Forum - View topicNEWS: WIRED: Buffalo Mass Shooting Victims' Families Sue 4chan, Good Smile Company, Others
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ViviP
Posts: 73 |
|
|||
Isn’t it great? In Australia you are liable for all content on any of your social media pages, including comments made by other people. There’s also our famous online safety act where the eSafety Commissioner can restrict access to any ‘harmful content‘ as well as ordering website owners to hand over all information they have on any users posting ‘harmful content’. What is harmful content? That isn’t your concern citizen. We got stuck with this bullshit because the government used the COVID news story as a distraction to sneak a lot of very unpopular bills through, it’s really impressive how well political parties can work together when they want to. People actually cheering for censorship is pretty mental though, there’s probably going to be some very embarrassed individuals in the future. But I guess some people really can’t grow up without knowing pain. |
||||
|
||||
|
Moses34
Posts: 8 |
|
|||
|
This lawsuit is bonkers. Just suing everyone they think they can win against to get some quick money from whoever isn't willing to go to court for it. And like many have said, right-wing news networks are suspiciously absent from the list, probably because adding them would make them lose in court instantly because of how much money Fox News and the like have.
But even more bonkers than that are some posters defending 4chan as if they don't have an entire board dedicated to radicalizing people with massive (proven) influence from other radical websites. Saying this as someone who used to like the site many moons ago before it became crazy central, and they as well as 8chan and any other chans that share this insane userbase should be included in the lawsuit. I understand and agree with the censorship standpoint, but this isn't "block all content I dislike", it's "this website enabled and pushed someone to commit heinous crimes". That said, shooting in all directions isn't a good look for any lawsuit, especially when you throw in some random companies and websites in there but not any major culprits. It just makes the family look bad, though if that was me and if I was american I think I might've done the same anyway. |
||||
|
||||
|
Kusakabe
Posts: 99 |
|
|||
|
Basically, blame everything but the guns.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Slips Python
Posts: 40 |
|
|||
The lawsuit didn't name Fox News because the shooter explicitly said he hated Fox News. It would be a colossal task for them to try to link Fox News to him with that information readily available. Now, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to read the dude's ramblings themselves, but if anyone has read his manifesto it'd make sense why people here talking about going after right-wing groups or individuals makes little sense because even if one reads the original WIRED article they also make no mention of right-wing content at all - just generical "radicalization". The guy himself described himself as "mild-moderate authoritarian left" in his manifesto. People thinking this has anything to do with right-wing content specifically are filling in the blanks on their own. And as much as some people may want to say otherwise, being racist is not inherently tied to any one side of the political compass. Anyone can be racist.
I have to disagree with you there. When did you last visit 4chan because the 4chan of today is super tame and neutered compared to what it was during the mid to late 2000s. No more loli board, no more invasion board for offsite raids, no more 404 page of mutilated male genitalia, you get banned for saying mild slurs on any board that isn't /b/ or /pol/, and tons of content that used to be allowed is now auto-banned and deleted on every board. I find it hard to believe anyone who knew the site from more than 10 years ago would say it was less crazy back then than now considering some of the stuff it used to do and have. The days of hackers on steroids and Anonymous are long over. Nowadays it's basically Reddit but with less rules. |
||||
|
||||
|
Minos_Kurumada
Posts: 1102 |
|
|||
|
In spanish we like saying "We always know where stuff stars, but never where it ends".
