As the world struggles to come to terms with last week’s terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, heavy-handed censorship has made it a struggle to figure out what happened, and why, above and beyond the official narrative.
News that shooting was ongoing in two mosques in New Zealand was met with a flurry of curiosity on social media, and just as quickly saw much of that shut down, with wholesale censorship of the topic and any specifics or videos related to it blocked out of hand.
Facebook was almost bragging when they revealed that they’d removed or blocked 1.5 million videos related to the rampage in just the first 24 hours. 80% of the videos, indeed, were blocked at the point of upload, never to be seen by anyone.
Underpinning this was likely an anticipation from social media outlets like Facebook that an ideologically driven attack on mosques would have at least tangential links to social media, and lead to mainstream outlets blaming them for not being even more heavy-handed in censoring objectionable views before the attacks happened.
Their solution, then, was to excessively censor the attack itself, and the aftermath. A substantial manifesto from the main gunmen, and other clearly relevant content on what the attackers were doing, are all but impossible to find on social media, and more traditional media outlets are doing a rather thin attempt at picking up the slack, mostly just echoing what officials say.
While other attacks of historical import took place in different eras with different context, this is one of the first such attacks that has come in the middle of the censorship-happy social media era. Plausibly violent ideologies have mostly been chased off of the main social media outlets, undercutting chances to confront such ideologies directly before the attack. During the attack, social media imposed what was almost a total media blackout, and in the aftermath, tried to vindicate their past censorship by keeping a careful lid on anything too revealing.
This must raise questions about how the modern system is going to be able to handle and process such attacks, and how well the world would’ve been able to manage, say, 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination, if all video footage of it was just censored at once.
Censorship is quite obvious. These attacks thrive on the publicity factor. For ones information sure its good to see the news first hand but does anyone want their neighbour being motivated by knowing their message is going to get world wide exposure by doing the most heinous acts.
Suppressing the 9/11 attacks was a bit different as politics required the US public not to be told of the reasons.
ISIS’s snuff tapes and Bin Laden’s propaganda message to Americans were pretty heavily censored. So this is nothing new except that Tarrant appears to be some sort of anti-Muslim lunatic, not an Islamic fundamentalist.
Obviously, the censorship is wrong. But it is now a fact of life on the internet and will only get worse until someone figures out a way to push back against the billionaire elites that own the social media as well as the government. It is a mistake to buy the propaganda that the internet social meida is run by competitive libertarian venture capitalists. The internet is run by billionaire elites who understand the necessity of “circling the wagons” when their class is under attack. The government is the executive committee of the billionaire elites. So it is not surprising that the billionaires do not need government orders to censor subversive content from their platforms.
For anyone interested Tarrant’s manifesto is still available at Encyclopedia Dramatica at:
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/5/50/The_Great_Replacement.pdf
Tucker Carlson did a very insightful commentary on the manifesto.
The really odd thing about this censorship is that the manifesto espouses an ideology that has glaring intellectual deficiencies. Why should anyone opposed to it and the mass murder it inspired be afraid of its content? Why not confront these ideas openly, instead of pretending that symbolic shows of solidarity are a suitable substitute for rational arguments?
Tarrant’s chief complaints seem to be that the fertility rate of Europeans is too low, that the assimilation of immigrants to individualist values is failing, and that industrialization is incompatible with eco-friendly lifestyles. He embraces barriers between nations and ethnic cleansing within nations (his notion of “nation” in this context embracing all Europeans, which is not particularly logical) as a means to cope with these deficiencies.
The points he fails to consider are (1) isolationism and a deliberate embrace of deindustrialization and political tyranny would, in the long run, put peoples of European heritage in an even weaker position relative to other peoples; and (2) a program of collectivization does not address the underlying economic causes of fertility declines and of increasing ethnic/religious balkanization splitting societies apart, and in fact would tend to aggravate such problems.
