Australia blocks 4chan, 8chan, Liveleak, others

WinnyThePoo

I remember years ago 4chan was known for being riddled with child porn.

I presume its different these days. A friend recently looked at eire/Pol. Said it was a cesspit.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Are you saying they should be allowed to link and host videos that show child execution?

Are you saying that Facebook should be providing video streaming services to mass-murderers?

If you want to play the strawman game, we can go for it. But it's you resorting to them.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

We're talking about Liveleak. They did that, and got banned. And apparently, it is still on FB.

as i said in a later post FB will be playing whack-a-mole for a while with the video. But they at least are making an effort to remove it and have done since it went out.

Billy86

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I remember years ago 4chan was known for being riddled with child porn.

I presume its different these days.

Nope.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as i said in a later post FB will be playing whack-a-mole for a while with the video. But they at least are making an effort to remove it and have done since it went out.

Eh, I think you're in the wrong argument. We're not arguing that FB should be banned.

Baggly

Mod

Boggles, do not post in this thread again for 24 hours.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, I think you're in the wrong argument. We're not arguing that FB should be banned.

Well people have been asking why FB was not banned as well. My point is that FB made (and continue to make) an effort to remove the video. Can the same be said of the sites that were banned?

JDD

The point is, if you make an effort to ensure that your site isn't hosting the video, then you won't get banned.

Presumably, if Liveleaks never hosted the video or had links to the video on its website, then it's unfair that it got banned. If the video was uploaded to the site, or links provided, and they made efforts to take them down, then it's also unfair if it got banned.

Suckit

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I remember years ago 4chan was known for being riddled with child porn.

I presume its different these days. A friend recently looked at eire/Pol. Said it was a cesspit.

Reddit was the same. If not worse on some levels.


Liveleak didn't allow videos to be published. They were pretty strict on that from the start. Facebbok hosted the video more often than liveleak and they a worse job of taking it down.

Facebook is also probably the reason the video is still being shared. Whatsapp, Instagram etc.



Even without trying to circumvent any blocked sites, Facebook will still allow and host all the sh!t to be published, even 1 minute is long enough for it to be taken and forwarded. I don't get why a multi-billion dollar company doesn't have some form of moderater. Without censoring, they could still moderate. I don't get why they aren't being forced to.

ohnonotgmail

JDD wrote: »

The point is, if you make an effort to ensure that your site isn't hosting the video, then you won't get banned.

Presumably, if Liveleaks never hosted the video or had links to the video on its website, then it's unfair that it got banned. If the video was uploaded to the site, or links provided, and they made efforts to take them down, then it's also unfair if it got banned.

this is it exactly. If anybody has a source as to how Liveleak handled this it would be very welcome. It would improve the signal to noise ratio on the thread if nothing else.

Suckit

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this is it exactly. If anybody has a source as to how Liveleak handled this it would be very welcome. It would improve the signal to noise ratio on the thread if nothing else.

I've posted a link a few pages back to how liveleak handled it. Click the link in the post, I only quoted a small portion of their statement.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109723970&postcount=20

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well people have been asking why FB was not banned as well. My point is that FB made (and continue to make) an effort to remove the video. Can the same be said of the sites that were banned?

Liveleak apparently. And apparently is as good as we can say for FB.

4chan and 8chan are tiny operations likely run by one person. Moot used to run 4chan. 4chan does very well now to keep child porn, which is illegal content, off its platform. This video is not illegal, as distasteful as it is. They don't have the resources to up moderation.

And they're not hosting it. I can post a link here that could last an hour and you would have the same grounds to argue that boards.ie isn't actively removing the video, and as such, should be banned. That's about as long as links last on 4chan usually, since everything gets deleted automatically.

Arguing that links result in county-wide bans after one incident of a legal video with no notice being given prior warning to up moderation, or to employ extremely expensive solutions to detect the video automatically, is frankly loony-tunes. You are, without the use of a strawman, arguing that no small site should have a comments section, since all are open to this link-sharing.

If Zerohedge's ban comes from the comments section, is it really right that they be banned? We can do this to any website anywhere. I can employ an army of Indians to spam a website I don't like with the link and bingo, they are banned from a country.


We are talking about Facebook, Viber, Whatsapp etc. here because that is how 99.99999999% of people shared the video, yet none are sanctioned. It's just the "right" sites getting banned. The big sites are where the video is still stored. It's not stored on Liveleak. It's not stored on 4chan. It's not stored on 8chan. It's not stored on Zero Hedge. It's a pointless political move cheered on by short-sighted fools who sign away their freedoms because of specific events.

Suckit

Facebook hosted the video more than anywhere else, which is likely to be the place that most people ripped it from. It was hosted on facebook at one point on more than 2000 pages.
Liveleak didn't host it at all unless it was disguised, but was then quickly removed.

Facebook also has a much larger audience, much larger.

Bigbagofcans

I don't understand how the video is still on Facebook. They're usually very quick with taking down abusive material.

Not many people use Facebook live anyway - it should be scrapped.

Ash.J.Williams

phil anselmo banned from NZ....looks like terror wins

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

Liveleak apparently. And apparently is as good as we can say for FB.

4chan and 8chan are tiny operations likely run by one person. Moot used to run 4chan. 4chan does very well now to keep child porn, which is illegal content, off its platform. This video is not illegal, as distasteful as it is. They don't have the resources to up moderation.

And they're not hosting it. I can post a link here that could last an hour and you would have the same grounds to argue that boards.ie isn't actively removing the video, and as such, should be banned. That's about as long as links last on 4chan usually, since everything gets deleted automatically.

