15
votes
New Zealand & Australia ISPs and telcos block access to sites hosting Christchurch shooting video
-
New Zealand ISPs are blocking sites that do not remove Christchurch shooting video
-
New Zealand Mobile Carriers Block 8chan, 4chan, and LiveLeak
-
And, in Australia: Telco giants block websites sharing footage of Christchurch attacks
-
The block on some sites seems to have been lifted in Australia: Telcos block access to 4chan, other sites
I'm glad the 4chan ban was lifted. There is a lot of legitimate content on 4chan
Was the block lifted because the content in question was removed? IMO a site can have all the legitimate content it wants and still warrant a block if it refuses to remove content deemed inappropriate.
I haven't seen it on 4chan because I don't check /pol/ but 4chan tends to be a lot more censored than 8chan. 8chan was created because of stuff getting removed from 4chan.
/gif/ had a thread for several days about the shooting with the entire video split up across multiple posts. They have another thread up now about it, though has not gained much traction yet.
PrivateInternetAccess made a blog post about this yesterday that included (I think) a full list of sites: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/
Since it's just a DNS block it's quite simple to circumvent for technical people, but still something that the large, large majority of people wouldn't easily know how to do.
Optus appear to be null routing:
Yeah this is a huge pain. I have a vpn but 4chan blocks posting from vpns. I will certainly switch phone providers if this lasts more than a week.
I do wonder what the point of all this is. Its still absolutely trivial to find the video if you look. Perhaps its not about the video at all but just a good time to test out furthering internet blocking with a feel good reason when people complain. Also what makes this video so different from the videos of 9/11 that you can find on youtube?
well for one thing, there's really no videos of 9/11 that show people gruesomely dying at all that i'm aware of--much less exclusively. we have plenty of videos of people jumping from the building, but of all of them there's only one of those that i know of which even shows them hitting the ground, and while you can see something that resembles blood even enhanced footage isn't particularly clear on what's what. certainly none of them are comparable in experience or in graphic detail to seeing 50 people get gunned down in cold blood right in front of you. in fact the closest 9/11 video i would argue to the mosque shooting video is kevin cosgrove's call, because one of the towers collapses as he's talking on the line and so you hear the building collapse on top of him and his screams before the line goes dead--but even that's not really the same as seeing someone physically die in front of your eyes.
outside of those few and far between videos, in depicting death, basically all 9/11 footage is very abstract: you knowing that people are dying as you watch, say, this video, but you're not physically seeing it happen, and that makes a pretty large difference in how people perceive things (i for example can watch hours worth of 9/11 content without issue, but i would be unable to make it 5 seconds through the mosque video). there's also much more to basically every 9/11 video composed of raw footage than watching people be killed gruesomely. a lot of them are focused on people's reactions; some of them are great for noticing how the external support of the building gradually weakened, leading to progressive failure and total collapse; etc. just in general, there's a lot more that you can take away from raw footage of 9/11 than is the case with the mosque video, and while they're both morbid, one is ultimately a lot moreso than the other.