Rather, they felt that the blockages were simply the responsible thing to do.
Liveleak new zealand shooting livestream Offline#
But the telecoms companies in New Zealand and Australia didn't decide to kick these websites offline in collaboration with law enforcement. An exception tends to be when those takedowns come at the behest of law enforcement, perhaps out of concern for public safety. They tend to observe this rule even in places like Australia and New Zealand that don't have net neutrality policies that prevent ISPs from blocking access to websites. As a general principle, internet service providers aren't supposed to erect barriers between the users they serve and the websites those users want to visit. But the way it happened marks an unusual and worrisome moment. It might seem obvious that these companies ought to block access to a video containing an act of horrific violence by whatever means possible. As of this week, 8chan appeared to still be blocked in New Zealand, but 4chan and Voat were again accessible, meaning user access to those sites had likely been restored. Because these places were not willing to remove the videos, New Zealand and Australia's major internet service providers decided to take action: They blocked access to any website continuing to host the video. So did its cousin 4chan (whose /pol/ board is a similar magnet for far-right trolls) as well as sites like the social network Voat, the video-hosting site LiveLeak, and the blog Zero Hedge. After a shooter livestreamed himself killing 50 Muslim worshippers in New Zealand earlier this month, one of the places where footage of his broadcast lived on was 8chan-the same shadowy message board where he posted a manifesto and chillingly called his actions "a real life effort post." While mainstream platforms like Facebook and YouTube mobilized to take down uploads of the video as they proliferated thousands, even millions, of times, 8chan left it up.
0 kommentar(er)
