The Washington Post Asks: Should 8chan Be Considered a Terrorist Recuiting Site? (washingtonpost.com) 322
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:
As most of the world condemned last week's mass shooting in New Zealand, a contrary story line emerged on 8chan, the online message board where the alleged shooter had announced the attack and urged others to continue the slaughter. "Who should i kill?" one anonymous poster wrote. "I have never been this happy," wrote another. "I am ready. I want to fight...." The persistence of the talk of violence on 8chan has led some experts to call for tougher actions by the world's governments, with some saying the site increasingly looks like the jihadi forums organized by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda...
8chan's founder, Fredrick Brennan, said Jim Watkins [8chan's sole administrator] owns other Internet businesses and has built a technical fortress to guard 8chan from potential takedowns: He owns nearly every component securing the site to the backbone of the Web, including its servers, which are scattered around the world. "You can send a complaint, but no one's going to do anything. He owns the whole operation," Brennan said. "It's how he keeps people confused and guessing...." Watkins is content to lose money, Brennan said, because he sees it as a pet project: "8chan is like a boat to Jim. It doesn't matter if it makes money. He just enjoys using it...."
8chan, however, is shielded in another way: the U.S. web-services giant Cloudflare, which helps websites guard against "distributed denial of service," or DDoS, attacks that online vigilante groups have used to target 8chan in the past.
The Post reports that Brennan "worries there are no true technical solutions beyond a total redesign of the Web, focused around identification and moderation, that could undermine it as a venue for free expression." Brennan tells the Post that "The Internet as a whole is not made to be censored. It was made to be resilient. And as long as there's a contingent of people who like this content, it will never go away."
On Tuesday, 8chan posted tips on Twitter for what to do "If your ISP is blocking a website you'd like to browse" -- a tweet which is now pinned to the top of its feed.
8chan's founder, Fredrick Brennan, said Jim Watkins [8chan's sole administrator] owns other Internet businesses and has built a technical fortress to guard 8chan from potential takedowns: He owns nearly every component securing the site to the backbone of the Web, including its servers, which are scattered around the world. "You can send a complaint, but no one's going to do anything. He owns the whole operation," Brennan said. "It's how he keeps people confused and guessing...." Watkins is content to lose money, Brennan said, because he sees it as a pet project: "8chan is like a boat to Jim. It doesn't matter if it makes money. He just enjoys using it...."
8chan, however, is shielded in another way: the U.S. web-services giant Cloudflare, which helps websites guard against "distributed denial of service," or DDoS, attacks that online vigilante groups have used to target 8chan in the past.
The Post reports that Brennan "worries there are no true technical solutions beyond a total redesign of the Web, focused around identification and moderation, that could undermine it as a venue for free expression." Brennan tells the Post that "The Internet as a whole is not made to be censored. It was made to be resilient. And as long as there's a contingent of people who like this content, it will never go away."
On Tuesday, 8chan posted tips on Twitter for what to do "If your ISP is blocking a website you'd like to browse" -- a tweet which is now pinned to the top of its feed.
Should everyone have an Online ID? (Score:2, Insightful)
Because that's where we're headed. No one will be anonymous anymore. We must all think and act the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's where we're headed. No one will be anonymous anymore. We must all think and act the same.
Right, it's all about enforcing groupthink. It couldn't *possibly* be people getting frustrated by anonymous people popping up out of the dirt, intentionally conflating different issues to generate outrage and anger, while they walk away singing Dennis Leary's "I'm an asshole" to themselves.
Should it be? (Score:4, Insightful)
The sites you listed make an effort (Score:5, Insightful)
There are arguments to be made that 8chan shouldn't be considered a terrorist recruitment site. For example, that it's not their intended purpose and that any recruitment taking place is a side effect of their laissez faire approach to moderation. But it's not a fair argument to make that because a terrorist recruiter can post to Facebook that means 8chan's automatically off the hook. Facebook would very quickly ban the individual if there was even a whiff of potential violence. 8chan wouldn't take down a post unless there was a very, very clear violation of law (and there's accusations that even then they'll turn a blind eye).
