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. Charles 9

          Re: Responsibility

          You have to get at them, first. What do you do when the C-Suite suddenly relocates to a country that refuses to extradite?

          1. Kiwi

            Re: Responsibility

            You have to get at them, first. What do you do when the C-Suite suddenly relocates to a country that refuses to extradite?

            Ah yes.. All the countries that refuse to extradite to the US are of course wonderful places to live, with the same climate, freedoms and opportunities one finds in California.

            There is a slight problem of course.

            You have to get their first.

            Have you spoken to your lawyer about suing your "reality" drug dealer for false advertising?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: DavCrav

          Let's allow for Due Process first please, even for C levels. Even our most vile are entitled to a vigorous defence.

    1. paulf

      Re: Responsibility

      It seems not a week goes by now without another 20:20 view into the cesspit that is Facebook (also Google’s YouTube as the article explains). I just wonder at what point do users reach a point of sufficient revulsion that they say, “I cannot in all conscience continue using a creepy platform that enables evil people like this.”?

      Perhaps we’ve seen so much filth from Facebook in terms of the habitual lying about privacy and the ever shifting sands that are their “privacy controls”; the way they “leak” personal details to outfits like Cambridge Analytica along with other, perhaps more traditional, advertisers; how they give a platform to hate content like this; that we’ve become used to it to the point of implicit acceptance? Now that would be deeply worrying.

      I would have also wondered how nasty the platform would have to get for advertisers (the real customers) to start bailing wholesale. There was IIRC a brief advertiser boycott a few months ago(?) but I think that was just token and didn’t last long once they realised their adverts weren’t being seen by eyeballs. Maybe advertisers will finally realise the brand damage from being associated with toxic platforms that have no content control like Facebook and YouTube (plus the others), but I suspect the users will have to move first.

      (In case anyone wonders I used to use Facebook occasionally to stay in touch with people but my use was very limited. I last logged in 18 months ago and won’t again. In contrast TOH has a science PhD yet shares all and sundry with Zuckerborg’s Facebook and WhatsApp etc so there’s more to it than blaming idiot lusers)

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: Responsibility

        People have always got some excuse like " I need it to stay in touch with whoever". Which is clearly bullshit. There's always always a better way to stay in touch than supporting things that are clearly and plainly wrong.

        It's just plain laziness. I have a son at Uni, family around the world and I don't use Faecebook. There simply is no need.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Responsibility

          Wanna bet? In places like southeast Asia, Facebook subsidizes the cell phone networks, to the point nearly everything you do earns you Facebook time (hell, even the feature phones there have Facebook, it's that ubiquitous). For many of these places, where telephones are few and far-between, cell service can be spotty, and even the post is unreliable, it's pretty much Facebook or Bust. Trust me, I speak from firsthand experience.

    2. reubs007

      Re: Responsibility

      I totally agree with this. I'd love to know how much the big tech companies spend on developing software for matching advertisers with users and content versus how much they spend on developing software for filtering out vile content such as this. I suspect the ratio is pretty appalling.

    3. hoola Silver badge

      Re: Responsibility

      There is one very simple thing here, instant takedown of the platform. That would soon get the likes of Facebook, YouTube and Twitter focussed.

      There is absolutely no reason for this video to have been permitted to be posted ANYWHERE on ANY platform. Playing wack-a-mole to remove them is pointless. Just turn the platform off and then resolve it.

      That then brings a myriad of other issues but at least it would focus some minds where it matters. There will always be a contingent of humanity (if that is what you can call it) that get proliferate this type of material however it is the total inability to deal with this in a timely manner that that causes the problem. And the reason it cannot be dealt with: money, reducing income and profit for the idiots at the top,

  1. Paul Johnson 1

    Errr, censorship?

    So imagine an alternative world where Facebook had a 1 hour delay on uploaded videos. At 13:40 this nutter goes on the rampage, uploading video as he goes. At 14:40 his video goes live. At 16:00 the police figure out who he is. The video has already been live for over an hour.

    Except that if Facebook had introduced a 1 hour delay the nutter would have used a different service without the 1 hour delay, so it would have made no difference. And the vision of him staying in fiddling with his device? I don't think so. Gavrilo Princip didn't think it necessary to live stream to Facebook when he threw a bomb at Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, and neither did many other terrorists through the years. Live streaming merely adds a new horror to an old evil. Stopping live streaming merely attacks the symptom, not the disease.

