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 …
"I guess it boils down to this: censorship and moderation is harmful. Massive unedited and unpoliced platforms are harmful. There must be an in-between solution that keeps smaller platforms independent, and checks and balances kicking in when audiences start getting huge."
And what if the medium is actually UNhappy, such that too much censorship is simultaneously not enough, leaving you with the worst of both worlds?
It's true that people like watching bad stuff happen to other people. Getting a good look at something awful. Russian car crash dash cams are all the rage on YouTube. I dunno if that's possible to stop, or even a good thing to tackle.
I went through a (short lived) phase of looking at dashcam videos of car accidents because I was trying to improve my driving skills, and thought that looking to see if I could anticipate the accidents might help me in general driving.
I learned a couple of things: firstly, that some accidents 'came from nowhere', and were unanticipatable; secondly, that a small proportion of the videos showed accidents where people would have at least had life-changing injuries, and quite possible killed. I found the latter quite disturbing, although I realise some people are disengaged enough for it to be entertainment.
So I think there is a place for curated/moderated/censored dashcam videos for driver training purposes. My personal view is that seeing videos of real people being injured or killed and treating them as purely entertainment is flawed. Hollywood movies and video games, however gory, are for entertainment, and we know, at some level, that they are not real. Seeing real people's lives destroyed as merely entertainment strikes me as wrong. Perhaps other people can make a reasoned argument why unfettered access to such things is good, but I will admit, my gut reactions would make it difficult for me to agree. Perhaps I am flawed, but I hope that most people would agree with me.
Of course, the devil is in the details: who controls access and decides what is forbidden or not? I have no simple answer, but fuelling idiocy and hotheadedness strikes me as unwise. I hope cleverer people than me come up with a solution.
NN
I went through a (short lived) phase of looking at dashcam videos of car accidents because I was trying to improve my driving skills, and thought that looking to see if I could anticipate the accidents might help me in general driving.
I did much the same, and for the same reasons.
I honestly wish I had not done so. There are things that I would love to forget. As time passes, more is forgotten, but still...
At one point I nearly gave up driving.
This genie has long been out of the bottle. So there's the famous image of a protestor standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. What happened next was available on rotten.com, a website I used to use to demonstrate why some restrictions/censorship is a good thing. 99.9% of us don't need to see the results because we can imagine them.
The problem I see now is there's often a knee-jerk rush to possibly exploit this kind of event. This article-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47583393
struck me due to some of the comments from political researchers, like this one-
"It may mean creating a special category for right-wing extremism, recognising that it has global reach and global networks."
Why make that special? Surely the best solution is to be able to monitor and act on extremism across the political spectrum. Language seems to have changed, so right-wing becomes 'alt-right', or 'extreme right'.. Which if you're viewing from a far-left perspective may seem logical. But there has been (and arguably is still) far-left extremism, eg anarchists, the Red Brigades, or even the Original IRA.
The BBC article suggests efforts have been focused on Islamic radicalisation, which is probably true. But hopefully some of the methods there can be applied to monitoring extremism across the spectrum, and being able to produce actionable intelligence. This particular nutjob had accomplices and would have left a digital trail. 'De-platforming' might seem like a good idea. Make the nasty go away! Ban 8chan! But that's always been an issue with censorship. Ban it and it'll just descend deeper into the 'dark web', making it hard to monitor. Extremist groups already use encrypted VPNs to try and hide their activity. I think there's also a risk that 'extreme' actions may also make people thing they're already being marginalised drift further towards the extreme sites.
To my mind, the best approach is a combination of clear legislation that defines extremism, which then can be used to enforce standards. Currently the issue is this nutjob violated 'social' media T&Cs, along with any human(e) decency standards.. But did the video break laws? It's news. It bleeds, it leads. Especially if you're the DM, who've never seemed too concerned about ethics or morals.
The hardest and possibly most controversial part is also probably the most effective, ie being able to monitor activity.. But we're generally opposed to the idea of a 'surveillance state' and the government 'spying' on us. But that's also the best way to try and identify, profile and catch nutjobs, hopefully before they act. But that's also a wicked problem. The Machine may be able to spew out a long list of people who've downloaded or shared this nutjob's 'manifesto', but how do you determine which of those people read it, and think 'This guy's right!'. I skimmed Anders Brevik's ramblings, and assume this nutjob's work is more of the same.