Also, I think we're conflating up "Should be considered a recruitment tool" vs "is actively recruiting terrorists". There's a big difference. For the former it means the FBI keeps a closer eye on what goes on. For the latter it means the FBI/CIA/Military/local police (depending on the country) raids the place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter banned the Learn to Code meme (Score:3)
Twitter pushes the same right wing corporate narrative as all media outlets. I'm a lefty. They're not on my side. They're on Mark Zuckerberg's side, and the other billionaires. Anything that gets in the way of pushing money and power gets banned. The alt-right aren't really getting banned. A few of your guys took the violence thing a bit too far and scared them, but twitter'
Re: Twitter banned the Learn to Code meme (Score:2)
Absolutely, my brother.
This is why I wish people would stop getting hung up on the obsolete, stultifying left/right binary model of politics. Perhaps it was always a false dichotomy, I'm not sure. But it definitely does not describe the reality of today's political alignments.
Re: (Score:3)
Textbook example of a shitty conspiracy theory.
Twitter is less than perfect. You use that as evidence that Twitter is involved in some kind of conspiracy to silence "the right", despite all the far right accounts they have thus far failed to ban.
In support of this you cite Joe Rogan, friend of Alex Jones and occasional guest on Infowars, known for his promotion of conspiracy theories and beliefs based on psychedelic drug use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to REIN in. It's about controlling horses, not which country someone is king of...
That aside, we have the First Amendment for a reason. And the reason is not "to rein in the worst elements of their community".
Trust me, you'll only make some really bad ideas more popular by forbidding people to talk about them in public....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook actively fights attempts to radicalize its users. 8chan actively promotes it, opening new boards and creating FAQs/sticky posts to assist.
You can argue that Facebook is really bad at what it attempts to do and I wouldn't argue, but never the less there is a reason why the Christchurch terrorist favoured 8chan.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to know and react to what is known, than to not know and only find out when they react. So silence 8chan or simply pay more attention to it. Stick to the law, someone says something illegal on 8chan, carry out an investigation and try to find them and prosecute them.
Can 8chan incite violence, not really, no real names hence mostly ignored, just trolls trolling trolls, as a social media game. Will it attract those with more intent, obviously because they see it as real, rather than as a social game bu
Re: (Score:2)
Is this really true? 8chan's traffic doesn't seem to be going up and I can't really see many people dissatisfied with Facebook but not already radicalized deciding that 8chan is a good alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but only if Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Whatsapp, Hotmail, Gmail, and all radio and TV broadcasts are also considered terrorit rectruitment sites.
No, No, No, Yes by some, No that's silly, No that's silly, No and No. Now if you care to figure out what the nos and yeses have in common you'll find that the Nos actively engage in censoring and removing content from their sites. The yeses do not. The "that's silly" is just that, silly since 1-to-1 communication is not recruitment.
Otherwise it just seems like scapegoating and hypocrisy. Though that's pretty par for the course I guess.
Actually it seems more like ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has a great respect fro journalist I resent the confluence of the terms Washington Post and journalist in the same sentence.
Real journalists have integrity. Real journalist do research. They have multiple independent sources for their stories. They do not publish 'facts' that they can not verify. They do not conflate opinion and fact without identifying which is which.
More real journalism is being done on YouTube than you will see in the Washington Post if you were to take all of its issues f
Re: (Score:2)
The big news media companies are dying.
Say it enough times and it must be true [macrotrends.net].
Wrong question! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is: Should the Washington Post be considered Jeff Bezos Blog?
Re:Wrong question! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is: Should the Washington Post be considered Jeff Bezos Blog?
Should Fox "News" be considered Rupert Murdoch's, Donald Trump's or the Republican Party's Vlog?
[ It's pretty clear that my rhetorical question is more likely than yours. ]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. Bezos has no editorial control over the Wash Post, no matter how badly you want to believe it because that's what you and your ilk would do in his position.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually not too difficult to answer.
Come up with some objective criteria. For example:
1. How factual do the articles tend to be?
2. How inflammatory does the language of the articles tend to be (ie: How much do they inform vs manipulate readers) ?
There is at least one site that I know of that is attempting to do exactly this. http://www.adfontesmedia.com/ [adfontesmedia.com]
According to that, Washington Post is doing pretty good. A hell of a lot better than Fox is, at any rate.