    Yes, Facebook's measures to control bad content are less effective than we would like. (They are not totally ineffective either; if they were then Facebook would look like 4chan.) But all of these calls to "take responsibility for the content that your users post" are euphemisms for having governments around the world outsource the job of censorship to huge unaccountable multinational companies. That sounds like a cure worse than the disease.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      "the nutter would have used a different service"

      One with far fewer viewers and virtually no impact, hopefully, yes. There's no denying there are other platforms - in fact, why not create you're own. It's still a free country in that respect.

      The trouble, IMHO and what Kieren was getting at, is that if you're going to have as vast a reach as Facebook, YouTube, etc, cripes, take some actual effective steps to prevent your systems being wielded as a deadly propaganda weapon.

      Apologies for the cliche, but: with great power, comes great responsibility. And Silicon Valley has shrugged off all but the bare minimum of responsibility.

      Again, IMHO.

      C.

      1. Nick Kew

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        One with far fewer viewers and virtually no impact, hopefully, yes.

        The premise was that Facebook imposes a delay. If they do that, they rapidly lose a lot of their perfectly normal and legitimate traffic (and of course eyes) to someone who doesn't.

      2. Charles 9

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        "One with far fewer viewers and virtually no impact, hopefully, yes."

        But the thing with the Darknet is that it can be used to spread the initial feed beyond containability, and all those "friends of friends" can then infiltrate the mainstream networks using smurfing and swarm tactics.

      3. Dabbb

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        Number of people who watched it live is probably few orders of magnitude less that those watched it after it happened, so facebook it or not is irrelevant.

      4. Mad Mike

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        " take some actual effective steps to prevent your systems being wielded as a deadly propaganda weapon. "

        So, who do you ban? Politicians for starters. All sorts of people and companies use these services for propaganda and affects hundreds of millions as a result, turning some violent. Who decides what propaganda gets banned? UKIP? Some say that promotes right wing sentiment, violent in some cases. What about extreme left wing propaganda? The whole problem is, who defines what is and what is not acceptable propaganda? Politicians? Sincerely hope not and nobody controlled by politicians.

      5. steviebuk Silver badge

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        Its not an excuse for what the cock did but with the like of Facebook etc, its all about money. Having to actually pay decent wage to real people to watch said videos cuts into profit. Because share holders want more money they convince the powers that be to save money where you can. They see this monitoring area as a saving so do a half arsed job knowing they are so big now, they won't be shutdown and can get away with just saying sorry.

        Never understood the point of live streaming anyway. And I'd rather they implement a 30 min or hour delay on the streams than allow government to start regulating the Internet.

        "which has been re-shared by miscreants" which includes a few newspapers who aired a short clip of said footage. Knowing fall well people would click on their article with the video footage than an article without it. Then they gain from the ads on said page. The people clicking those article links are the same people that slow down when there is an accident. These newspapers are as bad as Facebook.

        However regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this. Its foolish to think it will.

        1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          "regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this"

          It never will, but we can at least curb the encouragement of it. There are knock-on effects.

          C.

          1. steviebuk Silver badge

            Re: "regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this"

            But it won't. If a nutter isn't able to watch said footage it doesn't stop them being a nutter.

            Obviously nowhere near as bad, not even in the same league but they banned cigarette adverts on TV in the 60s (didn't stop cigar adverts) and now wide spread tabbaco advertising is in place but it hasn't stopped people smoking.

            I'm not saying the live streaming of mass murder should exist, I'm saying banning it from a medium won't stop a nutter being a nutter.

            I feel the fact is Facebook is big enough now and has enough cash it can easily tackle this problem. As IT people we understand more than MPs how the Internet works. We are realistic. We know if you ban it from Facebook it will just pop up in other areas. But the point is we also know of realistic ways Facebook could combat this. But MPs chiming in saying they should remove footage 10mins (I can't remember the exact figure) from being reported is stupidly unrealistic. Letting MPs decide on an area of tech they don't understand and won't listen to expects makes issues worse. We have the 18 age ID coming in for porn. A classic example of MPs getting involved and not understanding how the Internet works and how that will fail due to VPNs. And this is the same government that was suggesting encryption should be banned.

