Australia blocks 4chan, 8chan, Liveleak, others

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Reopened.

Like what Pter was getting at, you need to tread carefully when comparing crimes. If you are going to compare crimes that are violent and/or sexual in nature, make your point without trivialising them in any way.

Bear in mind that there's a high chance that plenty of people reading this thread have been victims or are/were close to people who are victims of the discussed serious crimes. Place yourself in their shoes before you post.

Dyr

Remember folks, Its only when Putin and the Chinese do this that it's bad.

Cienciano

Bambi wrote: »

Remember folks, Its only when Putin and the Chinese do this that it's bad.

Thing is, that's written into law. This is ISP deciding what's right and wrong to see. Although NZ do have some law about sharing it, tbh, I don't know much about it but I'd be completely against that too. But Russia have recently signed into law that people would get fines and jailtime for insulting Putin. Neither are good, but that's a hell of a lot worse than an ISP blocking something that's easy to get around.

Hector Savage

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Liveleak had absolutely tons of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist videos of executions, tortures etc. This suddenly happens and now they are banned??? (even though they claim they do not have the video).

You do have wonder about the power shift in the world.

Really good point actually.

Why don't Liveleak take the ISIS videos down ?
Some of that **** is way way worse.

Dyr

Cienciano wrote: »

Thing is, that's written into law. This is ISP deciding what's right and wrong to see. Although NZ do have some law about sharing it, tbh, I don't know much about it but I'd be completely against that too. But Russia have recently signed into law that people would get fines and jailtime for insulting Putin. Neither are good, but that's a hell of a lot worse than an ISP blocking something that's easy to get around.

Theres a teenager in NZ looking at a 15 year sentence for posting target aqquired or some such, you could kill someone and be looking at less time than that, like i said we waffle about opressive regimes while we dance down the same path

eagle eye

Grayson wrote:

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.

This is why I'm saying that we either go one way or the other. We cannot have a middle ground.
If you are going to ban the stuff you mention then you also have to ban videos of street brawls, personal insults etc.
You see the person of lesser intelligence doesn't understand what is acceptable and whats not unless it's clearly laid down as law.
Personally I just don't look at whatsapp videos sent my way anymore because of some of the horrible stuff that I've seen.
I'm very torn on it. I don't agree with censorship but we also have to think of the impact this stuff has on people. From what I've heard this video is like something out of a video game and could attract the attention of lots of gamers with issues in their lives. All it would take is a recruiter using the 'real is so much better' to get their attention and begin the brainwashing.

the_syco

And in other news, Australian VPN subscriptions have exploded, shooting up to the top.

Suckit

the_syco wrote: »

And in other news, Australian VPN subscriptions have exploded, shooting up to the top.

The conspiracist in me says that this will (unless you are factually speaking, and it has) happen, and is the reason for the ISPs in Australia blanket banning (The SOPA/PIPA acts in the U.S. would have allowed the ISPs this kind of power).

It's a bit of a knee jerk reaction. But megaupload was shutdown, only to allow dropbox, google drive and onedrive etc to do the same thing. Rapidshare quietly faded out of existence.

paw patrol

it not the first time I've seen this stuff on boards but I'll never understand how people cheerleader the erosion of their freedoms be it from government or corporate control.

It might be something distasteful now but it'll be something else down the line but all I see bar a few notable posts is "the thing I don't like is banned, hooray!!!" fcukin idiots.

Suckit

If the likes of facebook want to make Billions gathering peoples "data" in any way possible, then they need to be held responsible more so than any other platform - 4chan, liveleak, 8chan or any similar site only repost it. In this case the whole thing was broadcast LIVE on facebook!
What is not being got here?
Facebook want to make Billions, be held that much accountable.
No other platform is to blame for this sh*t.
F**king bullsh*t to try and say otherwise.
Even the pissing local crap pirated radio station has a delay on live broadcasts.

2 days ago Facebook had admitted that it removed 1.5 million copies of the video.