Of course, this means nothing if you ca
Nope (Score:1, Insightful)
The people who ask that question are the same people who called Jordan Peterson's book a recruitment book even though its content serves to deradicalize people and give them a purpose and responsibilities to eradicate hate and suppress it rather than feed it, a book which is also a good rehab program for criminals and not only those with depression and confusion.
If i had to define a site great for terrorist recruitment, it's the mass media leftists who don't pass a day insulting someone, throwing labels of
Moral panic du jour (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely driving them even further underground will only make things better!
Re: (Score:3)
Driving them underground does work well, it reduces their intake of new recruits and propaganda reach without making them meaningfully more difficult to surveil.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of recruiting. What I am getting from the incident with only some of the information. The individual made a rather foolish trip to Pakistan, advertised himself on social media to attract direct social contact and attracted the worst sort who then sexually abused them. The Mossad picked up on it, a pulled the target into a distorted social circle to further prime the individual up for violence and provided training and support to carry the attack, acting as the poor fellows social support group and
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence is there that the shooter was sexually abused in Pakistan or groomed by the Mossad? And you think the Mossad wants to sponsor a terrorist to carry out an attack in Australia for some reason? Seems like a lot of unsupported nonsense to me.
Bullshit (Score:2)
Lenin didn't have Internet access.
Neither did 5th of November terrorists (back in 1605), nor did Bakunin, John Brown, the KKK, the IMRO, the IRA (up until very recently), and so on.
So no, the mere existence of Internet access isn't a terrorist recruitment tool, albeit it makes it easier for terrorists to communicate over large distances.
Broke: 8chan is a terrorist recruiting site (Score:4, Insightful)
Woke: The Internet is a terrorist recruiting site.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, all them Daesh wannabes just showed up in Syria and Iraq because they loved Islam and their friends were going too. The internet had nothing to do with it. In other news, Trump doesn't use Twittler for sheep calls to his faithful. The last tax giveaway is paying for itself. And the Earth goes around the Moon.
Walks like a duck (Score:2, Troll)
I don't think sites like 8chan and zerohedge, etc should be considered terrorist recruiting sites. It's basically just a bunch of edgelord shitposters who think it's clever to post racism, hatred, death threats, child porn and calls for violence. How are they supposed to know that actual terrorists and crazies would take them seriously and join their community?
On the other had, they should be considered a gateway drug to terrorism. ISPs and hosting services should consider carefully whether to do busines
Re: (Score:1)
you do realize zerohedge is a financial news site. and it's much like seekingalpha. short sellers skirting the edge of legality by looking to make money off of gullible fools.
Yes. No. Sorta. (Score:1, Interesting)
For those that don't wanna bother with a long video, the article is about what the author calls "stochastic terrorism". Bruce Sterling touched on it in his novel "Distraction".
It works like a sales pipeline. You start out with PewDiePie spouting white supremacy "full the lulz" and for cheap publicity. A subset of his viewers "graduate" to harder stuff like Ben Shapiro and Sargon of Arkad, then on to Laura Southern and finally to stuff like the Unite the Right rally.
The New Zealand shoot
he started his video with that (Score:1)
I hope you're joking. In that same vein your racist uncle or a history book put you in the "pipeline". The terrorist also said Candace owens radicalized him and spouted a bunch of memes, must be true too. Following your? line of though we would have to ban any and all references to white supremacy lest some poor souls actually start believing in it.
And if it applies to that, did a few million listeners put on Biggie Smalls and get into the drug dealer sales pipeline, eventually coming out criminals? Just s
Re:Yes. No. Sorta. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you honestly believe this? That random kids are going to be watching his massacre video, listen his "subscribe to pewdiepie" comment, and that's how they're going to be introduced to a network of alt-lite individuals?
No, it was bait. Pewdiepie is big, the #1 youtuber, has famously had major efforts put towards deplatforming him, and most importantly, people can't seem to shut up about any little thing he does. The shooter said it because he knew people wouldn't be able to resist talking about it, which draws attention towards the actual video, his actions, his purpose, and his ideas, which is the whole point of terrorism.