Indeed. It only requires wikipedia* and basic arithmetic to demonstrate that left wing inspired fanatics (Stalin , Mao, Pol Pot et al) have destroyed millions more lives than right wing inspired ones.
*reliable sources also available, but in this case it hardly matters.
Well, it depends on your viewpoint. China's leadership lived through the cultural revolution, which handily demonstrated that anarchic activism starting with students can slaughter people on a scale many orders of magnitude greater than any person with an automatic gun in a mosque full of people. If they genuinely believed they were nipping another cultural revolution in the bud then what conclusions do you draw about rights and wrongs?
"I feel the moment we "clamp down on propaganda" we're no better than China or North Korea."
Well, you feel wrongly then. There is a difference between executing human rights campaigners and blocking ISIS beheading videos. If you cannot see this, your opinion isn't worth listening to.
"I feel the moment we "clamp down on propaganda" we're no better than China or North Korea."Well, you feel wrongly then. There is a difference between executing human rights campaigners and blocking ISIS beheading videos. If you cannot see this, your opinion isn't worth listening to.
You're right, there is a difference between the two.
However, the original sentiment still stands. Once we allow our governments to start clamping down on what they deem to be "bad propaganda" we can expect to be in the same boat as NK and maybe China are claimed to be (China appears to at least have a very decent QOL for much of its citizen vs NK, OTOH their propaganda arm may be more effective).
I'd love to know that the people who get off on what I consider bad could no longer get the material they like. I'm sure I'd somehow feel a little safer if I knew someone who is on the extremes of "far right" and the like could not get their hands on material that might 'set them off'.
But...
I like material others dislike. I'm quite prone to seeking out and speaking out on Christian topics, and many would consider that 'evil' and I have had non-Christians saying that governments should perhaps lock us Christians up or even execute us. These people believe that my Christian views are bad and I should not be allowed to promote them.
I get the same from some circles within Christianity. I'm not straight therefore I should not be able to speak, as my "vile filth" may somehow turn their kids gay (the parents have much more of an influence!) or in some other way make people bad simply because I am quite 'pro gay-rights'.
We absolutely MUST defend "freedom of speech" as much as we are able. I know sometimes it lets bad things happen, but it also lets good things happen. I am willing to let the bad come in to keep the good. My being allowed to say what I believe is right comes with the price that you also are allowed to say what you believe is right.
It's not that long ago that I could've been arrested for the contents of this post, and I could've faced decades of confinement for it. I was barely in my teens when the laws were reformed, so I am old enough to remember what things were like, and the sacrifices that have been made to have this nation I enjoy.
But then again, you have to draw a line somewhere because some speech triggers instincts. Thus the US v. Schenck decision (declaring that something like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater amounts to inciting a riot--the mere utterance triggers the preservation instinct and exploits it for ill). But then comes the hard questions: WHO draws the line, and WHERE do you draw it, for this is morbidly like the old pizza-topping puzzle: no one can ever agree.
"I feel they have the right to rant. It's freedom of speech. I have the right not to listen as well"
You have a right to listen or not as you choose.
Of course TPTB have a right listen as wel if they choosel and to decide whether the ranter needs watching. It's hardly the same as mass surveillance if they choose to watch a rant someone has elected to broadcast to the world.
Well, since Tienanmen Square started as a rowdy protest by a bunch of privileged university students horrified at the prospect of the latest political reforms opening up their university admission systems to the children of common farmers, escalated though the four rival student-leaders having a nice competitive game of 'I can persuade more people in front of the army than you can," and ended with said leaders hiding out in the US and Taiwan in fear of their own followers and followers' families once people had worked out what had actually been done to them and by whom... Well, not a good example to drag out. (The only reason the 4 leaders even made it to the airport was they had a protective military escort out of Beijing from the Beijing PLA - who the Government had bypassed for the action, bringing in a bunch of far-less-sympathetic (poor-farming-family-sourced) regional PLA units for the suppression activity . Before the dust was even settling into the coagulating blood, the surviving students were thinking a bit harder about what had just happened and were already forming lynch mobs to go for their former 'leaders'.
None of that excuses the Chinese Government's actions in any way, of course, but the tired old "Freedom Fighters Suppressed by Evil Commies", while excellent propaganda copy itself, has about as much accuracy in it as whatever PC drivel the CCPC put out on their own side.
