Major government owned fund managers, holding $816m of shares in Facebook, Google & Twitter, call for the tech giants to take action following the live-streaming and sharing on social media of Friday’s Christchurch terror attacks

rastus. I visited the memorial strip beside the botanical gardens in CHCH yesterday. Thousands of people were moving quietly and respectfully along, viewing the flowers and tributes and reading the messages. A sobering and moving experience. But hard up on the other side of the path was an extensive row of media circus tents populated by journalists and technicians speculatively observing the crowd, blithely chatting and bantering between themselves. There is no technical requirement for the back up crews to be located so close to the many obviously emotionally affected people coming to privately pay their respects. While international media coverage is an essential element of combating extremism, I resented them being so close. A city council fail, in my view.

The "banning" of the CHCH shooting video by ISP’s and our Government is pointless and demonstrates how biased our country is -as most first world countries are. It’s bordering purely for virtue singling purposes. Anyone who has access to the internet has been able to, for decades, watch citizens of other countries be beaten, raped, tortured, blown up in an airstrike, shot by an apache helicopter using thermal cameras etc etc the list goes on. But Make on video about people getting shot in the first world?

The "banning" of the CHCH shooting video by ISP’s and our Government is pointless and demonstrates how biased our country is -as most first world countries are. It’s bordering purely for virtue singling purposes. Anyone who has access to the internet has been able to, for decades, watch citizens of other countries be beaten, raped, tortured, blown up in an airstrike, shot by an apache helicopter using thermal cameras etc etc the list goes on. But Make on video about people getting shot in the first world?

How much does a subscription to the Great Firewall cost? Probably not as much as Sky.

What would your 'internet police' look like in a democracy where facial/gait recognition and algorithm driven key word screening and review functions would need to be so extensive as to be economically ruinous or else would compromise the freedoms we hold so dear, look like? Just monitoring contributions to various small blog sites following CHCH has proved challenging for the operators.

I imagine it has something to do with the combined total being less than what Mark Zuckerberg keeps in his cookie jar by the side door, so as a gesture it might go almost unnoticed.

I am mostly perplexed by peoples' reaction to this. I understand why xingmaowang(?) thinks inviting in an all seeing censor is a good idea, but Kiwis? Should (could?) companies keep watch on every person's every move on their platform, at all times, and be prepared to intervene in a split second? I can think of an almost endless number of reasons why, as one of the several billion (with a b) users of these services who have not and would not livestream themselves murdering people or doing anything else objectionable, I don't want someone scrutinizing my every move.

It is not enough to say "they must do something!". What exactly, specifically, should they do? How does that actually look in practice? What are the implications for the 99.9999999873% of users who are not evil lunatics and do not want to see anything they produce, and are responsible enough to not even seek it out?

It has been noted that the NSA and GCHQ are likely the world's largest consumers of folks' nudes.