ISPs with a Commitment to No Discretionary Censorship

puyo on 20/03/2019 - 14:34

Hey,

Just found out Telstra, Optus, Vodafone and TPG have started blocking some websites using their own discretion. I'm wondering if anyone has seen, or possibly any smaller ISP reps exist here on OZB, any ISP make a statement they wouldn't selectively block any website beyond an official government list. Usually I'd go check the threads on Whirlpool for this sort of thing, but Simon Wright seems to be going around locking all the threads discussing it.

Some quotes:

Telstra released a statement in which Networks and IT Executive Nikos Katinakis explained, “We understand this may inconvenience some legitimate users of these sites, but these are extreme circumstances, and we feel this is the right thing to do.”

A spokesperson for Vodafone said that the company would only usually block access to a site on the request of law enforcement or the courts, but that this “was an extreme case which we think requires an extraordinary response… While there were discussions at an industry level about this issue, this is a decision Vodafone Australia came to independently,” the statement said. Optus said it made its decision after “reflecting on community expectations.”

I'm aware that I could use an alternate DNS or VPN to bypass these blocks, and I'm sure the people seeking the content in question will go ahead and do just that. Really just looking for an ISP that isn't going to block access depending on what they feel is the "right thing to do".

I'm also aware I can (and will) contact ISPs myself to ask them myself, as well as complain to my own - however I see OZB as a useful tool for crowd sourced discussion on lawful consumer options, so hopefully this doesn't get wiped here too.

Cheers

Internet

Comments

  • Clear on 20/03/2019 - 14:39
    +3

    Seems iiNet/Internode have not blocked those websites.

    • puyo on 20/03/2019 - 15:16
      +12

      You may already be on an alternate DNS - I currently have iinet and 4chan, 8chan, Liveleak don't work upon testing. Nothing to say they won't add the rest tomorrow.

      The particular sites don't really matter - I'd just prefer not an ISP that any given day I can't access content they don't want me to on their whim.

      • Clear on 20/03/2019 - 15:17
        +5

        Silly me yeah my own DNS server. I guess that's how they've chosen to block then? Not the most efficient way but good for us.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/03/2019 - 20:59
          +1

          This is 1984

          Anyone knows any Internet provider who supports freedom, citizens liberty and not down to Virtue signaling?

          This is not a DNS issue, the websites are filtered. Anyone had success with an alternate DNS rerouting?

    • jelko on 20/03/2019 - 22:21

      I'm currently on an iiNet FTTP connection. Can access 4chan, liveleak. I'm not using any other DNS apart from the ISP supplied one.

      • Clear on 20/03/2019 - 22:24

        Turns out I was right after all!

  • spackbace on 20/03/2019 - 14:40

    And the websites they're blocking are what exactly? Porn, terrorism, what…?

    • spackbace on 20/03/2019 - 14:48
      +6

      https://www.newsweek.com/christchurch-attack-video-australia…

      According to Nine News, Telstra—the country’s largest telecommunications company—blocked access to 4chan, 8chan, Voat, the blog Zerohedge and hosting platform LiveLeak on Tuesday. The sites were also unavailable on Optus and Vodafone networks, although the companies had not confirmed the names of the sites they had blocked.

      • Diji1 on 20/03/2019 - 14:52
        +60

        Wow.

        This is why we need a EU/US style bill of rights, this is coordinated censorship at the largest scale across Australia's ISPs.

        They need to be regulated to ensure this does not happen but obviously in a corporate controlled country like ours this will never happen. I mean the Government is already happily attacking human rights and being voted back in because democracy doesn't work.

        • Gronk on 20/03/2019 - 17:01
          +1

          Are you suggesting that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the US? The country that just repealed all their Net Neutrality laws?

          • abuch47 on 21/03/2019 - 18:06
            +2

            @Georgevic: Facebook/Youtube/twitter is extensively used for extremism but I kind of agree. At the same time it will be used indiscriminately even if by accident and why would ISP then undo the errors at their cost. Privacy and net neutrality are extremely important so a bill of rights is a the way forward. Also forcing radicalists underground isn't a great idea as how then do authorities keep an eye on them.