            1. Mooseman Silver badge

              Re: "regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this"

              "they banned cigarette adverts on TV in the 60s (didn't stop cigar adverts) and now wide spread tabbaco advertising is in place but it hasn't stopped people smoking"

              Except smoking rates in first world countries has fallen massively. From a figure of 65% of all men smoking in 1945 to around 23% now in the UK, for example.

              1. steviebuk Silver badge

                Re: "regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this"

                I meant to say "and now a wide spread ban on tobacco advertising is in place". Problem with typing on the phone.

                Anyway. It may have fallen but is this due to the lack of advertising or better education, that would be the big question.

                1. Pen-y-gors

                  Re: "regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this"

                  Probably both. And the same applies to right-wing nuttery. Don't advertise, educate, and number of right-wing terrorist nutters will tend to fall.

                2. Charles 9

                  Re: "regulation on the Internet isn't going to stop nutters like this"

                  Or could it be they're migrating to other drugs like marijuana and meth because their rebelliousness draws them to more-forbidden fruit?

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        I guess time will tell whether Facebook ramping up the censorship leads another platform to gain users at the rate that twitter's censorship is doing for Gab.

        Not on Gab, by the way, but since it's billed as the opposite of Twitter I assume it's filled with old ladies sharing gardening tips and pictures of trees.

      7. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        Silicon Valley has shrugged off all but the bare minimum of responsibility

        There is only one SINGLE reason that moderation isn't as affective as it ought to be: the almighty buck. The whole almost frenetic drive to find some form of AI that can filter this is hiding a very simple but brutal truth: only humans can moderate effectively but. they. cost. money.

        We can debate about the degree of monitoring and whether this would or would not amount to censorship until the cows come home, but I think we can all agree that zapping this event and similar (and reporting it) would not be a hard decision for anyone to take - how about we start there? Furthermore, it is not as if we are short on case studies where else things have gone wrong so the debate that MUST be had is not going to be uninformed.

        However, again not doing anything because it may be difficult or likely make some people angry is IMHO not an option. As is not properly funding it by those who have been reaping vast profits over the years, and they can start with donating the money that was made during the display of these atrocities (or did you really think I forgot about that?).

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Errr, censorship?

          "There is only one SINGLE reason that moderation isn't as affective as it ought to be: the almighty buck"

          Yup and the only way to change that is to make it more expensive to not stop this stuff getting online than to have a bunch of (expensive) people or algorithms doing the work.

          As for enforcement: That's the more-or-less easy part. Companies make money by doing business in XYZ countries. You can be DEAD sure that even if they claim that you're doing business with Facebook Ireleand despite being in France, that there are Facebook sales staff in France who can be pinned with corporate responsibliity, etc.

          Once you start making individuals in the _entire_ company structure susceptable to arrest for criminality (not _just_ the c-suite, but they get to be in the firing line too) you can ensure that companies toe the line (and I'm mentioning sales staff with particular pointedness here as targetting them tends to have has the greatest "wakeup" effect along with illegality tending to flow from this area anyway)

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            "Once you start making individuals in the _entire_ company structure susceptable to arrest for criminality"

            So a nutter in one country livestreams his atrocity in one country and you arrest a cleaner in another? I don't think that would work. You'd have a bit of a problem proving mens rea. What you could do is look at the fact that the offending company has a legal presence in that other country and prosecute the company there, fining it on the basis of its world wide turnover.

          2. Pen-y-gors

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            It's more effective just to jail the board of directors and chief executives - focuses the mind wonderfully on whether it's a good idea to have policies to block this stuff or otherwise.

        2. Kiwi
          Boffin

          Re: Errr, censorship?

          There is only one SINGLE reason that moderation isn't as affective as it ought to be: the almighty buck.

          Moderation is hard. I've run services where we did full moderation, and you very quickly run into a problem where either you cut back the service or cut back the strings on moderation, eg acting on something that is reported rather than trying to vet every post before releasing it.