Go watch the video (Score:2)
Yes, some punk kids will watch PDP and pick up on his mild racism. It'll resonate with them and they'll go looking for more. Like I said, they'll find Shapiro and Sargon, who will lead them to Southern and down the chain to rallies where thinly disguised Nazi flags are flow and finally to open white supremacy and Nazism.
Re: (Score:2)
PewDiePie is an internet celebrity. He has money, and influence - when he says something, millions hear it. Tens of millions. When he decides it's funny to say 'Kill all the jews! Only jokeing.' then a lot of people get to see that joke. So yes, he does get a lot of criticism.
I just think he is un-funny. Most of his 'comedy' consists of screaming like a chipmunk on helium.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
PewDiePie is a well established alt-lite gateway. He was following a large number of alt-right people on YouTube until the terror attack, at which point he deleted them all. If it was nothing then why delete them?
Come on, you can't be that naive. He subscribes to all those alt-right channels, has some of them on as guests, uses their rhetoric and language in his own videos (claiming it's a joke) and then follows them into the same history-scrubbing panic once the terror attack hits.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's popular because he tells incels what they want to hear: it's not your fault, you really are owed sex and it's wrong for the world to deny it to you.
Then some vague stuff about promoting monogamy that he refuses to be pinned down on but basically means making women desperate to get a man, any man, and then never leave him.
Basically he's telling young guys that hot girls should dedicate themselves to pleasing them sexually. No wonder he's popular.
He says nothing of the sort. When you spout such obviously slanted things you are just as bad as those that promote conspiracy theories. You are just creating the environment that creates conspiracy theorists. You don't like what he says, fine. But disagree with what he says instead of the very slanted image painted of him by some media members with an agenda (they are even worse than you). The reason for this is you can simply google for his videos. If you view them, you get a very different sense of
Re:Oh lord I'd forgotten about Peterson (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen his videos, that's exactly what he is saying.
I note that you don't actually state what he specifically is arguing. That's because you are not Jordan Peterson and not as good as him at avoiding being nailed down on specifics, and you know that if we get into this debate I'll push you until you can't avoid admitting it's what he is saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, Tarrant was a FAR-leftist, out to the crazy anarchist circles of eco-terrorism. Calling him "right-wing" or "alt-right" is absurd, and shows how little people care about what they say anymore, as long as they are blaming the "other side".
This is either a hilarious misunderstanding or a strategic lie to expose more people to his manifesto. The guy was a boilerplate white nationalist aside from a shout-out to "eco-fascism."
Re: (Score:2)
unjustified usage of obscenities (that's the guy, the girl so far did not cuss)
For what it's worth, they're both men.
But really, what the fuck is unjustified about using obscenities? And what sort of cunt uses the term cuss?
Covington (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll agree proclaiming 8chan a terrorist recruitment organization if you agree to do the same for every activis publication (aka "journalists" aka "Washington Post") which had its "journalists" calling for an organization of terrorist group to see the parents of the Covington kids sacked and bullied, the school dismantled and even torched in some checkmark tweets, the kids killed and terrorized for the rest of their lives, over fake news they themselves created.
Oh, is that inconvenient? SJWs are pretty much
Re: (Score:2)
No harbor for terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
I went looking for the video to satisfy my morbid curiosity, but it was being aggressively removed from my usual haunts, so I went to voat knowing that would be one of the few places not censoring links to it.
I discovered that most of their links were already dead, and that the comments were almost unanimously celebrating the murders. I lost my interest in seeing the video, having even that little in common with those cretins was too much.
And I thought, these are the people who traffic in the conspiracy theory that thousands of American Muslims were celebrating 9/11. But here they are, literally cheering a terrorist, doing the thing that they imagine others doing to rationalize their racism. Not only are they no different than an Islamic terrorist sympathizer, they're no different than the Islamic terrorist sympathizer that their imaginations have constructed. It's like they want to be recruited into terrorism. They don't necessarily hate radical Islam, they envy it.