So yeah. Pick your propaganda. We produce 30 flavors on this planet.
Due to the rules of NZ's extremely comprehensive state-run medical insurance schemes (ACC for injuries and the more NHS-like system for general medical care), anyone receiving medical care from a state-run or state funded medical provider (which is virtually all of them - there are no 100% private emergency rooms) automatically waives the right to sue for physical or mental injuries - and the only way to sidestep that is to decline ACC coverage at the point of first treatment (& stump up full fees)
It was a pragmatic decision made circa 1974 to stem an increasing flood of spurious claims - any right to sue rests with the insurer - ACC - and you can be sure they _DO_ sue and they have _VERY DEEP POCKETS_ along with government backing when they choose to do so.
Most of the time a simple arbitration ruling is issued, fines are levied against employers who screwed up and that's that unless there's a compelling need to rewrite Health and Safety rules (Most of the time workplace accidenmts result from such rules being ignored and NZ's H&S are well thought out without the kind of jobsworthianness found in other countries).
Occasionally an employer will contest a ruling and then the large cannons are hauled out (It's invariably multinationals who think they can subvert the H&S rules, then contest findings and they invariably lose. Local outfits are told by their lawyers to shut up and pay the fines or it'll just get more costly. NZ's laws and regulations are rooted in the general concept of "Legislate/regulate as necessary and _only_ as necessary."
There has already been at least one arrest in NZ over the sharing of this material.
ISP's have a form of "common carrier" status. FB, however, may be in another boat especially as NZ's censors have deemed the video "objectionable", and watching or distributing it carries a potential prison sentence.
I am honestly wondering if it was not a config problem. I doubt it was actually a pre-emptive attempt to stop the attack, but other incidents we later learn "they" were tracking or had knowledge of the individuals involved.
But I guess in this case, the crash of FB just meant they did not wish to risk losing the ability to publish later, so took the first opportunity when FB went back up.
Would a decided shutdown of social media prevent these attacks, if some warning signs were detected or discovered?
49 counts of being accessory to murder would take the gloss off what remains of Zuckerberg's reputation, not to mention the value of his share portfolio.
I'm sure some creative mind in the NZ public prosecutor could come up with a connection that would stick; terror, as a political act, is enabled through dissemination of images of its occurrence, and every disseminator takes on some vicarious responsibility for the act. If it didn't, there would be no debate about the morality of whether, for example, TV news should broadcast edits or stills from the footage. It's a question of degree, but there's complicity to some degree.
If self censorship at the platform level is impossible before media is made publicly accessible, then the defence seems to rest on, "whoops, we broadcast this alt-right snuff porn, but we didn't know we were doing it." This is strict liability: the act is the crime, not the intent.
I'm sure some creative mind in the NZ public prosecutor could come up with a connection that would stick; terror, as a political act, is enabled through dissemination of images of its occurrence, and every disseminator takes on some vicarious responsibility for the act.
Terrorism is a relatively rare occurrence in NZ. As such, our terrorism laws are "untested".
The reports I have read so far indicate that the prosecutors will NOT be using any terrorism-related laws in relation to this. 50 counts of murder will likely see the perp locked up for the rest of his life, and they do not desire for him to be released, or get a lighter sentence, on a 'technicality'.
Hi there - Mike from Christchurch NZ here. Yesterday after the chaos here had gone down I found out that there was video of the event. I went and looked for it, found it and viewed it. It helped me put into context exactly what happened and the degree of the evil that had gone on.
The scenes are horrific. The cold, calculated murder of so many people was clearly well planned and executed. The bravery of the police who managed to apprehend a heavily armed and mobile offender within 36 minutes of the start of the carnage is tremendous.
I chose to look and view the images. I dont want that privilege removed.
There will be considerable change in NZ society after this. Gun laws will change for the good, just like in Australia after Port Arthur.
Regards.
Wait. So instead of waiting for first party descriptions, you wished to see the "sanitized" killers video, because you feared the "sanitized" media?
That's not balanced. Getting two propagandas (if they are, assuming both are wrong here) does not give an ability to build a correct picture. Getting first hand experience and interviews is possible, without the media and the killers sources.
Good question. I didnt want to have only a sanitized version of the incident spoon fed to me by the media and the government.
