The pledge does not contain enforcement or regulatory measures. It will be up to each country and company to decide how to carry out the commitments, according to two senior New Zealand officials involved in the drafting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the exact wording of the pledge was still being finalized.
Social media companies will be left with the thorny task of deciding what constitutes violent extremist content, since it is not defined in the accord.
well that's real nice and dandy and all but i dont think its necessarily the big internet companies that are at fault here, and this seems more like an empty promise, especially when you consider these fuckers that commit these atrocities seem to have a pattern of getting radicalized on places like 4chan, which does not give a shit about pressure or regulations. places like facebook get caught in the crossfire just because they have the functionality to allow someone to stream themselves murdering people
This is exactly what the shooter wanted
This is how we got the PATRIOT act
People might not like it, but terrorism works.
9/11 not only successfully killed a lot of people, but it also changed how politicians think, and landed us into an endless war that we actively and openly advocate to never cease.
The only way to fight terrorism, truly, is to make sure that it never creates policy out of fear.
The most effective measure against online violence is just ignoring its voice. You dont give bad ideas/thoughts/voices (ideals) a platform or any sort of pretense that they're worth anyone's time and energy in any way.
This will prevent them from gaining any traction anywhere since nobody will take them seriously.
As soon as you give it a thought that it requires peoples focus to call against it, it is effectively validating the ideal and does alot more harm than just ignoring it.
Why people give bad ideals a platform in this way could be a multitude of reasons. One I think is true in recent years is bad ideals being a low hanging fruit for grabbing people's attention (or money in some cases).
(Mostly) Everyone knows a bad ideal is bad, but all it takes is a little free publicity and now you've got curious minds where they shouldn't belong.
A bad ideal existing and doing nothing about it is so powerful of a tool against bad ideals that politicians dont seem to grasp because it requires inaction which can seem to be an ironic solution coming from a politician.
Sorry, rather not have technology used to create an even more dystopian environment thanks to the actions of a few pathetic terrorists. 9/11 already got the ball rolling in a terrible direction, let's not keep going down that path.
How much longer until an AI decided what can and cannot be posted/seen on the internet?
Aren't we already in that prototype stage?
The internet has been going the same path as the land. As it's developed Its anarchic and free nature outside of the modern state and its civilizing mission will die and be replaced with something comparatively more regimented and regulated.
And of course Justin Trudeau is all over any chance to look "progressive" and "virtuous" by signing Canada on for this shit.
Trudeau set to sign New Zealand PM's pledge to tackle violent, e..
Or maybe we could create a world of educated, relatively stress free people who have a gold standard of living. Y'know a world with no excuse to shitpost or be a douche?
Why must our leaders always insist on trying to take the faux easy way route that actually just leads to a dead end in a shady neighborhood? Why can't they just say "I will fix the problem of cynicism by trying my best to remove any reason for someone to become a cynic"?
The counter-argument is that multiple things can be worked on at once.
My counter-counter-argument to that is, once personal freedoms have been taken away, they never ever come back barring violent change in government.
(And barely fucking anyone is working on creating an ideal world anyway.) Enjoy your freedom while you can.
I thought about this too. It's the biggest problem with the modern state, someone in office really has no recourse but to exercise greater control to hold things together. It's why you should never identify a party's highest value, regardless of how committed it is to liberty or equality, as anything but order in the end. It would be irresponsible to have it any other way. Political fights come down to a question of whose order.
The Christchurch shooter knew full well he identified a deep and destabilizing conflict in society that nobody in power can easily solve, and that he would force their hand and cause tectonic shifts just by one attack on his part. He saw this as pushing us towards intolerable social conditions for life.
If I ever go on my rampage, my manifesto is just going to be, "I do this so Curls won't suck a hundred dicks"
The US dicking around the Middle East even more is exactly what the terrorists didn't want. I doubt Osama really gave two shits about what the US was doing to its own people.
Did Al Qaeda not specifically say that they were doing what they were doing to make the US spend so much on expanding their military that their economy would crash, or something like that?
It makes for a hell of a recruitment drive, it's a lot easier to sell terrorism to people if your homeland has been wrecked by war.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.