The alt-right isn't a political movement, it is a sickness that needs to be eradicated. We should treat them the same way we treat members of Al Qaeda and ISIS. When they whine about free speech, we remind them that enemy combatants don't have rights. This will infuriate them, and every time they lash out with more terrorism, the government has another excuse to hit them even harder. Eventually there won't be any fight left in them, or there won't be any left.
The solution to the Alt-Right isn't violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's the rank and file. They're almost entirely made up of young dudes (usually white) who lost factory and blue collar jobs to outsourcing and don't really have a place in society anymore.
It's why the left is pushing the "Green New Deal". It's a jobs program to neuter the right wing's main source of power (disaffected working age men). The "Green" part is mostly incidental. It's there to steal votes from the Green Party so they can't be used by the right wing to spoil elections.
With very few exceptions give a man a job and a woman and he'll settle the fuck down. Mix in an education and he won't fall for demagogues. There will be exceptions (Osama Bin Laden comes to mind) but they won't have enough followers to get anything done before they get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the green aspect not simply because it's a massive economic opportunity to build new infrastructure not only in America but around the world with American tech? And an opportunity that so far Europe and China are leading on?
Re: (Score:3)
When they whine about free speech, we remind them that enemy combatants don't have rights.
Interesting. So saying despicable things makes them enemy combatants? I despise the alt-right as much as you do, as the sniveling little shitheads they are. But careful, cowboy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoa, calm down there Hitler [phdn.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The alt-right isn't a political movement
Correct. It's a label used to demonise vast swathes of people most of whom have committed the cardinal sin of daring to disagree with others.
Disparage the idiots cheering on an act of murder. Just don't lazily use stupid labels that are applied to many innocent people too.
Bring it down. (Score:2)
I never heard of it before and because of that irrelevancy to my existence, I can live without it.
Thanks for asking.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those total-free-speech places. They detest the idea of moderation. The problem with such a place is that you end up with all the people who have no-where else to go, because the rest of the internet keeps banning them.
Facebook censors uncomfortable facts... (Score:3)
People are looking for places where they can say what they feel like (that's real freedom of expression) and 8chan has become such a place, like 4chan used to be.
When we live in a world where a comment to a news story about yet another hostage/terrorist drama with Islamist bad guys can cause 30 days in Facebook jail. Here's the details and the 'horrible hate speech' it contains: "No, a story like that simply reflects real life where Muslims do most of the terrorist killing in the world today, vastly outnumbering all other kinds of terrorists when it comes to both number of dead and number of incidents."
It's not made up or exaggerated in any way. It's simply uncomfortable facts. Just in the week around the Christchurch attack where 50 Muslim people got killed, about 120 people got killed in a number of Islamist attacks on christian and catholic churches in both Africa, The Middle East and the predominantly Muslim areas of East Asia - and it was a relatively quiet week...
Assistance Access Bill (Score:2)
Since the attackers are allegedly Australian this presents a rather convenient opportunity for NZ to request Australia exercise its newly acquired intelligence laws under the guise of the 2018 Assistance Access bill.
Anywhere 8chan flows, they will be there to collect the information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, quit being such a fucking snowflake. Why are so many conservatives little more than trolls who see every silly little thing as proof of a worldwide conspiracy against them?
That icon comes and goes pretty much at random. I've seen it on any number of stories, irrespective of the political status of the subject matter. Unfortunately for conservatives, they're more often the ones threatening or encouraging violence, and therefore more likely to be called out.
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:1)
The funny thing is, in 2020 you will be wondering how on earth President Truml got re-elected; after all, nobody on any boards you read supports him, in fact his supporters get banned immediately!
Well, there's a multi-billion dollar media engine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
you can get them to do damn near anything.
Or better yet give you money to do damn near anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it helps to collect alms from the conservative faithful. FOX is laughing at them all the way to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of ironic that it's conservatives who are filled with rage, fear and ignorance, who lash out at the slightest excuse and scream hysterically when they get a little of their own medicine back, or at the smallest intrusion of objective reality into their fantasy world. They're the first to call others "snowflake" and "libtard", but demographically they're largely a pathetic group of proudly ignorant, underachieving, low IQ, old white men whose accomplishments are mostly in their heads.