          • belongsinforums on 23/03/2019 - 09:54
            +2

            @Georgevic: i went to one of those websites after the nz thing too see what the fuss was about. the vast majority of posters were either making fun of the shooter or saying how terrible the whole thing was. the rest were trolling to trigger people like you. facebook and youtube comments are far worse in my experience

        • gromit on 21/03/2019 - 22:01
          +1

          Neither the US nor the EU have any rules what so ever to prevent corporate censorship, in fact it is explicitly allowed and practised.

        • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 15:43

          "I want to watch innocent people getting slaughtered by a deranged individual and it's my right to do so, even though it rewards the terrorist by giving him exactly what he wants" Have I got the sense of entitlement right?

          • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 17:27

            @tryagain:

            "I want to watch innocent people getting slaughtered by a deranged individual and it's my right to do so, even though it rewards the terrorist by giving him exactly what he wants" Have I got the sense of entitlement right?

            Then why isn't your indignation and outrage directed at the corporations that explicitly did just that and promoted the perpetrator's agenda by failing to remove the live footage for an hour and that hosted re-uploaded footage for up to 11 hours after the attack?

            Or the mainstream news outlets at home and abroad who actually embedded clips from the live stream footage on their copious articles about the attack even despite warnings from NZ Police not to do so as it would compromise the investigation and containment of the crime?

            Instead of going after the corporations who will stoop to any low to attract more viewers, more sensationalist media coverage, more ad revenue and whom time and time again, feed into the psyches of such attention-seeking psychopaths who can count on their 24/7 news cycle coverage to make them global household names before dinner time and ensure their faces, manifestos and demented ramblings are plastered all over the world, you want to turn this discussion around and focus on ordinary Internet users being unable to access a few websites (out of the countless many that linked or hosted the footage) as if that would have prevented everyone from seeing this depravity in the first place?

            Carte blanche banning anything has never worked in combating crime or policing deviant behaviour throughout history. Not during the Prohibition, not since the War on the Drugs and especially not since the Global War on/of Terror. We still have rampant alcoholism, epidemic drug abuse and terrorist attacks so frequent they're no longer news-worthy for the most part, as in the case of February 2019 Kaduna massacre in Nigeria that claimed 141 lives, which was completely ignored by Western media outlets.

            But sure, ban some websites, bask in your feel-good moral relativism and pull the wool over your eyes; that's the Australian way.

            • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 17:40
              -1

              @Gnostikos: Did you actually read what I wrote, because what you did doesn't really have anything to do with it? It wasn't at all to do with the media but the deluded sense of entitlement.

              • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 17:52

                @tryagain: No one espoused anything remotely like what you insinuated.

                Whether people want to watch snuff films or not, and whether they should be able to or not, is not for you nor Telstra or any other corporation to decide.

                There was no Federal mandate that compelled the ISPs to do what they did, they simply did it of their own volition and this precedent sets the stage for further discretionary censorship in the future.

                An ISP is there to provide Internet access to a subscriber as per the conditions of a contract, not to enforce morality, ethics or "right-thinking" onto people.

                If you can't see the inherent and extremely dangerous problems with that from a civil liberties point of view, then you're clearly not someone in favour of a democracy.

          • brendanm on 24/03/2019 - 20:54

            @tryagain: It has nothing to do with entitlement. It is legal to watch, and we don't need corporations or government deciding what is is we can/can't watch.

      • HighAndDry on 20/03/2019 - 14:57
        +2

        Pretty sure it's a DNS level block, so you can get around it by using another DNS server - Cloudflare, OpenDNS, Google all provide independent ones.

        • Beanvee on 20/03/2019 - 15:11
          +2

          People are reporting inconsistent results, but using 1.1.1.1 on Telstra and none of them are blocked for me.
          Checked it's not DNS cache as I cleared it, also some of the sites listed wouldn't be cached because I've never browsed to them.