Arguing that links result in county-wide bans after one incident of a legal video with no notice being given prior warning to up moderation, or to employ extremely expensive solutions to detect the video automatically, is frankly loony-tunes. You are, without the use of a strawman, arguing that no small site should have a comments section, since all are open to this link-sharing.

If Zerohedge's ban comes from the comments section, is it really right that they be banned? We can do this to any website anywhere. I can employ an army of Indians to spam a website I don't like with the link and bingo, they are banned from a country.


We are talking about Facebook, Viber, Whatsapp etc. here because that is how 99.99999999% of people shared the video, yet none are sanctioned. It's just the "right" sites getting banned. The big sites are where the video is still stored. It's not stored on Liveleak. It's not stored on 4chan. It's not stored on 8chan. It's not stored on Zero Hedge. It's a pointless political move cheered on by short-sighted fools who sign away their freedoms because of specific events.

It's definitely a kneejerk reaction to ban a few websites that a few people in power don't like. The fact that liveleak went out of their way to explain why they never hosted it and why they never will and still got banned stinks.

WinnyThePoo

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

phil anselmo banned from NZ....looks like terror wins

A quick google doesn't show him to be banned from NZ. Venues are private companies and really can do what they want. He has a couple of instances in the past referencing white power. I don't agree with the venues cancelling on him though.

Hell, if he plays and then makes reference to white power and all that jazz ..then **** him off the stage.

98q76e12hrflnk

The amount of censorship that is happening in Australia at the moment is crazy.

If this was committed by another race I don't believe their would be close to as much censorship by the left.

98q76e12hrflnk

milo yiannopoulos banned from entering Australia.The left in full control over there.

eagle eye

I was appalled at what happened in New Zealand and I'd be a for the death penalty for anybody associated in planning these attacks.

I'm against censoring though. I haven't watched it, it was put in front of my face by a work colleague and I told him to get away from me that I didn't need to look at something like that. Thing is that it's my decision not to watch it.

I don't believe in censorship when it suits. It's either full on or never, no in between.
I'm talking about for adults obviously.

Ash.J.Williams

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

A quick google doesn't show him to be banned from NZ. Venues are private companies and really can do what they want. He has a couple of instances in the past referencing white power. I don't agree with the venues cancelling on him though.

Hell, if he plays and then makes reference to white power and all that jazz ..then **** him off the stage.

he wont

ohnonotgmail

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

A quick google doesn't show him to be banned from NZ. Venues are private companies and really can do what they want. He has a couple of instances in the past referencing white power. I don't agree with the venues cancelling on him though.

Hell, if he plays and then makes reference to white power and all that jazz ..then **** him off the stage.

If you know what type of person he is why would you want him in your venue in the first place? Venues are private. they can cancel on who they like. You mention censorship but think private venues should be obliged to host somebody they dont want?

We'll likely see a bunch of reactions down in Australia and New Zealand, followed by the oft-used reverse logic of not following suit suggests support.

Cienciano

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

A quick google doesn't show him to be banned from NZ. Venues are private companies and really can do what they want. He has a couple of instances in the past referencing white power. I don't agree with the venues cancelling on him though.

Hell, if he plays and then makes reference to white power and all that jazz ..then **** him off the stage.

That's very simple imho. He was booked before the shooting. Now the venue have decided it's bad for business after the shooting. I can imagine the mood in NZ, the venue would probably have protests and negative press.

WinnyThePoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If you know what type of person he is why would you want him in your venue in the first place? Venues are private. they can cancel on who they like. You mention censorship but think private venues should be obliged to host somebody they dont want?

I said in my second sentence that venues are private and can do what they like.

ohnonotgmail

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I said in my second sentence that venues are private and can do what they like.

you also said you dont agree with it. What about it do you not agree with?

WinnyThePoo

Cienciano wrote: »

That's very simple imho. He was booked before the shooting. Now the venue have decided it's bad for business after the shooting. I can imagine the mood in NZ, the venue would probably have protests and negative press.

I don't disagree with you. The article I read from music site stereogum states he made a Nazi salute three years ago and apologized more than once for it. He did make a white power speech back in 1995 also, but not much information on that. Im not a fan of his music, metal was never my thing.

WinnyThePoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you also said you dont agree with it. What about it do you not agree with?

I haven't seen enough evidence hes a white power looney. Feel free to set me straight.

I'm basing my opinion on this article.

https://www.stereogum.com/2036162/new-zealand-venues-cancel-phil-anselmo-shows-over-2016-white-power-incident/news/

Grayson

eagle eye wrote: »

I was appalled at what happened in New Zealand and I'd be a for the death penalty for anybody associated in planning these attacks.

I'm against censoring though. I haven't watched it, it was put in front of my face by a work colleague and I told him to get away from me that I didn't need to look at something like that. Thing is that it's my decision not to watch it.

I don't believe in censorship when it suits. It's either full on or never, no in between.
I'm talking about for adults obviously.

I generally don't agree with censorship but this is different.

I think we both would agree that certain material should be banned. take child pornography for example, I don't think either of us would say that it counts as freedom of speech or freedom of expression.

But how about a rape video? I think we would both agree that seeing someone being raped is wrong. Sharing that video doesn't count as freedom of expression.

Yet we're in a position here where people are saying a video of someone being killed is in a different league that's somehow better than the child porn or rape video. And it's not just one person being killed.

Baggly

Mod

Lads, have a serious word with yourselves. Are you honestly ranking violent and/or sexual crimes here?

The last few posts have left a seriously bad taste in my mouth, so ill ask a colleague to review so i dont fly off the handle here.

Thread closed until it can be reviewed.