ready to devour their every word.

        But for the most part, reason and wisdom can change them. But to get that reason and wisdom, they need to speak out their foolishness first.

  2. Headley_Grange Silver badge

    Responsibility

    The sites have good enough algorithms to place "relevant" advertising next to the footage of nutters killing people but not good enough algorithms to decide that the footage of nutters killing people is not acceptable. Make the sites criminally liable for the stuff posted on their sites and watch them either improve their algorithms or go out of business. If they go out of business then I honestly don't care.

    1. Matthew 25
      Thumb Up

      Re: Responsibility

      Make the fines nice and big, say 20% global turnover. That should get their attention.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Responsibility

        But how are you going to enforce it, especially if they leave your sovereign jurisdiction or even take the Sprawl route of declaring their own sovereignty?

        1. Kiwi
          FAIL

          Re: Responsibility

          But how are you going to enforce it, especially if they leave your sovereign jurisdiction or even take the Sprawl route of declaring their own sovereignty?

          Good thing I wasn't eating any cherries just now.

          You do realise that there are concepts such as "international law" and many countries have treaties where if you commit a crime in one place then flee to another, you can still be arrested and returned to the land where you committed the crime? Especially if your actions are illegal in both places.

          As to companies declaring "their own sovereignty", perhaps you can point us to one having successfully done this? Maybe they can just magic up some lawyers who will magically be able to cause countries to change their laws or something?

          You really must tell us what drug is it you're taking!

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Responsibility

            "You do realise that there are concepts such as "international law" and many countries have treaties where if you commit a crime in one place then flee to another, you can still be arrested and returned to the land where you committed the crime? Especially if your actions are illegal in both places."

            Which ONLY applies if said country RATIFIES the treaty. A sovereign business would NOT be party to said treaties. And there ARE countries that will refuse to extradite for various reasons (such as being HOSTILE to the other country).

            "As to companies declaring "their own sovereignty", perhaps you can point us to one having successfully done this?"

            Not yet, but I can see it as the next logical step. All it would take is enough power to declare their own self-determination AND defend that self-determination in the face of war. That's how the US came to be over 200 years ago if you'll recall.

            As for the drug, it's called Reality.

            1. Kiwi
              Facepalm

              Re: Responsibility

              "You do realise that there are concepts such as "international law" and many countries have treaties where if you commit a crime in one place then flee to another, you can still be arrested and returned to the land where you committed the crime? Especially if your actions are illegal in both places."

              Which ONLY applies if said country RATIFIES the treaty. A sovereign business would NOT be party to said treaties. And there ARE countries that will refuse to extradite for various reasons (such as being HOSTILE to the other country).

              Sure. Except for the most part these sorts of treaties are ratified. And if a "sovereign business" wished to have any claim to such "sovereignty" they would need to negotiate several such treaties, and they'd need to have somewhere to extradite people to. You seem to forget that even if Zuck decided to declare FB a "sovereign business" not subject to other country's laws, he still has to live somewhere. And oh damn, he's on US soil and subject to the laws of the state he lives in. He could try to fly to another country, or flee to their embassy, but he might find it hard proving FB is a "sovereign business" and he is some sort of "rightful ruler" when he is cowering behind another's walls.

              You may claim to rule, but unless you're able to back up that rule with force when necessary, you don't rule anything but your own mind.

              "As to companies declaring "their own sovereignty", perhaps you can point us to one having successfully done this?"

              Not yet, but I can see it as the next logical step. All it would take is enough power to declare their own self-determination AND defend that self-determination in the face of war. That's how the US came to be over 200 years ago if you'll recall.

              Ah yes, a well-armed and well-provisioned land with a decent number of people available beat a perhaps better armed and trained but less well-provisioned and less-peopled force on their home soil. Anyone with an ounce of logic or knowledge of military history will tell you a toddler with a hay fork on his own land beats a tank from a foreign army a great deal of the time (slight exaggeration). People fighting for their homes and their famiies are a lot more motivated to win than soldiers fighting in another land, especially when said soldiers are not fully convinced they're doing the right thing or are not really motivated to fight.

              But that still does not cover the issue of this mythical "sovereign business", which has to build a force strong enough to maintain it's position while not giving the government of the land a reason to pay a little more attention to them. Give the government cause to believe you're raising arms that may be used against them, and you'll find out very quickly just how much force they can bring to bear and how little you have. Don't forget you not only have the government but the people of the nation, and any friendly nation to deal with. People who love their country aren't going to let some upstart come in and try to take over.

              Even Trump's business has failed the test of sovereignty, and he's the US prez with veto powers available to him! He's considered the "commander in cheif" of the entire US military, and yet he does not have the power to get his desires.

              As for the drug, it's called Reality.

              I think you'd have a very strong case for taking your dealer to the advertising standards authority.

            2. MonkeyCee

              Re: Responsibility

              "All it would take is enough power to declare their own self-determination "

              Look, I know the magic sovereign fairy gives certain types the woody, but like many "magic" terms, you can't just declare you've got it and everyone else will accept it.

              There are two hundred odd countries, and they are sovereign. If you want to make another one, good bloody luck. Prolonged civil war maybe, such as Sudan splitting into two countries.

              Unless all the other sovereign nations recognise you, then you can declare yourself God-Emporer all you like, your laws, edicts and refusal to pay taxes don't wash.

              Bear in mind that the East India company liked to claim it was "somewhat" sovereign (issued it's own coinage, conducted wars, collected taxes and enforced laws) and had a land army roughly twice the size of the British army, and yet never declared itself sovereign.

          2. VikiAi
            WTF?

            Re: Responsibility

            Also note, the minute their 'sovereignty' is recognised, they no longer have any military protection that they don't either provide themselves or negotiate via treaties with other nations. They better negotiate fast! And have something to negotiate with!

            1. Charles 9

              Re: Responsibility

              Or they can just provide their own protection. Internal security forces can be a starting point.

              1. Kiwi
                WTF?

                Re: Responsibility

                Or they can just provide their own protection. Internal security forces can be a starting point.

                I think you'll find the entire "internal security forces" of FB, Google and a few others pales even to NZ's Territorials. And lowly paid excessively fed "security guards" lack some of the training that even the least trained qualified soldier has. You might find a few "weekend warriors" in amongst that lot, but you'll find how quickly they flee when real bullets start flying.

                I think you'll also find MOST of the "internal security forces" will be far more loyal to their country than they will be to the corporation, regardless of how much money is offered.

              2. VikiAi
                Boffin

                Re: Responsibility

                Against a small boat of pirates, sure. Against a small nation's military, or a large nation's special-ops squad, not so much.

            2. Pen-y-gors

              Re: Responsibility

              1. Recognise sovereignty of Facebookia

              2. Declare war on Facebookia.

              3. Intern all Facebookia staff as enemy aliens

              4. Seize all Facebookia property within the country as enemy property, including bank accounts.

              5. When Facebookia beg for peace demand massive reparations.

              1. Kiwi
                Pint

                Re: Responsibility

                1. Recognise sovereignty of Facebookia

                [..]

                5. When Facebookia beg for peace demand massive reparations.

                You think it'll go down like that?

                Where do I sign the petition for the immediate recognition of the country of Facebookia?????????

      2. DavCrav

        Re: Responsibility

        "Make the fines nice and big, say 20% global turnover. That should get their attention."

        Why fine them? Start sticking C-Suite people in prison for supporting terrorism and things will rapidly get better.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like