          • theguyrules on 21/03/2019 - 12:25

            @Beanvee: I was trying to work out why it worked for me, but same, I'm using 1.1.1.1

        • mezje on 21/03/2019 - 11:35
          +1

          I have tried using a few DNS with Optus and none work, frustratingly there is no way to change the DNS server at the modem as the Sagecom firmware is crippleware, many have tried.

          Also navigating to direct IPs doesn't work…

          • trinkasharma on 21/03/2019 - 14:29

            @mezje: I changed the DNS on my Optus F@ST3864V2

          • syousef on 21/03/2019 - 16:05

            @mezje: I have my own WRT54GL serving DNS, and the DNS server crippled on my Telstra modem. Does the Optus modem not allow you to turn off the DNS server?

          • Gnostikos on 22/03/2019 - 16:30

            @mezje:

            frustratingly there is no way to change the DNS server at the modem as the Sagecom firmware is crippleware, many have tried.

            There's a very easy way. Get a new modem. ISP-bundled modems are absolutely garbage.

            You'll likely get a few more Mbp/s of downstream speed out of it too with something containing a decent chipset, way better WiFi signal strength/coverage and you'll have access to a whole plethora of configuration options not available with ISP-bundled modems. Not to mention they won't fall over and require a restart every 2 days.

            Try a TP-Link Archer AC1600 or a Billion 8900AX-2400.

            • LauralHardy on 24/03/2019 - 15:39

              @Gnostikos: You can simply add the alternative DNS servers to the network card IP V4 configuration, that overrides whatever DNS the DHCP server gives out without monkeying with your router.

      • Bystander on 20/03/2019 - 19:35
        +4

        They're blocking Zerohedge???? WTF!!!
        At what point in time has ZH ever been a threat to society?

        • abb on 21/03/2019 - 11:42
          +3

          Probably since about… (checks wikipedia)

          Launched: January 9, 2009; 10 years ago

      • Thaal Sinestro on 23/03/2019 - 02:02
        +4

        The hypocrisy is what sickens me. Do an internet search and you will find hundreds of videos of Islamic terrorists attacks against whites (911, Isis beheadings, etc), all still available on places like Youtube. Only white attacks against Muslims get censored.

        • frewer on 23/03/2019 - 13:12
          +1

          Cox the left is the definition of double standard?

    • Gronk on 20/03/2019 - 16:55
      +3

      And the websites they're blocking are what exactly? Porn, terrorism, what…?

      None of the sites being blocked are inherently geared toward any of that content, they're anonymous image sharing boards where literally anything goes.

      It's a big grey area, because the anonymity provided by the sites effectively facilitates the posting of both legal and illegal content which it is then up to the site admins to identify and remove.

      On any given day you could visit these sites and see nothing out of the ordinary, but every so often you'll find exceptionally polarizing material there, as appears to be the case currently.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2019 - 14:04
        +22

        It's not a grey area. Censorship is against our best interest.

        • Gronk on 21/03/2019 - 16:50
          +2

          It's not a grey area. Censorship is against our best interest.

          So by that rationale, Youtube should stop taking down Momo challenge videos?

          I fully agree that as adults, we should all be able to make our own decisions as to what we choose to watch / read / play in our own recreational time without limitation but when it comes to kids it's a different story - in my opinion.

          • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2019 - 16:52
            +7

            @Gronk: YouTube taking down stupid challenges is done in their best interest, not ours.

            (To avoid any legal ramifications)

            • Gronk on 21/03/2019 - 17:02
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: Not trying to be deliberately antagonistic, but if you had teenage kids, would you want them watching those terrorist videos? I know I wouldn't…

              • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2019 - 17:19
                +15

                @Gronk: That's your problem as a parent.

                • mikeangelo on 21/03/2019 - 19:13

                  @[Deactivated]: Kids these days are difficult to control. But anyway, what about all the momo content planted right in the middle of like peppa pig videos by idiots that think it's funny to scare the heck out of young children? So we should just leave those in there too

                  • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2019 - 19:22
                    -1

                    @mikeangelo: Peppa Pig is not a necessity nor a basic human right. If you think its content and/or affiliated/associated practices are not in line with your values, you can choose not to use the service in its entirety.