For example,
Re: (Score:2)
The snowflakes do this because they have no authoritative news sites that parrot their inhibitions. And it makes them feel superior thinking they have some secret knowledge the rest of world doesn't want them to know.
Their attitude is similar to those faux science programs that promise "Ancient Aliens", or "New Mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle". Substitute their inferiority complex towards the political mainstream and you get the alt-right.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowflakes are the ones who cry to big brother when someone says/does something they don't like. I don't see many right leaning people doing that, except maybe for the pro-police-do-no-wrong crowd. In contrast, the authoritarian streak is universal on the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Right this moment Devin Nunes, Trump's Number One Bum Boy, is trying to sue Twitter over an obvious parody account. And he's far from the only one. As a matter of fact, Bill Maher humiliated another conservative by pointing out that the whiny little weasel was actually suing his mother.
It's amazing how often conservatives aren't just wrong, they're ignorant and proud to be that way.
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:4, Insightful)
Orwell was talking about authoritarians, you know... the other axis. A lot of people forget that there's more than the left/right spectrum, and just pretend that the left is libertarian and the right is authoritarian. Authoritarian Left exists, Libertarian Right exists.
You'll find that as far as politics goes, most people are much more willing to get along on the left/right divide than they are on the authoritarian/libertarian divide. Turns out that authoritarians hate people that prefer personal freedoms and people that prefer personal freedoms disagree with people that want overreaching governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange how people you don't like for some reason becomes "left" even if they are conservatives. Not strange that you dream up conspiracies as you are obviously mentally challenged.
Re: (Score:2)
So your takeaway is a goddam motherfucking sumbitching yellow belly blue-balled icon?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess:
You're a right-leaning troll.
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.
In the United States, because of our cherished First Amendment, there is no such thing as 'Hate Speech'. There is just speech, which is protected. If you don't like what someone is saying then don't listen to them. If you believe that their speech poses a danger to society then use your right to free speech to convince everyone else why they are wrong.
The answer to crazy theories and disgusting rhetoric is intelligent debate. It is not shouting people down, getting people banned, or preventing speech.
When you shut people down and prevent them from speaking what you have done is to leave them only one avenue by which to express themselves, and that is violence.
The monster in NZ states in his manifesto exactly what his plan was. The purpose of his attack was only peripherally to kill people he didn't like. His attack wasn't even directed at NZ, though they have been following his plan as if they were co conspirators of his. His attack was directed at the U.S. His purpose was to push the left into banning weapons, censoring speech and taking away rights, because he knew the left doing this was likely to cause the right to stubbornly resist such actions. Initially politically and legally and eventually violently, should the left persist in their actions to curtail rights. NZ is moving right along that path.
Meanwhile, as everyone here can attest, people who want to see the banned information can see it because The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. (John Gilmore)
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.
The problem is that we are failing to counter this stuff with information. Can you suggest how we can do better, so this sort of thing stops happening?
Facebook and Google have tried presenting information when people view or search for this stuff, but found it largely ineffective. In fact Google found that many of the conspiracy theories incorporate a narrative that the truth is part of the conspiracy to deceive people, so facts sometimes just make the person more convinced of the lies.
The only thing that has been shown to really work (other than censorship) is de-radicalization, which usually involves starting on their terms and using their frame of reference to deconstruct their beliefs. Unfortunately due to moderation and/or being swamped on anonymous forums it's extremely difficult to do online.
His attack was directed at the U.S.
No, that is complete bollocks. His attack was similar to Anders Brevik's, designed to make people "wake up" to the "great replacement" white genocide. He said he expected to be seen the same way as Nelson Mandella, a terrorist on the right side of history and eventually released from jail when people realize his claims are all true. Part of the point of killing so many people was to make it nearly impossible to ignore and censor his message, since that what he believed was stopping people taking action against the Jews behind the "great replacement".
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you could lock down mass immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
Muslims make up about 1% of citizens in New Zealand. In fact it's probably lower because people put down that their family members are Muslim on the census, but they aren't actually practising or believing in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how the same people backing the movement that's made it physically unsafe to be jewish on almost any college campus and in much of Europe would resort to using us as a political prop in something we're not really even mentioned in.
