SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New Zealand Mobile Carriers Block 8chan, 4chan, and LiveLeak
Submitted via IRC for chromas
New Zealand Mobile Carriers Block 8chan, 4chan, and LiveLeak
Following the Friday mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, multiple internet service providers (ISP) in the country have blocked access to websites that distribute gruesome content from the incident.
[...] At least three internet companies operating in New Zealand have made this decision voluntarily and enforce it on a temporary basis against sites that still publish the sensitive materials. Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ agreed to work together to identify and block access at DNS level to such online locations. 8chan and 4chan are currently unavailable to New Zealanders trying to load them through a connection from the three telcos. At the moment, visitors trying to get to these forums through Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ and Vocus NZ see the message "The URL has been blocked for security reasons."
Some users reported that LiveLeak video-sharing platform was also blocked in the region, along with other websites, including file-sharing service Mega. The block is not permanent, though. As soon as the horrific content from the Christchurch incident originating from the terrorists is removed, access to the website is reestablished.
The Dark Night of Censorship falls on New Zealand
Everybody keeps waiting for the dystopia to arrive, well wait no more for it has made an appearance in New Zealand. Zero Hedge reports that New Zealand is dropping the hammer on all discussion about the recent shooting. The list is growing and will almost certainly be larger by the time this story goes live.
Current banned sites seem to be: Dissenter.com (the new service from Gab yet gab.com is still reported as available.... for now), "all" of the "chans" are banned, and Zerohedge itself is now banned.
Subscribers who ask their ISP are reporting being told sites will stay banned until they become "censorship compliant." Sites not banned: Facebook.com, which live streamed the attack, and Twitter.com, which hosted the original link to the shooter's "manifesto." Guess they are "censorship compliant."
Suppression of Christchurch shooting video
After Christchurch, Reddit bans communities infamous for sharing graphic videos of death
In the aftermath of the tragic mosque massacre that claimed 49 lives in Christchurch, New Zealand, tech companies scrambled to purge their platforms of promotional materials that the shooter left behind. As most of the internet is now unfortunately aware, the event was broadcast live on Facebook, making it one of the most horrific incidents of violence to spread through online communities in realtime.
As Twitter users cautioned others from sharing the extraordinarily graphic video, some Reddit users actively sought the video and knew exactly where to look. The infamous subreddit r/watchpeopledie was quarantined (making it unsearchable) in September 2018 but until today remained active for anyone to visit directly. The subreddit has a long history of sharing extremely graphic videos following tragic events and acts of violence, like the 2018 murder of two female tourists in Morocco.
[...] The subreddit remained active until some time late Friday morning Pacific Time, when Reddit banned the controversial community.
How 'hashing' could stop violent videos from spreading
Some experts say tech companies should more broadly adopt a technology they're already using to combat child pornography and copyright violations to more quickly stop the spread of these types of videos.
[...] Facebook (FB) says it took down the livestream "quickly," but hours later, re-uploads of it were still circulating on the site. Twitter suspended the original account in question and is working to remove other versions on the platform. YouTube said it is utilizing "technology and human resources" to remove content that violates their policies.
Technologists say digital hashing, which has existed for more than a decade, could be better used to prevent the re-upload of videos. Hashing wouldn't have been able to catch the original live video of the attacks, but it could stop re-uploaded copies from spreading.
Social media platforms were used like lethal weapons in New Zealand. That must change now.
Editorial judgment, often flawed, is not only possible. It's necessary.
The scale and speed of the digital world obviously complicates that immensely. But saying, in essence, "we can't help it" and "that's not our job" are not acceptable answers.
Friday's massacre should force the major platforms — which are really media companies, though they don't want to admit it — to get serious.
After New Zealand Attacks, Muslim-Americans Call For Action Against Rising Bigotry
"The New Zealand shooter was able to livestream a 17-minute video of his murderous rampage that continues to spread like wildfire online. This is flatly unacceptable. Tech companies must take all steps possible to prevent something like this from happening again," Khera said.
Previously: 49 Dead in Christchurch, New Zealand Terror Attack
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3 Original Submission #4
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @02:21AM
There's no reason not to have a doorkeeper with a telephone stationed in front. It's just good sense when your front door is unlocked and open; you have no idea who might walk in or need assistance.
Also ... defining boundaries and securing perimeters has never been more important than it is today.
~childo
(Score: 1) by Luke on Monday March 18 2019, @03:20AM (5 children)
Disclaimer: I was probably less than 1500m from the massacre at the time, and I live nearby the city.