You don't want censorship, because "Who watch the watchers?" question, let me give you an example pertinent to this site: Dragon Ball is prohibited in Argentina for minor abuse and violence and no, Argentina is not Right but Left winged. Not "Maybe gay people should marry" "left", but "Bill Gates finanties economist around the glove to convince governments that printing money cause inflation when it doesn't" real left. You don't want any government deciding on relative terms because, even if your government its rasonable, you don't know what wacko is gonna be in office in 20 years. It's a reality of life, sorry, nobody should have that power because power corrupts.. |
||||
|
||||
Heart of the Foreign God
 Posts: 41 |
|
|||
|
At this point they might as well sue themselves for paying for the internet the shooter used to access all those websites
|
||||
|
||||
Cardcaptor Takato
 Posts: 4956 |
|
|||
That's a decision for whoever is in charge of the advertising on ANN and not me to make and I'm not going to answer gotcha questions. |
||||
|
||||
KabaKabaFruit
 Posts: 1879 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba |
|
|||
|
I sincerely doubt that anything is going to change from this lawsuit. If anything, it'll be dismissed and we'll be back to business as usual as before.
Like it or not, message boards will always be polarizing regardless of whether they are moderated or not and there will always be those who seek advocacy in their causes by joining with like-minded individuals, even if it means trekking to the darkest corners of the Internet. No amount of censorship will magically destroy this. Sorry, but at some point, we're all going to have to have these difficult discussions regardless of what side of the political spectrum we fall on or these events are only going to continue. The question is: Can we at least check our own pride & prejudice at the door long enough to have these discussions? If not, then the prevention of the next mass shooting is NOT guaranteed! |
||||
|
||||
|
Philmister978
Posts: 322 |
|
|||
You know, I do have to wonder why, despite all their neutering, that /b/ and /pol/ are still allowed to survive on 4chan. Especially since the latter has gotten into trouble for being alt-leaning on both sides, the right, in particular, being the favorite of the board. As for the lawsuit itself, it'd be one thing if it was against the firearms providers and parents. But against Good Smile and all these websites as well? It's not going to work. They have literally nothing to lose in this case. Even if it is just to "make a statement", trying to expunge the more radical content off of sites like Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and especially 4chan is pretty much a fruitless endeavor when those sites not only allow those opinions on their platforms; but actively block those who try to fight back (I've seen people say they're censoring them, but when talks of genocide are still brought up on those sites, that's a bald-faced lie if I ever heard one). In this case, the position of our racist shooter doesn't matter, though it shows that the alt-left are hypocrites if they think the alt-right are the only ones who incite such incidents. The problem stems from those sites enabling, and often encouraging, these kinds of people into doing such incidents, and unless we get actual, direct government intervention holding those sites accountable for allowing such discussions in a way that actively threatens real people in real situations, this won't change. Because it's one thing to claim free speech, but when the users are actively calling for murder and influencing people to do bad things in real life, that's when the intervention should come in. Anyone trying to defend this dangerous way of thinking probably has some deep-seated issues of their own that they should get worked out. And I'd also argue we shouldn't count out the shooter's parents and family in this case too, as they also could have intervened at any time, but never did. They're arguably just as guilty as the social media sites in allowing him to go through with this behavior. But again, I doubt this lawsuit will do much to change things for them too. Granted we don't know much about them in this situation, so it's hard to say just how much influence they actually had. |
||||
|
||||
residentgrigo
 Posts: 2471 Location: Germany |
|
|||
|
This is supposed to kick up bad publicity and make 4chan even harder to be associated with and not win a lawsuit. Is 4chan a lead platform for targeted hate campaigns that lead to murder? Sure. But so is YouTube. YouTube is of course better moderated so race and gender and so on critical channels need to keep their masks on. Not so with 4chan.