                    • mikeangelo on 21/03/2019 - 19:36
                      -1

                      @[Deactivated]: You didn't answer my question. Or did you? Youtube is marketed for all ages and you're saying videos rated for young children should be allowed to include momo content right in the middle to scare and frighten young kids. Glad people like you don't run the country.

                      • [Deactivated] on 21/03/2019 - 19:39
                        +2

                        @mikeangelo: I answered the question and more. I answered it in a way that answers all variations of said question.

                        If you want a specific answer so you can find another angle of asking the same question, here it is.

                        The advertising content should stay the same if YouTube/Peppa Pig decides it is a worthy associate. You should choose not to watch YouTube/Peppa Pig.

                        I'm glad people like you don't run this country - "I feel this may be offensive/inappropriate/not necessary for someone. Let's remove it. Oh, another party is running against me, they may remove my censorship and therefore are an even greater offence to "good values". Let's censor them."

                  • Cave Fire on 22/03/2019 - 23:59

                    @mikeangelo: ? They have a kids version of YouTube. It's meant to be age appropriate. Still a few wierd kids shows + a lot of marketing.

                    • mikeangelo on 23/03/2019 - 08:21

                      @Cave Fire: You missed my point. Content creators for children have had their youtube accounts hacked and videos uploaded using their accounts with momo content planted right in the middle of the video to catch by surprise. A deliberate attempt to frighten children because some demented f*** think it's funny. My point is that censorship has a place in some instances. We shouldn't just leave these videos there because it's not youtube responsibility.

                      • Cave Fire on 23/03/2019 - 10:45
                        +2

                        @mikeangelo: Yeah, didn't see that post. Apparently algorithm is important in YouTube. So certain videos are filtered. Momo was designed to get past that. They were eventually taken down. I also support censorship of YouTube, according to transparent guidelines.

              • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 17:58
                +3

                @Gronk: Probably should be talking to your kids about what they are looking at on the internet. Parents should parent, not video sharing sites.

                • Gronk on 21/03/2019 - 21:35

                  @brendanm: I don't have kids…

                  • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 23:01

                    @Gronk: Then why talk about kids? Parents are the ones that set boundaries, not corporations.

                    • Gronk on 22/03/2019 - 09:25
                      +1

                      @brendanm: Because I have nieces and nephews, as much as they're not my kids, I still care a great deal about the type of people they grow up to be.

                      • brendanm on 22/03/2019 - 11:07

                        @Gronk: Well assuming their parents do a good job, they'll be fine. I talk to my older one about YouTube, and he isn't on Facebook etc, and the younger one doesn't watch anything if one of us isn't there.

              • Thaal Sinestro on 23/03/2019 - 01:49

                @Gronk: So watching terrorists attacks is evil, but it's okay for children to play video games where they constantly get to beat up, maim and murder human beings? Fortnite is a murder simulator, operant conditioning designed to desensitize humans to committing acts of violence against other humans. Alot of films and TV shows feature abundent violence, drug use, explosions, illegal activities (speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, bribery).

          • frewer on 23/03/2019 - 13:21

            @Gronk: As parents, we can't protected kids from the real world forever. But rather parents should cultivated the goodness in their kids. So that they can stand against the storm.
            Have a read at men without chest. Here is a snapshots of it http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/Men_without_Chests

        • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 15:49
          -3

          It's not a grey area. Censorship is against our best interest.

          So Pedophilia videos shouldn't be censored as it's against our best interests?

          • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 17:02

            @tryagain:

            So Pedophilia videos shouldn't be censored as it's against our best interests?

            That has zero relevance to the reason these sites were blocked. You're just muddying the argument with the clichéd "think of the children" cry.

            You're conflating illegality with morality.

            Pedophilia is not the reason any of those aforementioned sites were blocked, they were simply caught up in the collateral fall-out stemming from Facebook and YouTube failing to contain the spread of the live stream footage and some people continuing to link to it on 4Chan, 8Chan, Voat, etc.