          Even on this thread, I've had posts "awaiting moderation" for more than 5 hours.

          it takes time to read each message posted to a site, even with a small site with a couple of dozen active users, moderation is difficult. If you consider it takes 30 seconds to decide on a message then a mere 200 messages is over an hour and a half's work. But many messages take more than a minute to decide on, and many sites get far more than 200 messages in a single day. If moderators are volunteering, then you have the problem that these people are also wanting to work, sleep, and have something of a social life. Or you can pay for professional moderators, at which point your site needs to be earning enough.

          But we take FB for granted. How many messages are posted to groups on FB every day? How many people would that take to moderate that and vet everything? I believe some groups have their own moderators, but if you want a freely flowing conversation you need to have a fairly rapid flow of messages. If each message is delayed by a few hours, it slows down the rate of conversation and makes some conversations difficult (though such a slow-down may improve the content of the conversation and also reduce the amount of wasted verbiage flowing across the web (yes I know I probably contribute 90% of that on my own!).

          Moderated sites struggle to keep people whereas free-post sites flourish, at least so long as the overall conversation is not so bad it drives people elsewhere.

          I personally think making people sign up to a site, and blocking people who cross the line too often is the best way - with a mechanism to allow people to report things of concern and someone nearby to act on such concerns quickly. That can still take a lot of work, especially with borderline cases.

    2. DavCrav

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      "Gavrilo Princip didn't think it necessary to live stream to Facebook when he threw a bomb at Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, and neither did many other terrorists through the years. Live streaming merely adds a new horror to an old evil. Stopping live streaming merely attacks the symptom, not the disease."

      It won't stop all acts of criminality, this is true. It will stop some of them. I assume you didn't lose any friends or relatives in this attack, so you aren't too bothered about whether it could have been stopped by forcing Facebook to improve its content detection.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      "So imagine an alternative world where Facebook had a 1 hour delay on uploaded videos. At 13:40 this nutter goes on the rampage, uploading video as he goes. At 14:40 his video goes live. At 16:00 the police figure out who he is. The video has already been live for over an hour."

      It depends on what the one hour is used for. A buffer to give time to stop it being distributed at all means t doesn't go live.

      Presumably the alarm went up fairly quickly. If FaceBook, YouTube and the rest sere prepared to set up a system to cooperate there might not even be a need to set up a huge operation to take advantage of that hour to check every video from everywhere. They'd have an hour, or the best part of that, to check what's in the buffer from that geographical area (OK VPNs could be a problem) and feed it back to the police instead.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        "Presumably the alarm went up fairly quickly."

        By all accounts NZ Police contacted Facebook within minutes of the video beginning to stream, whilst it was still streaming and FB stonewalled them.

        At that point I'd be looking to charge Facebook staff with aiding and abetting a criminal act and start arresting every FB employee who sets foot inside the country.

        1. Dabbb

          Re: Errr, censorship?

          Christchurch Police station is only 3km away from mosque, less than 5 minutes drive, and yet shooter spent 17 minutes there and left freely. Maybe police should be concerned a bit less about online activities and more about, you know, doing their effin primary job ?

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            Christchurch Police station is only 3km away from mosque, less than 5 minutes drive, and yet shooter spent 17 minutes there and left freely. Maybe police should be concerned a bit less about online activities and more about, you know, doing their effin primary job ?

            ----

            No he didn't spend 17 minutes there. Much of the film is the shooter driving to the scene. Parking car. Sorting through the stuff in the boot. Then more time in the car driving to the next destination. His plan was to be out quickly so he could avoid confronting the NZ police.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Errr, censorship?

          "start arresting every FB employee who sets foot inside the country."

          So somebody working as a cleaner in some Facebook country visits NZ and you arrest them? On what basis? You can reasonable hold senior management responsible. Every employee? On what basis? How would you hope to prove them guilty of the offence? You're advocating hostage taking.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            "So somebody working as a cleaner in some Facebook country visits NZ and you arrest them? On what basis?"

            If you're an office cleaner at Daesh video associates and the authorities notice, you can expect to be arrested as soon as you set foot in Heathrow. Your point is?

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: start arresting every FB employee

          The usually reliable Alan Brown wrote:

          "I'd be looking to charge Facebook staff with aiding and abetting a criminal act and start arresting every FB employee who sets foot inside the country."