I've dealt with things you hopefully cannot imagine. I've experienced some very nasty stuff and thankfully survived.
I see no reason to seek out images of any other's suffering. It will in no way change my experiences nor make me feel any better about them, and it certainly will not help them in any fashion. I've had enough pain in my own life without adding to it by witnessing other's troubles.
I grew up near Hawera. Some of my current friends are staff at Hawera Hospital, while at least one other was treated by Dr Amjad Hamid. I doubt I ever met the man himself although it is remotely possible, but he sounds like he was one hell of a great person. Last night I spent some time talking with a close childhood friend who is now mourning the loss of a work colleague and friend.
I could try to use that as some sort of excuse to see how Dr Hamid died, but I already know more than I would wish. I cannot see any way in which I or any one else would be helped by viewing any of this. I know more than enough about the circumstances of his death. I could watch it in high-def video, but that would be of no value to me nor would it show respect to the man himself, his family, his friends, or my friends.
I cannot see why someone would wish to watch it, nor to publicly admit to what is now classed as a crime under NZ law (you may be OK if you have not kept or distributed any copies, as it was probably not so classified when you viewed it).
I can understand your need and I don't mind people studying things like this. However, I do mind people stumbling upon it without being prepared for it. I also do mind people applauding this kind of atrocity. And I strongly object to life-streaming atrocities, at least to the general public. If it helps law enforcement services, they can watch it life (and real time) while on duty.
I was with you right up until the issue was the guns. Your laws are already restrictive and did not stop this disgusting cretin.
Until your comments, I could personally find no justification that would make the viewing of anyone's death as something to witness. I still don't feel the need, but I can empathize with why it might be for someone in your's or a similar situation.
I have noticed similar things on Facebook before, and I have reported it to them, but they come back saying it does not go against their community standards. These multi billion dollar companies need to start growing a soul and grab a moral compass because they are going out of control. There are many hidden groups on Facebook, with the majority of us having no idea what is going on.
"I have noticed similar things on Facebook before, and I have reported it to them, but they come back saying it does not go against their community standards. "
At which point a pdf out of their response and the pages in question to your local anti-terrorist police hotline is the appropriate next step.
I have noticed similar things on Facebook before, and I have reported it to them, but they come back saying it does not go against their community standards.
NZ's chief censor has deemed the video to be "objectionable material". That makes possession or distribution of it a criminal offence, with a potential prison sentence for breaches. There is a similar charge in the US I expect, so grounds for extradition on criminal offences. Plus there is precedent for extraditions when the act is not a crime in either company.
There just needs to be a quiet reminder that, as the owners of the platform via which this illegal material is shared, they are liable to imprisonment if they don't try a bit harder.
Thank you for posting this Kieren.
After 25 or so years of televised mass slaughter in the US the media there is slowly coming to terms with the fact they are not simply reporting these stories, they are part of a feedback loop with the goal of performance violence. The "no platforming" approach of not focusing on the killer and not airing their views or even their name is their response, and I think it's excellent.
The rest of the world is likely to lag well behind the US in terms of slaughter, but hopefully we can learn one thing from their media experience. Everyone is aware Sky Australia are (apparently, still) broadcasting the murderers video - presumably that was his intention, so well done Sky Australia for lending a hand. But plenty of platforms that should know better have posted excerpts from his Manifesto including the "Notoriously Po-Faced" Guardian (to quote Ian Hislop, who knows po-faced when he sees it).
The murderer in question cited a UK-based mosque murderer and a Norwegian murderer as inspiration, so there's no doubt that this sort of fuckwittery has a global reach. I would very much like to see a global response by the media. I've seen the news in a lot of countries and I'm aware that's not going to fly everywhere, but the kind of country that tends not to show corpses on television should consider not airing the views of the people that make them.
I have seen many detailed and graphic videos from Afghanistan or Pakistan where an AC-130 or helicopter gunships kills people. In each case they take great care to kill everyone in the area. Doesn't matter if people were armed or not, trying to surrender, run away or hide. Everyone gets killed. The last alive are hunted down one by one. Bodies are fired upon one more time, to make sure they are dead.These videos were widely shared by media and the same internet companies. Lots of people cheering in the comment sections.
So is the Christchurch video any different? Yes and no. It's all subjective.