            They didn't actually host any of that content and if they can be considered as "promoting" it because some of their users choose to post links to it, than so can Facebook and YouTube, but they're still up and running because they're too valuable to corporate interests to shut down.

            • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 17:27
              -2

              @Gnostikos:

              That has zero relevance to the reason these sites were blocked.

              And your point has zero relevance to the point I was making, which is that a blanket "Censorship is against our best interest." is plainly wrong.

              • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 17:42
                +2

                @tryagain: Once again you're having trouble with definitions.

                Pedophilia is illegal in a majority of jurisdictions where a majority of the Internet's websites and infrastructure is physically based and hosted, and sites promoting or hosting such content are breaking the law in those respective jurisdictions, so they're being rightfully targeted for criminal behaviour.

                Censorship is not about prosecuting criminal behaviour, it's about pre-emptively deciding to restrict access to certain media or information online due to political, moral, religious, social or technical reasons, or in this particular case, for no reason at all other than corporations deciding they can.

                Websites linking to footage hosted elsewhere does not specifically constitute a crime and even if it did, most of the websites blocked by Australian ISPs in this case are not hosted in Australia nor operated by Australian citizens, so our laws do not apply.

                • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 17:58
                  -2

                  @Gnostikos: From Wikipedia

                  Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[1][2][3] Censorship can be conducted by a government[4] private institutions, and corporations.

                  Governments[4] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[5] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

                  • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 18:02
                    +1

                    @tryagain: Still struggling with reading comprehension…

                    From your source:

                    the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons

                    Keywords: claimed reasons.

                    Not inherently legal reasons. Note that all of the other so-called justifications there are also entirely moral instead of legal, such "controlling obscenity", "protecting children", "restricting religious views", etc.

                    The majority of Internet censorship enforced by nation-states today is done for entirely ambiguous, non-legal reasons.

                    But sure, you continue to defend one of the prominent tools of choice in the arsenal of oppressive regimes the world over like China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc and think it won't just be the thin end of the wedge when it's applied in Australia because we're special.

          • [Deactivated] on 24/03/2019 - 17:45

            @tryagain: Pedophilia is criminal.

            Blocking illegal content is not censorship. You're conflating two different issues.

            • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 18:00

              @[Deactivated]: Source? see my post above.

              • [Deactivated] on 24/03/2019 - 18:07
                +1

                @tryagain: Source that pedophilia is a criminal activity?

                Something called statutory rape of minors but I don't think it benefits anyone to explain this further.

                Read your source.

                …variety of claimed reasons…

                Child pornography is evidence of child pornography and it is categorically illegal. (I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this).

                It is in the terms and conditions of YouTube (common sense) that they will not be hosting something that blatantly criminal.

                Besides, you're comparing Youtube, an entertainment business not wanting to host illegal content, to an ISP, whose job is to retail access to information, blocking entire sections of the internet and you're equating the two as the same thing.

                Right.

                • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 18:11

                  @[Deactivated]: Tin foil hats and red herrings every where, to make it painstaking obviously source for this bit

                  Blocking illegal content is not censorship

                  • [Deactivated] on 24/03/2019 - 18:13

                    @tryagain: I guess things need to be explained to the most elementary of concepts to you but I guess I'll leave that to Amar.

                    He sounds like a far more patient person.

                  • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 18:24
                    +2

                    @tryagain: Continually moving the goal posts when you're losing an argument to try and salvage some credibility just makes you look juvenile.

                    You've already proved that censorship has nothing to do with enforcing laws, as we've just seen with the very source you quoted.

                    From Electronic Frontiers Australia:

                    The Internet censorship regime in Australia comprises law and regulation at both Commonwealth and State/Territory Government level, apparently because the Australian Constitution does not appear to grant either level of government sufficient power to independently and fully regulate online content.

