SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Thai man live streamed the murder of his own daughter as well as his suicide:
A Thai man filmed himself killing his baby daughter on Facebook Live, before taking his own life, Thai police say. The 21-year-old hanged his daughter, and then himself, at a deserted hotel in Phuket on Monday, reportedly after an argument with his wife. Facebook sent condolences to the family for the "appalling" incident and said that the content had now been removed. The company pledged a review of its processes after footage of a US killing stayed online for hours this month. The footage of the Thai killing had also been available on video sharing website YouTube, but the company took it down after the BBC alerted it to its presence.
Another story discusses the aftermath of the killing. This follows an incident where a man streamed his murder of a randomly picked stranger in Cleveland. That murder had already led to a "backlash" against Facebook:
It is an issue that Facebook, the world's largest social network, has had to contend with more frequently as it has bet big on new forms of media like live video, which give it a venue for more lucrative advertising. The criticism of Facebook over Mr. Stephens's video built swiftly Monday, with critics calling it a dark time for the company and outrage spreading on social media over how long it had taken — more than two hours — for the video to be pulled down. Ryan A. Godwin, the victim's grandson, pleaded with other users on social media to stop sharing the video online.
[...] Justin Osofsky, a vice president of Facebook, said in a public post late Monday that the company knows "we need to do better" to stop videos like that of the shooting from appearing. He said the company was working to ensure that such content and reports of it can be flagged faster, including through the use of artificial intelligence and a better review process.
NSFW: You can watch the Cleveland murder on LiveLeak. This video purportedly shows the murder in Phuket, Thailand, but you won't see much.
Some other incidents and related news:
Facebook Launches Live Video and Photo+Video Collages
Muslim Terrorist Kills French Cop, Wife While Livestreaming on Facebook
Falcon Heights, Minnesota Police Shooting Facebook Live Video [WARNING: GRAPHIC] [UPDATED]
Police Request Shut Off of Armed Woman's Social Media Accounts During Fatal Standoff
Hate Crime Charges Filed Over Beating Live Streamed to Facebook
Facebook Turns to AI to Prevent Suicides (eventually, your intention to murder and commit suicide will be countered by a compassionate chatbot)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:40PM (21 children)
Why the fuck are you including links to watch the actual videos? That is distasteful in the extreme. It's as bad as when the main stream news shows intentionally shocking images.
This has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech. Ethically, these videos should not exist to begin with. Discuss the issues - fine, but there's no legitimate reason to want to watch this unless you're conducting some kind of academic research.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by takyon on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:44PM (11 children)
Or, once they are online, they should stay there, as they are pieces of history and newsworthy.
Facebook can remove them if they are scared of a backlash, but other services should not be compelled to.
As for the links, you do not have to click them. But maybe there should be an extra disclaimer that it is only "ethical" to watch the footage if you are pocketing grant money.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday April 28 2017, @12:23AM (10 children)
I agree with you that people can make their own choices about whether to click or not, but that obviously shouldn't be the standard of whether to include a link in a summary.
I'm actually conflicted about this too. Anyone who really wants to find such videos can easily search for them. If we were running a story on proliferation of celebrity nude photo hacks, should we link the photos too, just so people can "examine" them to see if the celebs look legit and are really nude?
I'm not arguing that we should be "compelled" to remove links to videos of murders, but is there any point at which it's not *necessary* to the NEWS aspect to link a potentially offensive source? Is watching the videos necessary to understand or debate the question of whether linking/streaming/hosting videos of murders is a valid concern for Facebook or whatever?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday April 28 2017, @01:09AM (8 children)
News broadcasters have shown graphic violence from crimes or war zones plenty of times in the past. Nudity, less so.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday April 28 2017, @02:08AM (2 children)
Again, not a justification. Is there any good reason to view these videos other than morbid curiosity? Does it add anything to the journalistic message to enable that curiosity?
I'm not saying the links should necessarily NOT be included, only wondering aloud what standards should be. Also, I'm curious -- have mainstream news broadcasts included these specific videos in their coverage? If not, your point seems less relevant here.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @06:21AM
Morally and ethically they should not be included, it adds nothing to the discussion. Censorship is bad, but the opposite is just as bad. When depravity is encouraged and intentionally spread around it does have an effect, impressionable minds internalize these things. I don't mean that people will go out and copy-cat, that is statistically not true. However, it does normalize such violence so that people don't care as much when war crimes are committed. Why care about war crimes when some guy a few states over is murdering people live on facebook? The world is horrible so why give a crap?
Oh right, giving a crap is harder and makes the world a better place. There is a gray area between the moral absolutes of religion and the total moral relativism of nihilism. Extremes are almost always bad.*
* see what I did there?
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday April 28 2017, @08:27PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday April 28 2017, @06:07AM (2 children)
News broadcasters have shown graphic violence from crimes or war zones plenty of times in the past.
Ah the old "it's fine because everyone else is doing it" defense.
It wasn't an acceptable justification when the US was torturing people so why is it acceptable in this instance?
I would have hoped Soylent would have sought the high ground but no, its hanging out with the bottom feeders.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @06:46AM (1 child)
It seems the community is split on this issue, but I also have noticed an uptick in bottom feeders commenting. I wish all the lurkers would log in and moderate, but I truly think people are becoming disillusioned with this site after some of the moderation crap changes that encourage shit posting. Basically, the shit posters got butthurt that the majority of users downmod their lame trolling and terrible ideology so they went on the offensive. It appears that a lot of users have given up on participating and are seeking a better community. One can only stand against a shitstorm for so long before realizing that internet discussions are not worth that much and they find a better community. Just the sheer amount of comments for this article defending the inclusion of the video link like it is some constitutional battle ground is proof enough.