Thanks El Reg and KMcC. With a name like that there’s a chance you may even have relatives in NZ however remote. None of them would have been in those mosques but that’s not the point. NZ is such a decent welcoming orderly and assimilated place that, and this is going to appear a little trite, today we are all Kiwis.
I can only assume that the reason the video stream lasted online for 17 minutes was because a lot of the viewers did not bother to report the stream, which goes to show you of the mentality of some of the people who use Facebook.
As for using AI to identify terrorist videos, I think with today's video game graphics being very realistic and only getting better with every generation, it would make it hard for AI to identify when it is real and when it is someone just live streaming the latest FPS.
Unlike the author of this article, I think the terrorist would have still done the shooting even if he was unable to live stream the event. it would have still made the news worldwide and pushed his ideology without Facebook and the live stream.
"I can only assume that the reason the video stream lasted online for 17 minutes was because a lot of the viewers did not bother to report the stream, which goes to show you of the mentality of some of the people who use Facebook."
Elsewhere there was a comment that the police asked FB to stop and they refused so it's not down to the mentality of the viewers but to FB themselves. They need a complete reversal of that attitude. Do not let FB off the hook for one moment by blaming only their users.
As for using AI to identify terrorist videos, I think with today's video game graphics being very realistic and only getting better with every generation, it would make it hard for AI to identify when it is real and when it is someone just live streaming the latest FPS.
Something I have wondered as well myself.
Terrible event. Horrific.
Perhaps some of the twisted people that do such things are eventually able to come to their senses, understand that they did evil, and feel remorse. If such an outcome ever results, they might be used in the information war. A video with several mass killers expressing true remorse and similar concepts might be helpful. It might allow future killers to think ahead, beyond their present insanity.
People of a mass killing mindset would unintentionally seek out such videos, because of key words. They couldn't miss them.
Just a suggestion. Others may consider if it's feasible or not. I don't know.
I have very fond memories of New Zealand, having holidayed there once. It's a country of magical beauty and great people.
We Australians have a strange affinity with the Kiwis, constantly giving each other good natured shit over cricket and rugby.
This appalling, disgusting attack has left us all shocked. Rightly so the reg has declined to name the fucker responsible.
Then I get home this afternoon to see this shit.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-16/fraser-anning-egged-in-melbourne-while-speaking-to-media/10908650?pfmredir=sm
Fuck you Anning, who became a senator with a whopping 19 votes at the last federal election!
Take your neo nazi shit and your thugs back under that rock you crawled out from. I'm with #eggboy
Bearing in mind that any livestream could turn violent at a moment's notice, it's simply impossible to implement what you are suggesting. The only solution is to ban livestreaming. Whether that is an acceptable price to pay is a discussion for another day.
Would personal responsibility do it? Make each person on FB have their own website, paid for, and personally liable for, as back in the old days.
If FB don't have the ability or possibility to police it, then take the site down. We also don't have the ability to fly an aircraft without wings, or with faulty software. So we take those down until they are fixed. These big companies put up the websites before they checked the safety or liability or lawfulness of them.
"Make each person on FB have their own website, paid for, and personally liable for"
Somehow I don't think being personally liable for his website would have stopped this nutter. As I've said before, providing those intent on breaking the law with more laws to break does not inhibit them.
I'm concerned the fact that he livestreamed the mass murders didn't lead to them being interrupted in progress posthaste.
As to the rest - since I don't have to pay YouTube $20 to put a video on their site, of course they can't afford to pay a human being to review each and every video posted. They may make millions in ad revenue, but it's pennies off each video.
I'm surprised too. I don't post to YouTube, do Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other "social media" sites. I don't allow them on my computer or my phone.
Which means I have no idea about posting and livestream rules for them. I would think that they should have a synopsis of a livestream posted before they get permission to do one, and if it becomes a hate filled rant, or something like the one done by the shooter, a screen sized notice should come up with the wording "Your Live-stream has been reported, blocked, recorded for legal purposes, and law enforcement is on it's way to your location. Place your weapons down, place your hands on your head, walk to the nearest wall, and remain there with your head against the wall until law enforcement arrives. Failure to do so could result in serious injury, or death, if you do not comply."
Since recently most mass shooters have committed suicide when they hear sirens coming to their location, that might make them go ahead and put themselves out of our misery.
SAD, well because this is a sad situation.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