                    • Commonwealth law applies to Internet Content Hosts ("ICHs") and Internet Service Providers ("ISPs"), but not to content providers/creators or ordinary Internet users.
                      The law requires Australian ISPs and ICHs to delete content from their servers (Web, Usenet, FTP, etc.) that is deemed "objectionable" or "unsuitable for minors" on receipt of a take-down notice from the government regulator, the Australian Communications & Media Authority ("ACMA") (formerly the Australian Broadcasting Authority ("ABA") prior to 1 July 2005).

                    • State and Territory criminal laws apply to content providers/creators and ordinary Internet users.
                      Some States/Territories have laws enabling prosecution of ordinary Internet users and other content providers for making available material that is deemed "objectionable" or "unsuitable for minors"

                    Note the word illegal does not appear in that rationale for the laws pertaining to ISPs restricting or blocking access to content currently covered by our Internet censorship legislation.

                    Note also in the opening sentence, that the Australian constitution doesn't give any level of government in Australia the power to control what people can and can't see online.

                    You're clutching at straws and trying to pedantically bog down the argument in pointless semantics. If you actually had a valid point for why discretionary ISP censorship is justified (and not censorship of already illegal content), we'd actually be able to understand what point you're trying to make here.

                    • [Deactivated] on 24/03/2019 - 18:29

                      @Gnostikos: You are a monk and a sage.

                      How you draw patience and initiative to provide rudimentary information astounds me. Equally astounding is the need from someone with internet to be spoon fed said information.

                      Maybe their internet was censored.

                    • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 19:27

                      @Gnostikos:

                      Continually moving the goal posts when you're losing an argument to try and salvage some credibility just makes you look juvenile

                      I haven't moved the goalposts once, so to recap for you, in response too

                      It's not a grey area. Censorship is against our best interest.

                      I asked

                      So Pedophilia videos shouldn't be censored as it's against our best interests?

                      You then went on some red herring of what seems to be predetermined talking points in your head as I didn't imply let alone mention what you went on about.

                      Our definitions of censorship obviously differ, I think both legal and illegal information can be censored, you seem to be of the opinion that it's only censorship if the material isn't illegal

                      Let's hypothesise a Nation State that makes it illegal to say anything against the State and then enforces that law, according to your definition this isn't Censorship?

                      Just also to clarify the difference, I am not talking about the act of Pedophilia but video's of it being displayed online.

                      • Gnostikos on 24/03/2019 - 23:42

                        @tryagain:

                        Our definitions of censorship obviously differ, I think both legal and illegal information can be censored, you seem to be of the opinion that it's only censorship if the material isn't illegal

                        "I think" is not a source for the validity of censorship and Australian law doesn't provide ISPs with that kind of power.

                        Next straw man.

                        My main point is that most people when it comes to extreme cases believe some things should be censored, blanket comments like

                        (To quote you) citation for "most people" believing that?

                        9 replies later and you still haven't come up with anything relevant as to why Telstra and other ISPs arbitrarily censoring websites without any Federal mandate or legal requirement, is acceptable.

                        Give me a credible, rational reason for that and then we can talk.

                        Otherwise, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing until you have the final word on the matter, so you can claim everyone conceded defeat because you want citations for the sky being blue and censorship being a bad idea when you've never read 1984 or The Gulag Archipelago.

                    • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 19:44

                      @Gnostikos:

                      we'd actually be able to understand what point you're trying to make here.

                      My main point is that most people when it comes to extreme cases believe some things should be censored, blanket comments like

                      Censorship is against our best interest.

                      I think are blatantly wrong, I think what is and isn't in our best interest as a society in regard to what can and can't be censored is a worthwile but seperate dicussion.

          • brendanm on 24/03/2019 - 20:56

            @tryagain: That's illegal. Viewing a video of the Christchurch terrorist is not.

            • tryagain on 24/03/2019 - 21:48

              @brendanm:

              That's illegal. Viewing a video of the Christchurch terrorist is not.

              Never claimed otherwise!

              • brendanm on 24/03/2019 - 23:50

                @tryagain: Then there is no reason to censor it. Certainly no legal obligation. Do you want the government and random corporations to be the ones who decide what is acceptable for us to view?