I too have read Blair, Huxley, Mill and others, and abhor the ever increasing impost of govt into peoples lives.
I do not agree - and in fact _strongly_ resent - other individual's (which of course is what govts are made of) imposing their 'censorship' upon me. I choose my own morality or whatever it is, and as such I choose not to look at this video, nor read whatever it is this sick bastard has written.
I get angry too when, as an innocent bystander, I and others are detrimentally affected by govts apparent need to lump me into whatever punishment or curtailment they are meting out as a result of something some other individual has done.
However I am not immune to the distress and very real feeling of hurt that arises when such things happen. So while I recognise this is technically futile for those determined to see whatever, and I am seriously pissed at the affront to my own rights, I choose to subsume that for the moment for the greater good.
By this I mean that NZ is a small place, smaller in terms of population than several overseas cities, and so when something like this happens it affects many people across the country. It particularly affects those for whom it is a personal tragedy and if it alleviates a little their suffering to believe that images of their relatives being shot and dying have been blocked from others views then I have enough humanity to say that is far more important than my right to full and free access right at the moment. Yes it could be seen as the thin edge of a very worrying wedge, and rightly condemned in many respects, but wither go I? How would I feel if it were my family you were looking at?
So at the moment this 'censorship' (and do I struggle not spit when I say that) hasn't extended to Soylent or other sites, or otherwise I wouldn't be able to post here I guess, but you would probably help me and others who want to read stuff on this site by not posting links to this arsehole's publications at least.
Also, if you paused for a moment to consider the effect of your words upon those who have lost mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, siblings or other relatives through this senseless and inhumane act then I tip my hat to you. It's perhaps not so much what many of you are saying as how you say it that maybe matters most?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @04:56AM (4 children)
So you want us to keep silent in our "free" countries so that the police don't come after you in your weak country when we discuss what happened? The main stream government approved media is already spinning its own story on this.
If you feel that your rights to inform yourself are as stable in your country like a match burning in the wind, then maybe you should lay low for the next few days to not get the security services interested that you read uncensored SoylentNews, or stand up as a citizen and tell the state to leave you in peace.
(Score: 1) by Luke on Monday March 18 2019, @05:17AM (3 children)
No, not silent, nor stop discussing it, but linking to sites containing videos of someone killing 50 people doesn't help those of us in this country to discuss it, nor others to grieve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @06:39AM (2 children)
I didn't really feel a need to watch that video, but with all the censorship that changes. We all have a duty to watch it. (yuck)
Get yourself a copy. Share it everywhere, anonymously if you have family to support and would be at risk of prison.
Perhaps it would be legal to organize trips abroad for viewing.
(Score: 1) by Luke on Monday March 18 2019, @01:14PM (1 child)
No, we don't have a duty to watch it right now. The duty we have to society is to ensure it is not 'lost' however.
I was just a few years old when I first saw images and film of the atrocities committed by Germans against the Jews in WW2. What I remember is so many bodies and, oddly, bulldozers. I made sure to show some of these images to my children when I felt they would be in a position to understand the horror that unchallenged beliefs can cause.
That said neither I nor my children knew these people personally, nor were they - to the best of my knowledge - relatives, and it was many years in the past (although not so many for me), and so we were able to look at these and see the individual dread, the terror and the waste, but without looking at our contemporaries. Somehow that seems less voyeuristic, than it would be to see this video right now.
Would it be wrong to suppress this forever? Yes, I think so, awfully it is part of history now and history is not always good but it is something we should take heed of and learn from.
Does it hurt to make it difficult to see right now, to allow some respect to living individuals and their families? No, in that case I don't think so.
So when would it be 'right' to see this more in the public domain? I don't really know but I feel it should be a few years away; I bought Mein Kampf around 30 years after the end of WW2 (and had to go through some trouble to get it) but I think it was a reasonable time after the event. I wanted to learn and understand what had made this man do what he did, but would it have been ok to buy it during WW2 or a little after...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @10:44AM
those who do not learn from the past..
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday March 18 2019, @04:01AM
Let's see if they succeed where Russia failed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18 2019, @03:59PM (1 child)
now how much do you care about government censorship?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 19 2019, @12:54AM
Well, SoylentNews was just mostly incel alt-right neo-nazis anyway, oh, and jmorris. So no great loss. Should've been banned earlier, like before it managed to insite this atrocity.