The shooter barely mentioned jews at all, and he flat out said that his goals were exactly what Terry described. Terry's not making this up, the shooter TOLD us what he wanted. Why do you think they're censoring his manifesto so hard instead of obsessing over its ever word l
Re: (Score:2)
By "censoring his manifesto so hard" presumably you it being readily available online and widely discussed and dissected in the evil Mainstream Media, right?
Re: (Score:2)
My description is accurate. Anyone can check.
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:4, Informative)
It's a core part of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. The "Global Elite" is just code for Jews.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this doesn't work:
Trolls are lightning rods. Reasonable people are not drama queens.
Re: Forgot the Censorship Icon (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.
We have more information than ever with positive information countering conspiracy theories in a shitload of supply. The problem is fundamentally that the information is not being absorbed. People see crazy shit at random and get sucked into that idea. They then seek out more information on it typically applying observer bias as they go. They then quickly get sucked into the echo chamber of stupidity.
Many minds are weak. It's not possible to solve this problem with information. If it were then conspiracy theories wouldn't gain traction in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Only "Corporate Progressive Nazis" are able to see the rise of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy nut-jobs? That's a new one. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to, or better still, an anti-Corporate-Progressive-Nazi Facebook group?
Re: go to 8chan (Score:2)
That's actually not true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people espouse flat-earth ideas because they want attention from others intent to debunk them. They may be completely aware that what they're saying is bullshit but not care, yet convince others because people are paying attention to what they say. If people started ignoring flat-earthers, some of the major voices would go away due to lack of attention. It's similar sociological effects as a consensus voting system.
There's enough alternative-health machinery set up that it'll be very difficult to tear
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to crazy conspiracy theories is not censorship. It is information.
That sounds like an argument for breaking all filter bubbles.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to crazy theories and disgusting rhetoric is intelligent debate. It is not shouting people down, getting people banned, or preventing speech.
I see this on a regular basis, but it conveniently ignores two very critical details:
1. That's not actually happening. People are instead sitting in their own little echo chambers and doing what they can to ignore counter arguments. By the time it gets to venues where opposing positions may be heard, the people have gotten so polarized that there is no hope of convincing them otherwise. You would think that technology would help prevent this, but it hasn't, and it won't. It's exacerbating the problem in
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "some violence". It's alt-right dickheads like you who try to make the two equivalent, when they're clearly not. It's a clear campaign by you nutters, like you are doing here, to make murder to be no worse than getting into fights during a riot.
Re:At this rate (Score:5, Insightful)
This thing is a lot more complex than just "antifa vs nazi", and trying to simplify like that only make the situation a lot worse.
For example, the christchurch shooter is an "acceleracionist", basically someone that tried to do very specific actions to make a civil war between the left and right happen.
The targets he picked, the memes he used, everything planned from the ground up to make the far left activists have more power and overreact with it, causing an overreaction from the right and so forth, and sadly the NZ government fell for his bait, sink and line.
And finally, nothing justifies violence unless it's a direct immediate threat, If a nazi or an antifa or muslim or poodle fanatic is threatening your life directly such as pointing a gun at you, then you can stop him/her/(a shitton of pronouns), otherwise it's the job of the police to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a left/right war he wants.
His manifesto is titled "The Great Replacement", after the conspiracy theory of the same name. The core idea is that a "global elite" are trying to destroy the white rate through a kind of genocide where they encourage non-white people to immigrate and breed with the white folk.
The fact that people on the left of the political spectrum support immigration and interracial relationships is just because they are unwittingly being manipulated by the global elite into thinking
Re: (Score:2)
This "great replacement" is what i can see pretty much the basis of the modern "nazis".
I bet you can throw a wrench on the nazi factory by either having someone "neutral" breaking the theory, or at least convincing the "would be nazis" that the far-right solution will only make everything worse (which it would).
Re: (Score:2)
And finally, nothing justifies violence unless it's a direct immediate threat, If a nazi or an antifa or muslim or poodle fanatic is threatening your life directly such as pointing a gun at you, then you can stop him/her/(a shitton of pronouns), otherwise it's the job of the police to deal with it.
