Slashdot Mirror
An Argument For Not Taking Down Horrific Videos
A few days ago, we posted a story that asked whether posting horrific videos online served a legitimate journalistic purpose; some images that are shocking in their violence are now routinely available, including and especially the recent video of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive. Matthew Ingram writes at GigaOm that, whatever you think of the motives or results of the traditional news media showing such videos or choosing not to, there's good reason for social media sites not to reflexively remove such content.
The key question is why do governments want them down so badly?
The government so desperately wants these videos down and routinely makes claims that these videos are radicalizing people (not proven but still doesn't change anything). But this doesn't make sense. The videos don't really cost money. They aren't going against some vested interest of a lobby group. So why are they so desperate?
The answer is clear. They make the bureaucrats look bad. How can they claim that any given battle has been won or an area "pacified" if videos crop up showing their opponents doing what they want where they want? Bush jr claimed that the war was over but very quickly both the media and the internet proved him very very wrong. But if he had complete control over the information we might have only been able to speculate as to why so many soldiers were dying in "accidents". Instead he was humiliated and his legacy largely ruined.
And this is the crux of real power; the control of information. Look at the power that Snowden has managed to take away. Not all of it but even in the UK the courts have just delivered a gut punch that mightn't ever have happened without his release of the information and caused such potential for a power shift.
So while I don't really want more power to groups like ISIS. I am 100% sure that I don't want more power in the hands of the US or any other western government. So ignore any argument that they might make about keeping the children safe and remember that this is a quest for power over information pure and simple.
I find it amusing how whenever the topic of free speech comes up here, or at Hacker News, or even at Reddit, many of the comments will be supportive of free speech, and against censorship. Yet when it comes to how such sites actually operate, we see the complete opposite. We see lots of censorship, and the active suppression of free speech.
Granted, Slashdot isn't as bad as some sites. At least we can post as AC here, we generally don't see users banned completely (although there are apparently posting restrictions can be put in place), and we can optionally see all comments. But it's still quite distasteful to see so many good comments get modded down to -1 so often. Modding like that is a form of censorship, and it should have no place here.
HN and Reddit are particularly bad. HN has its vague, extrajudicial "hellbanning", for example. Both sites suffer from an extreme self-righteousness complex, where members there are absolutely sure they're right, and will go so far as to silence anyone who disagrees with them. If you're lucky, they'll only accuse you of being "disingenuous" or "snarky". But most likely anyone who doesn't completely follow the flock will be abusively downvoted, if not banned.
So I think it's quite sad when people here and at those other sites talk about how important free expression is, and how bad censorship is, yet they actively support such things when they go on at the sites that they frequent.
A photo of the incineration of the Jordanian pilot, with the legend
"Waterboarding no longer bothers me."
Warning: Graphic Photo, and general political incorrectness
http://www.theospark.net/2015/...
People are stupid. giving them all the facts in glorious detail only ever creates irrational fear and makes it easier for the government to bring in ridiculous anti terror laws while at the same time giving the evil doers everything they wanted. You really think they give a shit that people will see them as degenerate? They want fear and to express there dominance that they can do whatever they want, which by airing it everywhere they are granted. There really is no good solution here though I would err on the side of not showing it just too spite the perpetrators.
If truth "damages your freedom" then you've got bigger problems. Graphic content can be disturbing to people but it certainly doesn't damage their freedom (whatever that means). There's a reason there is such a thing as a "graphic content warning".
You then go on to explain that, yes, you do think you are qualified to judge what truth the public can handle. That line of thinking is how every dictatorship gets its hold.
Who is to be the arbiter of what should and should not be said? Do they know the motive of every statement a person makes every time they make them? How can anyone teach people bad arguments if they can't hear them? The answer to those questions are "Nobody", "Fat Chance", and "Impossible".
If you fear debate and are so inadequate in your own opinion that you wish to censor, remain a hermit. Hide in your house and hire a good delivery person. The world is full of contrary opinions, and you can't possibly agree with them all.
I have no issues with Freedom of Speech because I trust my own opinions, beliefs, and ability to debate. I can defend my opinion rationally and factually, even when it's not the popular argument. I am not always right, and I do make mistakes. That is how I improve myself and my opinions and I welcome debate so that I can improve.
Believing that speech can be controlled and regulated is a delusion. From the times of Ancient Greece to present people have tried, all to no avail. You can only control your own ability to hear the arguments and defend your own position.
In a rare moment of defending Fox "News" I believe that what they did was perfectly valid. They did not force anyone to watch the video. Anyone that didn't want to see it had ample opportunity to avoid the video. If you go out of your way to feel offended, then you deserve to be offended.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"ISIS militants have released video that they claim shows Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive while locked in a cage. The horrific video has been released on the internet, and appears to be authentic.
What "truth" is being kept from the public here? Nobody's saying "make something up and refuse to talk about the video or the murder of this prisoner of war." What "information," exactly, is being withheld from the public? What legitimate informational purpose is served by allowing a bunch of random shitheads around the world to watch another human being being literally roasted alive?
If you want the "information" of understanding what burns look like on human flesh, there are plenty of existing medical texts available that don't require the sacrifice of ANOTHER human being. The argument that "not showing the video" equates to some sort of cover-up is nonsense. You can cover the video, without actually SHOWING the video.