Horrible people trying to justify their own beliefs and flooding the site to such a degree that people find better communities.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday April 28 2017, @02:19PM
Wow -- you seem to be reading a lot into this. I have no idea how the traffic on this site is changing, but it seems like I've been seeing more stories with large numbers of comments recently. And it's not just a bunch of "trolls." I get frustrated with them too, by the way, but ALL internet communities have them (or have incredibly draconian moderation).
The argument for linking the videos here seems to be based on the general (sometimes extremist) "libertarian" perspective that's been common on Slashdot for a long time and has been carried over here. Kneejerk reactions that support "free speech" over ANYTHING else have been common on both sites for many years. I don't think one has to be a "troll" to be an extremist libertarian, and if you objected fundamentally to that philosophy, I can see how you'd be frustrated by conversations on both Slashdot and this site. But I definitely don't see anything new or really "getting worse" in that regard as you imply.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday April 29 2017, @05:23AM (1 child)
This is the future of journalism. This is the future of content! It doesn't get much better than that. [...] We produce tons of great content every single day. We're really focussed on how we deliver it to people in a way that they want to consume it more and more. [...] That will make stories much more exciting, much more visual, and today that's what people expect. Right now, we're averaging about 16% of our article pages have the type of video player that we can monetise. By 2017, we need to get to 50% of our article pages have a bright code [?] video player attached to it. The CPM that we can earn with a video or visualised content is significantly higher than a page without it, and that's the reason why we have to raise these numbers. It will significantly increase our annual revenue per user, which is a key metric for us to grow as a company. We're a content company, first, last, and always!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtwiWd1LTeg [youtube.com]
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/06/20/tronc_s_introduction_video_is_a_horrifying_swarm_of_buzzwords.html [slate.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:28AM
*Brightcove, not bright code
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shortscreen on Friday April 28 2017, @06:10AM
IMO, it's in poor taste to share these videos of murder, or your example of nude celeb photos, with the general public due to the invasion of privacy. (Presumably, the murder victims did not consent to having the act recorded.) And there is no information in the public interest that is being revealed by it (for instance, if the nude celeb photo were to show that the person was really an alien disguised as a human, or if the murder video demonstrated that eating too many skittles actually caused spontaneous human combustion).
Which is not to say that I think we need a rule stating "thou shalt not post links to..."
As other posters have mentioned, not clicking it is still an option.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:28PM (2 children)
You are presumed to be an adult able to make the decision to view or not by yourself. It's also to level the information knowledge such that there isn't a A-team who knows it all and B-team that is only served whatever censors deem alright. Someone might want to verify what others has written actually corroborate with the video contents. Or simple look for what's in the background to see if there's clues to other issues.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @06:26AM (1 child)
I see we have some die hard morons here tonight.
There has to be a middle ground, you can't spew nasty shit everywhere then cry "censorshp!" whenever someone says it is in bad taste. Snowflakes just want to revel in the shock culture, make horrors seem normal. Don't tell them it is in poor taste, don't tell them they should submit the story without the video, cause that is infringing on their freedoms! Seriously, you wackos need to get a grip and stop crying wolf.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday April 29 2017, @01:38AM
If you can't handle. Don't read, don't click. The crime is disgusting but there's also a need to find out about the matter. Also in the interest to detect and prevent similar crimes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Dunbal on Thursday April 27 2017, @11:36PM
Offense is taken, not given. No one forced you to click on a link. Go play with your crayons in your safe space.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 28 2017, @01:45AM (3 children)
You cannot escape the brutality that is life. You can be a good person and avoid bad situations, but there is a risk of being exposed to brutality and vivisection everytime you walk outside your door.
When I was of single-digit age (here we go, another one of these), my grandma had just taken my younger sister and I out for ice cream at the nearby Thrifty and were Westbound on Carmel Mountain Boulevard approaching Rancho Penasquitos Boulevard when we were forced to drive by the scene of an accident in which a kid on a bike was hit and subsequently dragged under a van, lethally, and as it turns out we were there just in time to see the bloodied road and the covered body. This was in a nice part of town, and worse than being deliberate, it was an accident. The driver of that van has a kid's blood on his hands for the rest of his life, whether he wanted to or not.
It was horrific to witness and was a punch to the gut on so many levels, but that double-scoop of butter pecan and rocky road was too good not to eat, and anyway, we didn't want granny to whoop our asses from letting that ice cream melt inside the car.
Later in high school my buddies and I had the misfortune of seeing the bum-and-friend who bought us beer every weekend found dead in his makeshift shanty located at 32.777942, -115.551612.
We couldn't believe he was dead, even after we poked his motionless body with sticks, so we made a pact to return the next morning and call the cops if he was still immobile. He was, and had overdosed, and the cops called the coroner to take him away. They told us that he was a known drug-addict and likely OD'd.
His name was Leonard Hardy.
Guess he wasn't so "hardy" after all LOLZ!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @06:49AM (1 child)
What is wrong with you?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday April 28 2017, @10:05AM
If I had to guess I'd say he slipped into unconsciousness after getting drunk and eating the bleach under the sink with "Stand By Me" [imdb.com] playing in the background, and now he has a Richard Drefuss' voice nostalgically narrating the confused mixture of reality, memory, movie, fantasy and substance-induced nightmares in his head and he just can't switch it off.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:41AM
> Guess he wasn't so "hardy" after all LOLZ!
I wonder whether exposing oneself to brutality might have some effect on one's thought processes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28 2017, @02:54AM
I agree - very distasteful. Main stream media should only show rainbows and unicorns, nobody should be aware that bad things happen in the world.
Shocking images should only be seen at HBO's "Game of whatever is hapenning this week" and in all the NCISs, but never on the news ...