After reading his " manifesto ", my thoughts are as follows:
I believe he wished to take the fight to the ' invaders ' before they completely outnumber the local population. He has no issues with them as long as they stay in their own country. He has major issues with them showing up elsewhere en masse while refusing to integrate into the local culture and, eventually, destroying it. This is exasperated by Government inaction ( or perhaps even its promotion ) of the matter.
His thoughts are simply, " If the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Related question (Score:5, Informative)
Should the Washington Post be considered a terrorist recruiting site?
Should Fox "News" or InfoWars be considered a terrorist recruiting sites? Seems more people have been incited to violence watching them. For example: Cesar Sayoc (mail bomber from FL), Edgar Welch (Pizzagate shooter from NC) ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
In March, conservative radio host and Infowars website operator Alex Jones apologized for promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy. Jones posted a six-minute video on his website in which he read a prepared statement saying that neither the restaurant nor its owner, James Alefantis, had anything to do with human trafficking. The statement came after Alefantis’s attorneys had requested a retraction.
Re: (Score:3)
Should Fox "News" or InfoWars be considered a terrorist recruiting sites?
Nope. Making enemies lists and trying to find excuses to censor web sites is bad. The Washington Post and Vox Media should know better.
Re: (Score:3)
We should seriously consider if Infowars and Fox News bare any responsibility. They get away with it by not directly inciting violence but instead spending years and years promoting conspiracies in the guise of "news" and ramping up hatred of certain groups (usually immigrants and "the left").
Their favourite trick is talking about how all these awful things will surely drive someone to violence eventually, which obviously they don't condone wink wink but the race war uprising will definitely start any day n
Re: (Score:3)
Should Fox "News" or InfoWars be considered a terrorist recruiting sites?
I avoid InfoWars, so I won't speak to them, but while I wouldn't call Fox News content a terrorist recruiting tool no matter how slanted they can be, they do host a comment section which doesn't have a problem with comments like "Lynch Ilhan Omar". I saw that one today and it had been up far too long for them not to have had a chance to remove it..
In the last week I have seen people justifying the attack on the mosques in New Zealand and of course there's the usual drumbeat of hate towards liberals/marxist
Re: (Score:2)
Should Washington Post be considered a journalistic endeavor?
The WashPo is without question a propaganda piece for the left and Democratic party. It should have to adhere to the laws of any other PAC. It is harmful to a democracy when "Journalists" with a clear political agenda are afforded such protections and status.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Any reasonable person can see they are not in least bit unbiased in their reporting or coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
George Will publishes op-eds in the Wash. Post. So does that right wing hack Thiessen (sp?). There are a few others as well. Find another faux reason. If you mean the Wash. Post does investigative journalism on the most corrupt Administration in recent history, then yes they are guilty of that. Let's just say it is a target rich environment for the newspaper business.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the opposition has come into power, though, each of those has sent hundreds of FOIA requests, in just two years. Be the end of Trump's first term, each of the 8 listed will have passed 1000 FOIA requests to just the EPA - a rate of "investigation" almost 40 times higher than just a few years ago.
But Trump is corrupt. Right.
Why not both? One doesn't negate the other in any way.
Re: (Score:3)
8chan, 4chan and those other boards are merely a random collection of trolls and other people that are able to speak out more freely in those channels.
Don't worry about those channels - all that's written is public. Worry about the recruiters that instead attract candidates in more clandestine form - especially in small gangs with members from the same culture. That's where the real terrorist recruiters catches their prey.
What remains are the "lone wolf" types, but only a small fraction of them are really a
Re: (Score:2)
8ch is trivial to keep tabs on with automated systems, much easier than a clusterfuck like facebook.
I'm sure the NSA has AI systems combing it for anything relevant and building profiles. Combined with the massive amount of information the NSA has on internet traffic originating and destined for the US (also everywhere else, but there especially) it's already a honey pot ... and that's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
He is also an US citizen.
So really the complaint should go to the Supreme Court the next time they have a first amendment case.