                • tryagain on 25/03/2019 - 10:02

                  @brendanm: There are good reasons for not showing it including not rewarding a terrorist, respect for the families of the slain and possibly hindering prosecution. I am yet to hear a convincing reasons that outweigh those of why people should have access to it though.

                  • brendanm on 25/03/2019 - 10:08

                    @tryagain: It is not illegal to view, and we don't need to give governments and corporations the power to censor whatever they feel isn't "good for us".

                    There are plenty of other terrorism videos available, what makes this one so special that it needs censorship?

                    • tryagain on 25/03/2019 - 14:29

                      @brendanm:

                      It is not illegal

                      The absence of illegally doesn't make it a good thing, most things that are now illegal were legal at one point in time.

                      we don't need to give governments and corporations the power to censor whatever they feel isn't "good for us".

                      Governments already have the power too enact laws to make things illegal.

                      There are plenty of other terrorism videos available, what makes this one so special that it needs censorship?

                      Plenty of others get Censored as well, obviously not every one can realistically be fully blocked. This one is still out there if you look hard enough, in reality they haven't prohibited people from watching it, just made it harder.

                      • brendanm on 25/03/2019 - 17:19
                        +1

                        @tryagain: Whether it's a "good thing" or not is not for you, the government or tpg to decide.

                        The government can not simply "make things illegal", there are procedures that have to be followed, the public are also informed. However, with the sentiment of some here, we may as well just let anyone decide what is a "good thing" for us to watch.

                        I'm well aware it's still out there, the point is it's not government or corporations place to decide if I can/not watch it. They haven't done a very good job at pulling down any other terrorist videos, this one seemed to warrant special treatment for some reason…

                        • tryagain on 26/03/2019 - 00:11
                          -1

                          @brendanm: So you have no problem with people watching pedophilia videos? As it's not not for you, the government or tpg to decide if it is a good thing?

                          To which you respond "but it's illegal" but you also say "the point is it's not government or corporations place to decide if I can/not watch it."

                          • brendanm on 26/03/2019 - 07:42

                            @tryagain: It's illegal. I don't know how this is so hard to understand.

                            • tryagain on 26/03/2019 - 08:48
                              -1

                              @brendanm: So if the Government made it illegal to view terrorism related video you would have no issue with not being able to view it?

                              • brendanm on 26/03/2019 - 11:07

                                @tryagain: Generally laws are created that coincide with community values, so I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. I would hope that enough people have a problem with this that it wouldn't become law.

                                • tryagain on 26/03/2019 - 12:17
                                  -1

                                  @brendanm: Fair enough, I have found most peoples objections boil down too "it's not illegal so I should be able to watch it" but when asked if it was made illegal would they have an issue with it being blocked and they unwittingly do, so legality actually has little to do with their rationale, it just their way of eschewing the lack of rationale in their reasoning. i.e. They wouldn't agree with the great firewall of China, even though it is legal.

                                  Blocking already happens, it's not a case of whether it should or it shouldn't, it's where we should draw the line in the sand. If you think it's just at what is/isn't illegal, then your position logically supports the great firewall of China.

                                  • brendanm on 26/03/2019 - 14:12

                                    @tryagain: Chinese firewall laws have no effect on me, and as we don't live in a communist dictatorship, I feel the odds of our laws being reasonable to be a lot better. That's quite a ridiculous argument to be honest.

                                    If you can't have videos of people being shot, how would we record anything that happens in wars? It would be illegal to publish war crimes being committed.

                                    Things aren't blocked currently, for me anyway. Anything that was you can get around with a VPN.

                                    I haven't negged you by the way.

                                    • tryagain on 26/03/2019 - 20:22
                                      -1

                                      @brendanm: I am not against the video's of people being shot not being blocked, my point is that most people agree with some level of blocking (ie kiddie porn) a blanket open slather most would agree isn't on the balance, good.

                                      My main point is that most rational people would agree to the internet being blocked on some level and I think people should argue the merits of what is and isn't beneficial, not just that it's illegal/legal therefore it should/shouldn't be blocked. Those having the biggest hissy fit about this massacre sound like spoiled brats whos sense of entitlement has been triggered.

