Online providers knock 8chan offline after mass shootings

incidentally 8 (eight) sounds like hate which is likely why the spin off on 4(for; being a positive term?)chan's name sake.

https://www.history.com/topics/united-st...-of-speech

Apparently I wasn't too far off the mark.

On freedom of speech (action) and stalking

I am fairly sure that, until recently, in the UK you had to actually commit a crime before any kind of criminal justice things would take any notice of you. Locally we had a case where a woman made 125 calls to the police over a period of years about a stalker. Naturally the police did nothing - kind'a let us know when he's killed you and we'll be dealing with a murder case which we're much better at. The 126th call in the series was made by a stranger to the emergency services - there's this woman and she's bleeding to death.

Mrs C2 had a stalker for 10 years - we eventually found out who it was (she'd fired them years before) - she's still alive so clearly not every stalker is a killer (so far). At the time the police concealed the identity of the stalker on the grounds that I might be potential stalker/killer.

A tangled web once you step outside the realms of civilised behaviour.

It is very difficult to distinguish between an idle threat and a real threat.

To be continued.

(Aug 6, 2019 11:51 PM)Leigha Wrote: If these sites don't do anything, or worse...encourage and incite racist violence that leads to a massacre like these past shootings, should they be held partially legally liable? I mean, the El Paso shooter was posting on the 8chan forum before he carried out the attacks. Doubtful he was posting about the weather.

No, but only because the US has a law that protects "platforms", where other people provide the content, as opposed to a "publisher", where the site's operator provides/editorializes content. This is exactly how YouTube, Facebook, etc. get away with banning views they don't like. Because they are editorializing the content, but they claim they're only a platform.

Both 8chan and Facebook, et. al. should be held accountable if they take steps to police speech...other than actually alerting the police. Censoring dangerous and potentially violent speech without informing authorities is nonsense. Either it's really that dangerous, or you're just using that as an excuse to censor views you don't like.

The El Paso shooter is as dangerous as they come. Who said the authorities shouldn’t be notified?

---

(Aug 7, 2019 12:14 AM)stryder Wrote: incidentally 8 (eight) sounds like hate which is likely why the spin off on 4(for; being a positive term?)chan's name sake.

Ah, good catch stryder.

(Aug 7, 2019 12:06 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Same here but did you notice that bit about Trump in your link? If that's true, it's really weird.

Quote:In July 2016, U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton with a background of money and a six-pointed star, seen by some as resembling the Star of David, containing the message "Most corrupt candidate ever". The image had been posted to 8chan's /pol/ board as early as June 22, over a week before Trump's team tweeted it.

If he wasn't prowling it himself, then perhaps one his campaign people, working it up through the ranks. Probably not much of a filtering and evaluation process going on there as to the ultimate source of things, other than "Wow, that's a good one. Show it to the boss."

(Aug 7, 2019 02:21 AM)Leigha Wrote: The El Paso shooter is as dangerous as they come. Who said the authorities shouldn’t be notified?

I didn't say they shouldn't; I said that if it's dangerous enough to censor online, why aren't those censors reporting it to the police. Either it's actually dangerous, and warrants involving the police, or it's not dangerous, and doesn't warrant being censored.

(Aug 7, 2019 02:50 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Aug 7, 2019 02:21 AM)Leigha Wrote: The El Paso shooter is as dangerous as they come. Who said the authorities shouldn’t be notified?

I didn't say they shouldn't; I said that if it's dangerous enough to censor online, why aren't those censors reporting it to the police. Either it's actually dangerous, and warrants involving the police, or it's not dangerous, and doesn't warrant being censored.

I think it's a slow fade, though. People like the El Paso or Parkland shooters don't start right out of the gate, posting their reckless ideas of violence. It probably starts with hate speech involving extreme racism or misogyny perhaps, and then it builds from there. Where should we start drawing lines? If a site/forum is designed with the intent to incite violence (of course, the site owners will feign ignorance) then they should be deactivated. I'm not familiar with the format of 8chan, or the content - but from what I've been reading, it's known as the ''cesspool of hate.''

(Aug 7, 2019 02:50 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Aug 7, 2019 02:21 AM)Leigha Wrote: The El Paso shooter is as dangerous as they come. Who said the authorities shouldn’t be notified?

I didn't say they shouldn't; I said that if it's dangerous enough to censor online, why aren't those censors reporting it to the police. Either it's actually dangerous, and warrants involving the police, or it's not dangerous, and doesn't warrant being censored.

Because it is privately owned.  Therefore, the owner does not have to believe it is "dangerous enough to be reporting it to the police" to decide it is wise to shut it down.  It may be because he does not wish to be held liable if something happens.  It may be because he doesn't like incels.  It may be for any other reason; it's his site.

(Aug 7, 2019 01:00 AM)confused2 Wrote: At the time the police concealed the identity of the stalker on the grounds that I might be potential stalker/killer.

Well, there's potential. Sorry, birdwatchers, but people think you’re creepy.   

I admit it, though, I was out stalking last weekend, but just out of curiosity. I was watching her as she rushed into the receding waves. She kept taking something. I finally figured out what it was.