new zealand christchurch shooting video liveleak

The idea is so ill-thought-out that I begin to suspect ulterior motives.

The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it. We can't eradicate violence in prisons, what makes the author think we can eradicate it elsewhere? His idea is completely impractical and cannot be effective in its aim, even if implemented. Seventhly, what happened to, 'we will not let terrorists destroy our way of life'?Įighthly, the possibility of evil is the price we pay for freedom. Protecting corporations from competition is generally bad and works to the disadvantage of the consumer who has nowhere else to go. Sixthly, the level of governance being proposed entrenches the current mega-corporations, protecting them of startups without the level of profit behind them to implement wide-spread censorship. I do not trust elitists to operate in my interests. Apart from the health benefits of laughter, a great deal of discussion is carried out on social media. If we feel that the censorship is not quite right, how do we get it changed? Are we ourselves liable to censorship for speaking out against it?įifthly, the author is a condescending elitist, consigning social media posts to the category of cat videos. If you don't care enough to block people, you just don't care. Hitting 'block' ten times will probably leave you with a reasonably pleasant experience, without the very problematic issues associated with censorship. If it is a river of filth and you hate it, you can log off or you can pick up your mouse and click 'block.' Even in the 'far-right' hangouts of Bitchute and Gab, the white supremacists are prolific posters but few in number. Thirdly, how is such as task to be executed? If an hour is too long, what is the acceptable time period for the travesty to be be available online? How many people will it take to do this? Will all livestreaming be cancelled? What about text posts? How many informers will we need to snitch on possibly 'harmful content'? Who determines what is harmful? Is it harmful to show the outcome of bad ideas? Do we ban the films of the Nazi death camps and visits to the Killing Fields? Should we never be allowed to see what comes of hateful ideology?įourthly, how will we know if the censorship is being conducted according to our wishes? By definition, we wouldn't see the censored content. Secondly, why should Silicon Valley be the arbiters of good taste? This instance may be fairly clear, but what is the limiting principle to what Silicon Valley should censor?

I suspect the constant barrage of violence from Hollywood has desensitised people.

More censorship is the cry! I have so many issues with that:įirst of all, if you want to bemoan depravity, the spread of the gruesome videos is a symptom, not the cause of general depravity. What concerns me next is the media's and the politicians' reactions. The shooter is evil, no doubt about that. It was the second paragraph, after the concern about not enough censorship online, but, hey, small wins! The focus of the article, at the start and the end are on the awful visuals, as if, if only he hadn't been able to post, it would have been so much better! It seems he is more concerned with white supremacists than he is with dead bodies. It's nice that the dead people get a mention.

New zealand christchurch shooting video liveleak