          I very much understand where you're coming from, but how's about this minor variation instead, starting e.g. next month (the required information should be readily available). Rather simpler, solves some of the issues already raised in other comments, and might be easier to pass as The People's Will:

          "I'd be looking to charge Facebook board of directors with aiding and abetting a criminal act and start arresting every FB director who attempts to cross a participating border"

          Employees don't control the company (and aren't paid as though they do).

          Directors are paid handsomely to control the company, because they are responsible if it all goes wrong. Except the 2nd part (the being held accountable) is rarely seen in public.

          How does that sound?

          Once they're dealt with, maybe move on to the backroom people (e.g. big investors whose names are rarely seen in public).

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: start arresting every FB employee

            "I'd be looking to charge Facebook board of directors with aiding and abetting a criminal act and start arresting every FB director who attempts to cross a participating border"

            Unfortunately, red-noticing FB C-suite execs like that would get all NZ Interpol red-notices binned, pretty much permanently across most of the world.

            Which would be a pity, given that there are 20-30 open at the moment for quite good reasons (sometimes all-but forgotten about - one relating to the Rainbow Warrior affair fired recently when a certain French citizen crossed the border into Switzerland - they don't expire.)

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      C'mon, what's worse between these two options?

      1) the guy posts in a site that reaches over a billion people, so his white nationalist friends share the video to their friends, it gets re-shared and so on. The result is that a lot of non white nationalists are going to have this video presented in their feed - probably near the top given how quickly it went viral since that's how Facebook's algorithms work. Most of us will be horrified, but a few people might find it triggers something within them and they seek out more white nationalist content and become one themselves. Maybe they never would have if they weren't exposed to it in the first place.

      2) the guy posts it on a white nationalist site none of us have ever heard of, and is hard to get to and has poor connectivity because reputable hosting companies, registrars etc. refuse to do business with them, his followers all masturbate to it and share it until the site goes down from being overloaded, and no one who isn't a white nationalist sees it because only white nationalists would seek out such a site in the first place. So there's zero risk that new white nationalists are created as a result of him sharing it to a white nationalist site.

      1. Paul Johnson 1

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        "no one who isn't a white nationalist sees it because only white nationalists would seek out such a site"

        It wouldn't work like that. Youtube and Facebook are now playing whack-a-mole with millions of copies of this video. Once its out, its out.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Errr, censorship?

          There are millions of copies because of that huge initial distribution. If it was limited to some obscure white nationalist board with 5000 members, far fewer people would have a copy to try to put on Facebook.

          Though I'm not sure how they can't block it 100% of the time at upload at this point, unless people are putting it through complex filters to foil image recognition. This is one case where lots of false positives isn't a big deal - let people who get unfairly blocked complain and a human can fix the problem later.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            "There are millions of copies because of that huge initial distribution."

            The distribution is geometric if not factorial. All you would be doing is slowing down the initial onset, which due to morbid curiosity will still inevitably hit critical mass and run away.

    5. Shadowmanx2012

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      If you cannot work out that a video containing images of people being wantonly murdered for doing nothing except worshipping their god then you have a serious issue!

      Censorship is an entirely different subject and definitely for another post.

      1. Paul Johnson 1

        Re: Errr, censorship?

        I'm not objecting to this one video being taken down, its the vision of putting Facebook and Google in charge of what people are allowed to see more generally. Blocking this live-stream would have meant censors employed by Facebook watching lots of live streams and making real-time decisions about which ones were allowed.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Errr, censorship?

          Plus, just how many of these streams go up every single day? Ask yourself, if a call center can't have a caller for every tech support call that comes in ("Your call is very important to us." "Then why don't you just answer?"), is there enough sheer manpower in these companies to screen every single upload in realtime? Can anyone prove its possibility or impossibility with actual concrete numbers?

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            Here's a WIRED article noting the difficulty of what you demand.

          2. Kiwi

            Re: Errr, censorship?

            Can anyone prove its possibility or impossibility with actual concrete numbers?

            It's NOT impossible for YT or FB et al to screen every single video that is uploaded before they are made available.

            However, we would notice a slight decrease in the amount of content available on these platforms.

            For the most part I would not mind. There is a lot of rubbish there that I would not ever wish to view, and a lot of stuff I really wish was gone. However, it would impact on the stuff I do sometimes watch. I either get the vids I like and every one else gets the vids they like, or we all get stuff-all.

            A trust system may be useful, which would still let a large amount of stuff go up untouched but those prone to posting less "socially acceptable" stuff would find it harder. Although, again, that could make it harder for me to see the videos I sometimes like to watch.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: Errr, censorship?

              "It's NOT impossible for YT or FB et al to screen every single video that is uploaded before they are made available."

              Have you read the WIRED article I linked above? It's like with call centers that have to keep callers on hold due to lack of techs.

              "I either get the vids I like and every one else gets the vids they like, or we all get stuff-all."

              So what's it gonna be? Anarchy or the Police State? Because anything in between's bound to gravitate towards one or the other, as is happening all over the place.

              "A trust system may be useful, which would still let a large amount of stuff go up untouched but those prone to posting less "socially acceptable" stuff would find it harder."

              Unless they start using shill or stolen accounts...

              1. Kiwi
                Pint

                Re: Errr, censorship?

                "It's NOT impossible for YT or FB et al to screen every single video that is uploaded before they are made available."

                Have you read the WIRED article I linked above? It's like with call centers that have to keep callers on hold due to lack of techs.

                I don't recall doing so. I did have other things on my mind at the time.

                Doesn't matter though, either you hold things for moderation in advance (much like stuff.co.nz does, and has gotten worse on in relation to these attacks) or you let things through awaiting for complaints of problems. It is not impossible for FB etc to moderate everything in advance, but it will destroy the functionality of the sites, or at least wipe the quantity of the material that is on offer.

                "I either get the vids I like and every one else gets the vids they like, or we all get stuff-all."

                So what's it gonna be? Anarchy or the Police State? Because anything in between's bound to gravitate towards one or the other, as is happening all over the place.

                Unless you can suggest a better option, that is all we have. Either 'everything is published and removed after a complaint" or "nothing is published until we OK it". A trust system falls under the latter still, however stuff is okayed on the basis of trusting the author.

                "A trust system may be useful, which would still let a large amount of stuff go up untouched but those prone to posting less "socially acceptable" stuff would find it harder."

                Unless they start using shill or stolen accounts...

                Well, FB have tightened up their security such that if 2 people post from one IP, they have to prove they at least have separate phones (well, they have to provide a number which receives a txt message - effectively shutting me out from FB as I simply will NOT give them my phone # and have had too many test/temp accounts to get past things now). Stolen accounts are, supposedly, harder to do as well given the need to provide a working # and so on, though I do suspect people can mess with that. Shill accounts may still exist, but again you have to be posting from separate IPs or else provide a working phone #. These days it's not easy to change IPs (though IP6 may allow you some leeway if you have a couple of billion available to you, no idea how FB looks at that). Often people using VPN's are required to provide extra security checks, at least with google's stuff.

                BTW, I was including myself in those posting what is not "socially acceptable". Christian (/religious), gay, anti-AGW, anti-flouride, anti-1080, recommend parents do some research into vaccination (neither pro- nor anti-, just "do your homework and don't blindly follow either side").

                stuff.co.nz has just changed their article commenting rules such that most of the things I am interested in I can no longer comment on, only those who toe the party line may speak (very interesting for a national news paper - and yes, our national press has the wonderful name of "Stuff") #ashamedofnzspress

    6. Stork Silver badge

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      FB does not seem to have any problem censoring breastfeeding photos

    7. MonkeyCee

      Re: Errr, censorship?

      "At 13:40 this nutter goes on the rampage, uploading video as he goes. At 14:40 his video goes live. At 16:00 the police figure out who he is. The video has already been live for over an hour."

      Not sure if you've been following the case, but the cops had him in custody less than 40 minutes after he started the attack. So on your timeline: 14:36 police ram his vehicle off the road and arrest him.

      "But all of these calls to "take responsibility for the content that your users post" are euphemisms for having governments around the world outsource the job of censorship to huge unaccountable multinational companies. "

      OK, exactly how do you think current media publishing rules work? There's no government employee who checks over the Mail and the Gruiniard before they go out for publication.

      And yes, I do think the Mail needs a bollocking for putting this psychos manifesto and an edited copy of the video up.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Certain groups around the World have previously used this form of video propaganda to display their atrocities and did this equally evil person take their cue from that ?

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