Nothing need be censored if it is moderated properly. Whatever about adults looking at it, and the BS that 'kids don't use facebook because it's not cool and their parents"... etc

Kids do use facebook, and they were definitely exposed to that, and with facebook, you can guarantee it was pretty fast. I've never ever seen a link to 4chan, but to compare the two, FB is definitely the scumbag one. They profit off it.

Rant not over, but I don't have the capability to go on. I've wound myself up and this in particular made me f**king furious.

Auntie Semite

I would imagine many on here cheerleading these banning have themselves watched plenty of executions, ISIS killings, gore etc on Liveleak.

Hobosan

paw patrol wrote: »

it not the first time I've seen this stuff on boards but I'll never understand how people cheerleader the erosion of their freedoms be it from government or corporate control.

It might be something distasteful now but it'll be something else down the line but all I see bar a few notable posts is "the thing I don't like is banned, hooray!!!" fcukin idiots.

Agreed. The format of the blocked forums is pretty simple, they will just be rebranded and start up again. The format is practically identical to boards. So what exactly are they even banning? It's incredibly stupid. Like banning motorcycles due to motorcycle gangs.

I believe the precedent being set is that people must be stopped from freely communicating online. It seems insane that this could happen, but it happened before when radio was discovered. Many enthusiasts started there own stations, then under the auspices of giving more important and regulated channels a monopoly of the airwaves, they were shut down.

If governments want to shut down podcasts and forums they will do it. They will obviously make out that it's in everyones interest, but they will do it.

ohnonotgmail

Auntie Semite wrote: »

I would imagine many on here cheerleading these banning have themselves watched plenty of executions, ISIS killings, gore etc on Liveleak.

Perhaps best if you keep your fantasies to yourself.

Hobosan

Interestingly, the idea of banning mainstream media outlets which radicalised entire nations into murdering and torturing innocent civilians under false pretenses was never considered at the time.

My pattern recognition skills must be off, I'm certain there's a discrepancy here by I can't quite put my finger on it.

kowloon

This completely won't drive things underground, nobody will think 'there must be something to it if the government is trying to censor it'.

[Slippery slope argument goes here]

the_syco

Suckit wrote: »

The conspiracist in me says that this will (unless you are factually speaking, and it has) happen, and is the reason for the ISPs in Australia blanket banning (The SOPA/PIPA acts in the U.S. would have allowed the ISPs this kind of power).

VPNs, Tor, etc, will become very popular in Australia, and the government will no longer be able to block stuff.

RWCNT

I'd like to publicly apologise for my behaviour on this thread the other night. I'd had a terrible day and there may have been some drink taken,which mixed in with my strong feelings on the topics discussed and made me act like a prick.

I believe in everything I said and am willing to stand by it but I was needlessly aggressive and uncivil. Apologies to 20 grand for the way I spoke to them and apologies to Peter for adding to his workload as a mod.

Cienciano

RWCNT wrote: »

I'd like to publicly apologise for my behaviour on this thread the other night. I'd had a terrible day and there may have been some drink taken,which mixed in with my strong feelings on the topics discussed and made me act like a prick.

I believe in everything I said and am willing to stand by it but I was needlessly aggressive and uncivil. Apologies to 20 grand for the way I spoke to them and apologies to Peter for adding to his workload as a mod.

This is unprecedented in the entire history of the internet. Fair play

98q76e12hrflnk

Cienciano wrote: »

This is unprecedented in the entire history of the internet. Fair play

Not really.

Baggly

RWCNT wrote: »

I'd like to publicly apologise for my behaviour on this thread the other night. I'd had a terrible day and there may have been some drink taken,which mixed in with my strong feelings on the topics discussed and made me act like a prick.

I believe in everything I said and am willing to stand by it but I was needlessly aggressive and uncivil. Apologies to 20 grand for the way I spoke to them and apologies to Peter for adding to his workload as a mod.

Banned for calling yourself a prick (not really)

Fair play RWCNT.

Grayson

eagle eye wrote: »

This is why I'm saying that we either go one way or the other. We cannot have a middle ground.
If you are going to ban the stuff you mention then you also have to ban videos of street brawls, personal insults etc.
You see the person of lesser intelligence doesn't understand what is acceptable and whats not unless it's clearly laid down as law.
Personally I just don't look at whatsapp videos sent my way anymore because of some of the horrible stuff that I've seen.
I'm very torn on it. I don't agree with censorship but we also have to think of the impact this stuff has on people. From what I've heard this video is like something out of a video game and could attract the attention of lots of gamers with issues in their lives. All it would take is a recruiter using the 'real is so much better' to get their attention and begin the brainwashing.

There's actually some laws about these that make sense. You can show stuff if it's deemed to be in the publics interest. That doesn't mean is someone interested in it. It means is the person better informed, is it in their interest as a citizen to see it.

In this case it's not. There's no need for someone to view this to get a better understanding of what happened when they can watch media reports or read articles. Banning the video isn't censoring speech or stopping discussion. It's not restricting the information available to people.

I'm not just in favor of banning it, I'm in favor of criminal prosecution for people who share it. I view sharing this video the same as sharing other content such as a rape video. It's a vile and disgusting act and sharing it hurts the victims, both the ones who died and the ones who survived, their families and friends.

98q76e12hrflnk

Grayson wrote: »

There's actually some laws about these that make sense. You can show stuff if it's deemed to be in the publics interest. That doesn't mean is someone interested in it. It means is the person better informed, is it in their interest as a citizen to see it.

In this case it's not. There's no need for someone to view this to get a better understanding of what happened when they can watch media reports or read articles. Banning the video isn't censoring speech or stopping discussion. It's not restricting the information available to people.

I'm not just in favor of banning it, I'm in favor of criminal prosecution for people who share it. I view sharing this video the same as sharing other content such as a rape video. It's a vile and disgusting act and sharing it hurts the victims, both the ones who died and the ones who survived, their families and friends.

Wow your taking a whole new extreme there.

98q76e12hrflnk

Grayson wrote: »

There's actually some laws about these that make sense. You can show stuff if it's deemed to be in the publics interest. That doesn't mean is someone interested in it. It means is the person better informed, is it in their interest as a citizen to see it.

In this case it's not. There's no need for someone to view this to get a better understanding of what happened when they can watch media reports or read articles. Banning the video isn't censoring speech or stopping discussion. It's not restricting the information available to people.

I'm not just in favor of banning it, I'm in favor of criminal prosecution for people who share it. I view sharing this video the same as sharing other content such as a rape video. It's a vile and disgusting act and sharing it hurts the victims, both the ones who died and the ones who survived, their families and friends.

Thats exactly what censorship is!!!

Grayson

declan2693 wrote: »

Wow your taking a whole new extreme there.

If someone tortured and murdered your family, and recorded it, you'd think that the public have a right to see it?

How about if someone had sex with you and recorded it, should they be allowed to share that video across the net without any consequences?

Would you think it was extreme to prosecute the person who uploaded the video? Would you think it's wrong to make sites take down the video? Would you think it's wrong to prosecute someone who hosted the video, knowing that hosting that video was illegal? How about if their business model is only hosting revenge porn, would it be ok to prosecute them and have the site taken down? Or is that censorship by stopping them from sharing that material.

declan2693 wrote: »

Thats exactly what censorship is!!!

That's not censorship. You can discuss details about a crime without having to watch a video of it.


The reason I mention all these types of crimes is that no-one would think it's censorship to removed that sort of vile material. This video is in the same category.

The only exception I would make is if a victim said it should be viewed. They're the only people who would really have a right to make that decision.

Boggles

RWCNT wrote: »

there may have been some drink taken

There may have been drink taken, I was so drunk I couldn't tell you.

I read a good comment on here before: "You don't need to have an opinion on everything."

This particular case I reckon is a bit too much for me now, so I'm going to avoid it from now on. I was mid-writing a paragraph when I remembered that quote.

The only reason I'm posting is so others may see that it's the same for them. We fall into traps; best get out of them. It's the other side of the world isn't it.

RHJ

I think it's a bit rich for LiveLeak to be trying to claim any moral high ground I've watched the video in question and compared to some of the others that they would host it's quite tame if a similar incident happened in a third world country nobody would really care and I doubt it would be as widely discussed.