                                      I think there would be broad community support to see this footage blocked, I think the arguments for people being able to watch this are pretty non-existent outside of it's legal therefore I should be able to, This wrongly disregards the ethics and morality that allows society to function well.

                                      • brendanm on 26/03/2019 - 20:44
                                        +1

                                        @tryagain: The problem with this is that getting a consensus on every single thing is not only very difficult but very expensive. That's why the legal/illegal thing is easy, its already a consensus that kiddie porn shouldn't be allowed for instance, as the overwhelming majority of people find it abhorrent. I'm not so sure that many people feel that strongly about this one, as its a grey area.

      • OzBarAnon on 21/03/2019 - 15:37
        +3

        Well some of the sites are anonymous image sharing boards (the chans), but they also blocked ZeroHedge and even archive.is among others too

    • [Deactivated] on 22/03/2019 - 00:09
      +3

      Message boards - similar to reddit but less moderation. So yes, some subs have porn and violent rhetoric, other subs talk about Doctor Who, other subs discuss films or cartoons, other subs discuss hobbies.

      They're really no worse than reddit - there's a heap of highly questionable content on reddit - but reddit is owned by the massively powerful Conde Nast whereas these other boards are small and powerless.

  • Tech5 on 20/03/2019 - 14:43

    What websites are you referring to?

  • Diji1 on 20/03/2019 - 14:49
    +31

    Is it extreme right and/or left wing content?

    It's hilarious watching the left cheering on blocking and deplatforming and then suddenly you're laughing even harder as they get banned.

    The solution to bad speech should never be blocking, it should be more speech.

    • Tech5 on 20/03/2019 - 15:04
      +1

      Just found it. It was basically any website that hosted the video of the christchurch attacks, or any uncensored discussion of it I believe

      • quog on 20/03/2019 - 16:40
        +33

        But not Facebook or Twitter.

        so go figure - what a crock of …

        • orangetrain on 21/03/2019 - 12:51
          +2

          Link to 8chan and 4chan owners praising the attacker?

        • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 18:01
          +5

          The websites didn't glorify it. Some users may or may not have, has nothing to do with the website owners though. Starting to get like 1984… Death for thoughtcrime when?

          • MessyG on 21/03/2019 - 20:23

            @brendanm: The difference is that the website owners of FB and Twitter etc (removed videos and s***posts as fast as they could) and actually did something about it once they realised whereas the others didn't.

            • brendanm on 21/03/2019 - 20:35
              +5

              @MessyG: Why should they? They only delete illegal content, and it is up to the individual whether they want to view it. Afaik it is not illegal to watch or comment on the video in Australia, as long as your comment is not inviting violence toward a certain person/group.

              Short of things that are blatantly illegal, we don't need people censoring us, and deciding what is ok/not to view or comment on. Censoring things only makes it all worse. Hurting feelings or insulting someone is not illegal.

            • Gnostikos on 22/03/2019 - 16:47
              +6

              @MessyG:

              The difference is that the website owners of FB and Twitter etc (removed videos and s***posts as fast as they could) and actually did something about it once they realised whereas the others didn't.

              Facebook left the livestream footage online for an entire hour despite the video being reported in less than 30 minutes after it was uploaded.

              One hour is a very long time for a company of +30,000 employees and over 55 billion dollars in annual revenue.

              It took NZ Police contacting Facebook through a special escalation channel reserved for intelligence agencies/law enforcement that then triggered notifications for their most senior executives in America, minutes after which, the video was removed.

              Turns out their billion-dollar "A.I. machine learning" technology is oriented mainly at destroying user privacy and selling personal information to advertisers, as opposed to effectively filtering out illegal or extremist content.

              Facebook's and YouTube's failure in containing the footage and preventing its spread furthered the perpetrator's agenda and now mass censorship is being imposed on millions of ordinary, unconnected citizens because of these corporate giants' total apathy to actually enforcing their lip-service commitment of cleaning up social media. The same corporate giants who have repeatedly been in court for violating privacy, ethical and antitrust legislation.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join