![]() It's the same for the more benign climate of mainstream politics - people have latched onto the "toxic aspect of PC and SJW culture" as an excuse to publicly express bigoted views in public and get away with it. That's been the real victory for the far right - they've managed to conflate trolling, shitposting, and memes with actual dog whistles and overt ideological propaganda. Sure there are bunch of edgy teenagers on there, but there are also some seriously disturbed adults that influence the direction of the discussions, and yes the argument can definitely be made that they are potential breeding ground for far right terror. Yeah 4chan took the worst aspects of 2ch and amplified them through self-selection of the contributors. Now it's arguably a potential breeding ground for far-right terror. I think it was early 2005 when I first heard about it, and it was full of racist, sociopath shitheads then. stay alertĤchan I think is part of the reason we have this far-right phenomena in the first place. another horrible one was that joy lane video of the completely random old man being shot. its like a game to them, probably exacerbated by the fact that they can get immediate feedback from some other scum in the live chat.theyre all so much more horrifying because it adds an element of "everyday-ness" to it, you know, with the selfie type view sometimes. ![]() DESCRIPTION OF A BIT OF THE VID INC first part of the vid some muslim comes out of the mosque with open arms saying "hello brother!" and bam its just 4 shotgun pumps to the chest.absolutely vile stuff. reddit and liveleak admins were also removing any links and banning anyone that posted it, but not sure why when they let thousands of other killing vids up Saw that 4chan thread, absolute cesspit of adoration for the guy. Just reading the headline is enough detail for me. This is why I never try to watch these videos. Like touching hot water after you've been told it will burn, it is mindless and twisted. Watching such a production provides an audience, enabling the act. There is nothing for the lay person to learn or gain from a FPS video of someone murdering others. And also educate potential viewers that clicking play on something of this nature when forewarned of its morbid, complicit content is only feeding the desensitized frenzy and heartlessly disrespecting the victims, unless you have some reasonable (professional/personal) need to know (court case, law enforcement agencies, journalist, academic researcher, loved ones, maybe a local in certain circumstances, etc.).įrom my perspective, when I hear a guy goes into a mosque with a firearm and leaves behind bodies, I can kind of imagine what it would look like without needing to press play. Harder for the user content sites to manage, but media publishers have reasonable editorial expectations to uphold. The best thing we can do really is get professional bodies to severely hold media bodies to account for breaches of ethics like posting videos which depict real-life atrocities (I'd include something widely broadcast like the Gaddafi slaying in that category, I don't care what the person had done). These are areas we can always strive to be better in regardless of the technology involved. Simply, the obvious answer I guess, user education and media publishing. It is a tricky thing to police I guess, as once it is out there it ain't coming back. Most recent example in my memory is the guy who livestreamed himself on FB shooting that female reporter. A spokesman for the paper told the Guardian: “We recognise that in the aftermath of horrific events such as these there will be sensitivities around reporting, and we take those responsibilities seriously. There was a version of the clip autoplaying on its homepage. MailOnline’s version of the story features an autoplaying clip of 18 seconds of the suspect’s livestream, showing him leaving his car, weapon in hand, cutting it as he enters the front door of Al Noor mosque on Deans Avenue. Traditional news outlets have taken starkly different positions. But eight hours after the attack videos were still live, obscured behind a warning that they may “show violent or graphic content” but not deleted. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been struggling to keep video of the attack offline, with new versions being uploaded as quickly as they can be taken down, while many traditional media sites including MailOnline, the Sun, and the Mirror hosted edited videos of the same footage.įacebook, where a man claiming to be the attacker livestreamed footage of the shootings, removed the original video about an hour later, but by that time copies of the footage had started to circulate across other social media sites.įacebook’s community standards explicitly ban “individuals engaged in mass murder” from having a presence on its network, and the company has deleted the account associated with the suspect.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |