New Zealand massacre shows how online users find ways to share violent videos

[rooster59]

New Zealand massacre shows how online users find ways to share violent videos

By Joseph Ax and Charlotte Greenfield

 

An armed police officer stands guard in a perimeter outside Linwood mosque after Friday's gunmen attacks, in Christchurch, New Zealand March 16, 2019. REUTERS/Edgar Su

 

LEBANON, N.H./CHRISTCHURCH (Reuters) - The Friday massacre at two New Zealand mosques, live-streamed to the world, was not the first time that violent crimes have been broadcast on the internet, but trying to stop the spread of a video once it has been posted online has turned into a virtual game of whack-a-mole.

 

The livestream of the mass shooting, which left 49 dead, lasted for 17 minutes. Facebook said it acted to remove the video after being alerted to it by New Zealand police shortly after the livestream began.

 

But hours after the attack copies of the video were still available on Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc's YouTube, as well as Facebook-owned Instagram and WhatsApp.

 

Once a video is posted online, people who want to spread the material race to action. The New Zealand live Facebook broadcast was rapidly repackaged and distributed by internet users across other social media platforms within minutes.

 

Other violent crimes that have been live-streamed on the internet include a father in Thailand in 2017 who broadcast himself killing his daughter on Facebook Live. After more than a day, and 370,000 views, Facebook removed the video.

 

In the United States, the assault in Chicago of an 18-year-old man with special needs, accompanied by anti-white racial taunts, in 2017, and the fatal shooting of a man in Cleveland, Ohio, that same year, were also live-streamed.

 

Facebook has spent years building artificial intelligence and in May 2017 it promised to hire another 3,000 people to speed the removal of videos showing murder, suicide and other violent acts. Still, the problem persists.

 

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube on Friday all said they were taking action to remove the videos.

 

"Police alerted us to a video on Facebook shortly after the livestream commenced and we quickly removed both the shooter’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and the video," Facebook tweeted. "We're also removing any praise or support for the crime and the shooter or shooters as soon as we’re aware."

 

Twitter said it had "rigorous processes and a dedicated team in place for managing exigent and emergency situations" such as this. "We also cooperate with law enforcement to facilitate their investigations as required," it said.

 

YouTube said: "Please know we are working vigilantly to remove any violent footage."

 

Frustrated with years of similar obscene online crises, politicians around the globe on Friday voiced the same conclusion: social media is failing.

 

As the New Zealand massacre video continued to spread, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark in televised remarks said social media platforms had been slow to close down hate speech.

 

"What’s going on here?" she said, referring to the shooter's ability to livestream for 17 minutes. “I think this will add to all the calls around the world for more effective regulation of social media platforms.”

 

COPIES SPREAD

 

After Facebook stopped the livestream from New Zealand, it told moderators to delete from its network any copies of the footage.

 

"All content praising, supporting and representing the attack and the perpetrator(s) should be removed from our platform," Facebook instructed content moderators in India, according to an email seen by Reuters.

 

Users intent on sharing the violent video took several approaches - doing so at times with an almost military precision.

 

Copies of the footage reviewed by Reuters showed that some users had recorded the video playing on their own phones or computers to create a new version with a digital fingerprint different from the original. Others shared shorter sections or screenshots from the gunman’s livestream, which would also be harder for a computer program to identify.

 

On internet discussion forum Reddit, users actively planned and strategised to avoid the actions of content moderators, directing each other to sharing platforms which had yet to take action and sharing downloaded copies of the video privately.  

 

Facebook on Friday acknowledged the challenge and said it was responding to new user reports.

 

"To detect new instances of the video, we are using our artificial intelligence for graphic violence" as well as audio technology and looking for new accounts impersonating the alleged shooter, it said. "We are adding each video we find to an internal data base which enables us to detect and automatically remove copies of the video when uploaded."

 

Politicians in multiple countries said social media companies need to take ownership of the problem.

 

"Tech companies have a responsibility to do the morally right thing. I don’t care about your profits," Democratic U.S. Senator Cory Booker, who is running for president, said at a campaign event in New Hampshire.

 

"This is a case where you’re giving a platform for hate," he said. "That’s unacceptable, it should have never happened, and it should have been taken down a lot more swiftly."

 

Britain's interior minister, Sajid Javid, also said the companies need to act. "You really need to do more @YouTube @Google @facebook @Twitter to stop violent extremism being promoted on your platforms," Javid wrote on Twitter.

"Take some ownership. Enough is enough."

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-16

 

 

[robblok]

First time I ever saw something like this on video, can't say it has made me want to look for more. If people want to see blood there are always ways for this. You cannot stop this not without tech giants investing loads of money (they wont). 

[Pilotman]

well people don't have to watch it do they, I certainly would not.   

[usviphotography]

It took the press until this incident to figure out that users can download and upload video? Anything of interest that has ever been posted online, whether it be crime video or Jennifer Lawrence's boobs, will forever remain online. That has the way the internet has always worked since the very first days. 

[lannarebirth]

It's an interesting perspective, but it's not my takeaway. Mine is that people who live their life largely online are crippled both socially and intellectually and those shortcomings will manifest themselves in ways that are destructive to society. By design, as it turns out, given how internet algorithms work.

Edited March 16, 2019 by lannarebirth

[longtom]

I really wonder what is the motive for people to spread this as fast as possible as far as possible?[emoji54]

I guess I am too naive to comprehend.

Sent from my shitty phone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[usviphotography]

19 minutes ago, longtom said:

I really wonder what is the motive for people to spread this as fast as possible as far as possible?

I guess I am too naive to comprehend.

Sent from my shitty phone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Sharing is the basic ethos of internet culture. If somebody asks to see the video, someone else will post it. The fact that the universally despised Corporate Tech Oligarchs are trying to take it down adds an element of political subversion. Posting the video in this context becomes a blow against the Oligarchs. 

[zydeco]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

First time I ever saw something like this on video, can't say it has made me want to look for more. If people want to see blood there are always ways for this. You cannot stop this not without tech giants investing loads of money (they wont). 

Well, the Daniel Pearl and James Foley beheading videos are still out there. So is the footage of the Jordanian airman who was captured, caged, and burned alive. I have never watched any of them. No American newspaper, magazine, or television station I know of 20-30 years ago would have considered even for a moment showing the videos, stills, or even the vivid lurid written descriptions now common today. This is how civilized values collapse.

[longtom]

Sharing is the basic ethos of internet culture. If somebody asks to see the video, someone else will post it. The fact that the universally despised Corporate Tech Oligarchs are trying to take it down adds an element of political subversion. Posting the video in this context becomes a blow against the Oligarchs. 

I appreciate your explanation, but still think there are better ways to deliver blows against Oligarchs.

Sent from my shitty phone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[UnkleGoooose]

????

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, UnkleGoooose said:

????

I'm emoticonically challenged, so perhaps you could help me. What is that and what does it mean?

[NCC1701A]

really? this has been going on since before the internet. people would distribute vhs tapes of the worst shit imaginable.

 

and the same all the way back to 300 baud dial up. 

[NCC1701A]

and the entire mosque shooting is available on line (i will not say where). 648x360 30fps mpeg 16m55s. 68 mb.

[seahorse]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

I'm emoticonically challenged, so perhaps you could help me. What is that and what does it mean?

Hes a white supremacist. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by seahorse
I'm joking in case it's not clear.

[seahorse]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

social media is failing.

Controlling the narrative is failing. That's their biggest concern. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by seahorse
I'm not joking.

[from the home of CC]

1 hour ago, NCC1701A said:

and the entire mosque shooting is available on line (i will not say where). 648x360 30fps mpeg 16m55s. 68 mb.

I've seen worse but what struck me was this guy going on like a real life 'terminator', one sick puppy and in a real 'civilized' world would be tried and promptly executed.

[roquefort]

9 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Sharing is the basic ethos of internet culture. If somebody asks to see the video, someone else will post it. The fact that the universally despised Corporate Tech Oligarchs are trying to take it down adds an element of political subversion. Posting the video in this context becomes a blow against the Oligarchs. 

Sharing this kind of material is not political subversion, it's sick perversion. What kind of sad apology for a human being gets a kick out of watching stuff like that?

[madmen]

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

It's an interesting perspective, but it's not my takeaway. Mine is that people who live their life largely online are crippled both socially and intellectually and those shortcomings will manifest themselves in ways that are destructive to society. By design, as it turns out, given how internet algorithms work.

But you have 5000 posts ????

[sanemax]

16 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Sharing this kind of material is not political subversion, it's sick perversion. What kind of sad apology for a human being gets a kick out of watching stuff like that?

I watched it

[madmen]

41 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Sharing this kind of material is not political subversion, it's sick perversion. What kind of sad apology for a human being gets a kick out of watching stuff like that?

I didn't get a kick out of it. What sick individual thinks that everyone is in it because it "fun"

 

you need to grow up and stop talking nonsense.

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, madmen said:

But you have 5000 posts ????

About 3.5 per day. I was pretty active during the GFC.

[bristolboy]

14 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Sharing is the basic ethos of internet culture. If somebody asks to see the video, someone else will post it. The fact that the universally despised Corporate Tech Oligarchs are trying to take it down adds an element of political subversion. Posting the video in this context becomes a blow against the Oligarchs. 

Another apologist for snuff films.

[usviphotography]

5 hours ago, roquefort said:

Sharing this kind of material is not political subversion, it's sick perversion. What kind of sad apology for a human being gets a kick out of watching stuff like that?

Your problem is the assumption people are "getting a kick" out of it. Most people no doubt want to watch it simply because it is a major news story. Also, the Manifesto, which the MSM is also strangely trying to censor, is available in the same torrent as the video.

Edited March 16, 2019 by usviphotography

[sanemax]

5 hours ago, roquefort said:

Sharing this kind of material is not political subversion, it's sick perversion. What kind of sad apology for a human being gets a kick out of watching stuff like that?

Did you read the report or did you just read the headline and refuse to read anymore ?

Why did you read the whole story ?

[SweetStickyRice]

I find it very hard to believe that;

 

"Facebook said it acted to remove the video after being alerted to it by New Zealand police shortly after the livestream began."

 

and;

 

"Police alerted us to a video on Facebook shortly after the livestream commenced and we quickly removed both the shooter’s Facebook and Instagram accounts and the video."

 

If NZ Police were so quick to alert FB after the video commenced, why were they so slow to respond to it? I don't know who here has seen it, but the whole video is about sixteen-and-half minutes long. About seven-and-half minutes of it is the actual shooting. No police in sight. 

 

I understand that nobody wants to watch something like that, but I also believe that NZ government / police is so eager to get it off the internet / social platforms as soon as possible to not get criticised for the slow, or no response. They were fast asleep. 

 

I remember years back when NZ Police made an operation on Kim Dotcom's mansion to take him into custody. They made a spectacle out of it, armed police, special tactics, helicopter, you name it. To arrest a man, a nonviolent person, wanted for some internet / copyright violations in the US. The NZ government granted this man a residency. Two cops could've went to his home, knocked on the door and asked to come along to the cop shop for a chat. They decided it was that serious to make circus out of it.

 

NZ Police failed miserably on the 15th of March 2019. And although I'm the kind to say sh*t happens, this went on for far too long.

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by SweetStickyRice