Contrary to Tarrant’s anti-individualist arguments, it is the collectivist principle of the state taking care of everyone’s needs that over the past fifty years has eroded the individualist virtues needed for generating cultural vitality, uniting people who pursue different ends together with a common means, and investing in the future (both in the demographic and in the economic sense). It is fiat money-financed state paternalism, not individualism, that needs to overthrown if Europeans and others (including Americans and Japanese) are to have any chance of reversing the cultural and economic rot that is now fracturing our societies.
Jason, as a long time reader and donor it is so rare that I disagree with you. Though to be fair you’re not really stating your opinion is that censoring the news about the Christchurch shooting is wrong but throwing the juxtaposition of if that had been the case during the Kennedy assassination, and we should be wary of censorship.
In this case one thing that is proven by the US mainstream media outlets is that when school shootings happen, the news reporting begets other school shootings. Especially when they post a video of the teen killer and/or manifesto. And it’s startling how much more shootings to which it leads.
By keeping a lid on these things, it allows authorities (I can’t believe I’m defending them but regardless) to limit the amount of copycats and to lessen the impact to make martyrs for the extreme right (or left as the case may be)
This was a violent act of a deranged mind, not a political act of a 9/11 or a Kennedy assassination (your Kennedy of choice). So let’s withhold the attention these lunatics crave.
Your last paragraph is the tricky part, although there’s definitely some substance to what you’re saying. Who triages what is just an act of derangement and what is political? The schmucks in charge clearly think that to cover their butts, if there’s any doubt throw it out. We can make assumptions, but without the facts we will have no way of knowing.
Interesting. However after reading his manifesto it seems that he “thinks” he’s ideological but draws many false assumptions based on his inner narrative.
And the fact that he acted out with deadly violence speaks to his state of mind
And oddly there has been one copy cat where some lunatic drove his car into a mosque. Lunacy
Nah, real lunacy is us bombing the crap out of countries (Eyerack, Afghanistan, Libya…etc. etc…
Christchurch was small taters.
Free speech, unless, of course, one comes up with a “good” reason to curtail free speech. Some folks might see that as censorship.
At least this is not government enforced censorship. Moreover, every social medium that I know of does block contributions of commentators almost every day so what is new?
“At least this is not government enforced censorship.”
It is government-requested censorship.
And when government “requests” something, it’s sort of like the local mob enforcer “requesting” that you have your protection money ready when he drops by on Friday.
I don’t think it was quite like THAT analogy. It’s an interesting point but I think it was done more out of good taste than arm twisting
Much worse. Usually one can escape the mob boss by moving. Much harder to get away from the new laws and regulation your “helpful” government bureaucrat enforces.
Isn’t it? Corporations own the government, and act on irs behalf. Is there one issue that is nit driven by corporations and their interest! This is why they hate all countries that have cirporations owned by state. Where the owner is the Treasury of the state and manages its investments to make profit, not to dole out money to private corporatikns, that then decide hiw mych to actually deliver.
Oh? NZ just passed a law making it a crime to upload the video, 10 years in prison. 4 years in prison for even having the video on your computer! And quite large fines against social media companies that host it.
Private companies like Facebook can choose to support (or not) what content they want to on their site. This is simply content management. In this case, the private film production or the so called manifesto of a murderer as he is murdering humans is a definitely legitimate piece not to support on one’s site.
That people have become dependent on services like Facebook for their information is a different issue.
The world is coming to terms….? Isn’t that a little dramatic.
There’s something fishy about the MSM coverage of this horrible incident. We aren’t even allowed to see the face of the “main gunman” (Were there others?) We’re told that he’s a “physical trainer”, but apparently he has no co-workers, no neighbors, no school friends, and no records in Australia of ever having purchased weapons. What’s up with that?
Supposedly, he’s been a world traveler, but to where? Some say Turkey, Syria, even Israel. All information is being filtered, not just through social media but through the MSM as well, just like 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination. Like those incidents, will we only find out what’s really going on decades later?