|
||||
|
||||
|
ATastySub
Past ANN Contributor
 Posts: 663 |
|
|||
No one realistically thinks this or probably any effort is going to stamp out the rampant bigotry that is online, but when businesses choose to make that part of their platforms whether intentionally or through purposely lax moderation, then they should own the consequences of doing so. That's not censorship, that's accountability. When even the defenses of 4chan here are "well slurs and bigotry are only mostly allowed, and other stuff is banned" it really is impressive how much that illustrates the point that it's still a cesspit, but also does have the ability to moderate! So they fully could expand that to all bigotry, but choose not to. You can defend that decision as much as you want, but it's ridiculous to pretend it's censorship or completely pointless when it's very much an action every site already takes. Honestly if you truly believed it was pointless then go ahead and let it happen. Let's see where this magical horde of bigots ends up. What's the risk? That 4chan loses it's reputation as a hive of them, which some here already claim it's not? That they can't mask intentions as much if forced to be in a place that is actually only for them? Weird how the ones worried about some slippery slope here are even making up fantasies of how this is the fault of the left, as if the actual racist mass shooting that this lawsuit sprang from has anything to do with that and not the same old Great Replacement White Supremacist shit. The amount of weaseling going on is frankly pathetic. Claiming you can't ban explicit racism because "who decides what is racist?" in the face of, hey, maybe declaring that All Non-White Races should be eradicated is pretty clear racism that wouldn't be hard to remove! It's amazing how things can work when applied to situations when you don't just blanket pretend it's something else, and not some dumb magic system that terminally online people treat it as. Hate crime laws already exist. Civil rights exist. Amazingly, despite what the people that just spam FIRST AMENDMENT believe, it turns out laws were made past the original bill of rights that work within and define things! Wild! And yet, even with America's history of denying due process and rights to its citizens a hell of a lot throughout its existence (again, sure is coincidental those groups usually happen to be the some ones bigots love to hate!) the slippery slope they claim would happen the second anyone takes any social ill seriously has yet to materialize. |
||||
|
||||
|
KabaKabaFruit
Posts: 1879 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba |
|
|||
I can tell you, TastySub, from first-hand experience from all my years of being on ToonZone and Arlong Park Forums that forum accountability has always been selective and done on a case-by-case basis based upon the member and their years of notoriety on the forum. If rampant bigotry is being done by a new member, that member is banhammered, no ifs, ands or buts about it. But, if the same behavior is expressed by a moderator or a member who has contributed greatly to discussion and thus developed notoriety over the years to help bolster forum reputation, that member would be subject to a 1-week ban at best with no guarantee of behavioral change or those doing the reporting would be gaslit into withdrawing their complaint with no chance of any corrective action ever to take place at worst. Or, if the forum is very corrupt in nature, then the perpetrating member or moderator may never see any corrective action taken against them based upon nepotistic reasons from the other moderators alone and the rest of the community are expected to shut up and deal with it, even if there is talk of the guilty committing atrocities. The same can be said about businesses with their high-ranking members who survive their positions based on nepotism alone. Sure, my allegations are purely anecdotal but I've developed enough PTSD from the results of these so-called "open" discussion environments that I need to say something here and I have every reason to believe other members have also been at the receiving end of such cultures. To the wrong person who has been on the receiving end of such cultural behavior, it's not out of the question for them to become jaded enough to commit atrocities and it's high time forum culture changes to reflect these problems. It shouldn't be shied away from because of a fear of a "slippery slope". It's time to address the elephants in the room. |
||||
|
||||
|
ANN_Lynzee
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 2969 Location: Email for assistance only |
|
|||
|
Tasteless post removed. We are still talking about racially motivated mass murder here. Consider what the topic is before posting.
We've already removed a post with flat-out slurs. Hateful posts won't be tolerated. |
||||
|
||||
Fluwm
 Posts: 912 |
|
|||
|
I am fully convinced that the great crisis of the 21st century is the complete lack of willingness tech/social media companies have to moderate their content -- the carelessness with which they act, and their total disregard for the consequences of their actions and inactions. These unmoderated SM communities have long been hotbeds for misinformation, radicalization, and stochastic terrorism. Also literal terrorism.
It's very unlikely these lawsuits will amount to anything, but hopefully they'll help put at least some pressure on these companies not to foster, you know, the absolute worst people on the planet. |
||||
|
||||
CatSword
 Posts: 1489 |
|
|||
|
Out of everyone being sued, the only ones who are even slightly liable are the parents.
|
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group