It’s okay to repeatedly show the Kennedy assassination or 9/11, but not the murders in Christchurch.
Our government cannot abridge freedom of speech (supposedly) but it’s okay for private individuals or companies to do that. Sounds like schizoid baloney to me.
Certainly our government has promoted MSM propaganda ever since the days of Operation Mockingbird. To think otherwise is to live in a dream world. The FBI suppressed crucial evidence in the Kennedy assassination as well as after 9/11, which was never treated as a crime scene at all. We were well on our way with the invasion of Afghanistan, and all the steel from the twin towers hauled off to China, before anyone even raised a finger of doubt about the official narrative.
We need to come to terms with MANY, MANY issues in public information space. The social media claims to be private, thus can control content at will. But wasn’t this always the case in the history of US, where the Constitution protects Free Press? Wasn’t media — the press — even then private? Since when it became acceptable for the media, in whatever format, to outright censor content — as opposed to just oublish thosevwriters whose slant on issues pleases the owner? Have we ever come to terms with the distunctiin between the free speech and free speech for commercial gain? Or when is a deed of a criminal — a criminal act — ever appropriate to be published? Which brings us to a long ago forgotten category of NEWS. Nobidy does news any more. Simple what, where, when, who. Social media banned many conservative sites that never directly or indirectly threatened or advicated violence. Simply because social media owners are suppportive of global empire, and the ideas of sovereign states managing its internal affairs and relations with others — unacceptable and offensive. Many legitimate debates have been smothered creating an environment in which only ideological commissars can elaborate on theirs, one and
only correct views on any topic. We have made it almost unacceptable to watch foreign media, such as Russian or Chinese, fearing that information we hide may find the way to our feeble minds though other media.
We are so far gone already down the path of crass and vicious media manipulation for political ends — that we cannot even step back. We are litteraly not capable of going beyond analysis of the immediate, to even attempt any synthesis. The question should be posed differently. Is our system of governance today capable to deal with the needs of American society in the changing world of technology, trade and international relations. We act as if superior to everyone, while signs are everywhere that we are falling behind in many areas.
Creating friction among people nay appeal to our pagan leadership with Bible idolatry, but pagan short-termism will bring about unstable societies. In New Zealand there are many more guilty ones, in addition to the criminal who carried out the deed. These are the ideoligues from all sides of the spectrum that never acknowledge each other and soeak to each other. Instead, they hurl sligans at each other, rejoyicing in scored points. And while nodidy is listening, the angry and marginalized lash out at oerceived enemy. Since they cannot touch the government and its mighty apparatus, they take it out on the weak and unprotected. Let’s not oretend to be shocked. From the fake war on terror against Islamic world, to the tsunami of migranrs, and equally fake concern for their wellbeing and scolding natives fir Islamoohobia — elites figured it out. Elites can ad nauseum pursue the strategy of creating enemies, creating mayhem, then crying over victims in order to lecture natives for their tribalism.
I’ve always felt that the media’s toxic tabloid coverage of mass violence did more to sell such mayhem as a solution to social isolation than any gun lobby, but simply blotting out large swaths of an uncomfortable subject in the name of security is at least as bad if not worse. The reality is that big corporations like Facebook have no problem exploiting tragedy as long as THEY are the ones to do it. What cyber caudillos like Marshal Zuckerberg fear is losing control of the narrative to the masses. When that happens the ability for the rich to manufacture consent evaporates. Clearly, Zuck picked the wrong line of work. On the internet, the renegades of truth will always be one step ahead of the law. The people have the power. The oligarchs can only scramble to suppress it.
I agree with your sentiments. But I am not as optimistic that the champions of truth will stay ahead of the law. We thought we learned how to manipulate the media in the 1960’s. Then Nixon sent Spiro Agnew on a nationwide speaking tour to wake up the newspaper and TV execs to their collective social responsibility to avoid spreading counter-narratives. And after that everything in the media changed. It is significant that the censorship of the anti-war and Black liberation movements in the 1970’s and 80’s that led to the MSM was effectuated by editorial decisions made by editors responding to the demands of their corporate bosses, not by government edicts.
The internet was designed to be free. But the same corporate elites partner with the NSA deep state types to willingly protect their interests. You can set up your own social network, as you have in Happy Valley. But most people will continue to rely on Zuckerberg’s platform to connect and get their news.
Free expression on the internet and in the media requires recognition that multi billion dollar channels of communication and platforms are common carriers that have an obligation to be open channels for their users. But before we can have meaningful neutrality regulations, we need to wrest control of the regulatory process from the billionaire elites and the state they control and enlighten and empower the people to impose meaningful net neutrality. That means a change (not an abolition) of the state, which is presently the executive committee of the mainstream billionaire class.
BTW, have you noticed that the hits when you Google “Tulsi Gabbard” have been declining while the hits for all the other Dem candidates have been rising? Despite the fact that Tulsi has been wowing standing room audiences from Philadelphia to San Francisco. It is also curious to notice how on most days after Tulsi’s hits increase to over 5 million (they have been as high as 5.7 million) they start to decline and have fallen to below 4 million until they start to rise again. So much for the people staying ahead of the controllers.
You’re right about the Fourth Estate, but the Fifth Estate is a completely different creature. No matter how hard they try, no matter how many regulations they create, no matter how many satellites they commission, there will always be some 12 year old girl in Poland who can hack the system and punk the powerful. Like it or lump it, the internet will be the death of the state. I for one am going to enjoy that f**king funeral with the ghosts of Fred Hampton and Abbie Hoffman beside me, toasting the empire while it burns.
Let me know where and when and I’ll gladly dance on the grave of the empire and the power of those that have been murdering and robbing 99% of the world’s population.
Once again, the law that needs to be passed is one that sets large social media companies as “common carriers” – so they can not be sued for content uploaded by their users – but at the same time they are prohibited from censoring that content (except for content which is expressly illegal such as child porn and direct death threats.)
Of course, currently they hide behind the “content is not advertiser-friendly” nonsense, which is just a cover for their bias. So they can argue that what they do is not “censorship” but “business”. Which is an outright lie.
Short of this, the only solution is going to be to break up these companies – but that is obviously going to be difficult as these companies aren’t “conglomerates” with various divisions which could be spun off (with the exception of Google, whose Youtube function could be spun off.)
And this won’t happen as these companies (particularly Google and Facebook) were mostly created with the assistance of the CIA, for the purpose of exercising the social monitoring and control that the CIA can not do directly in the Internet age, as it did (and does) for paper and broadcast media. So this censorship IS government censorship hiding behind big business.
Which merely goes to prove that no matter what is done by the American people, the government and big business will find a way around it and continue to become more oppressive while distracting the people with bread and circuses.
Which means, yes, the only solution is direct violence against those responsible. Some gun owners have said that it’s time to bury our guns against confiscation. Others more correctly say that if it’s time to bury the guns, it’s really time to dig them up again. Someone once said that we’re in that awkward phase of history when it’s too late to work within the system, but too soon to shoot the bastards. Au contraire, mon frere! We passed that point decades ago.
Are you suggesting that the Kennedy assassination and the “9/11” attacks were freely reported and investigated???????
The media broadcasted shock and awe and no one batted an eye even though it was apparent that people were being killed by the bombs. This was pretty much on par with what happened in NZ IMO. The person who did the shooting just made it more personal for him.
As to the guy’s manifesto, congress members say pretty much the same thing as does Trump when he calls immigrants rapists and murderers. No wonder the guy loves Trump.
Slowing the spread of news about violence is a good idea, even if Facebook et al are doing it for all the wrong reasons. Excessive violence is CAUSED by media coverage. Media intentionally MAKE wars and riots so they can have more raw material to gain eyeballs to make more wars and riots. Anything that breaks this bloody cycle is good for society.