Social platforms have 'responsibility' to block US execution live stream

22 pointsposted 16 hours ago
by Teever
(abc.net.au)

20 Comments

chistev

5 hours ago

If it's so deplorable that it shouldn't be streamed, then perhaps the act itself shouldn't be done? I'm just asking and not taking a position.

10xDev

11 hours ago

Random fresh / new accounts in support of streaming this is interesting.

If you ever wondered why 99% of the world doesn't do this beyond just moral reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalization

b0rtb0rt

an hour ago

the world doesn’t support it because of this completely unproven hypothesis?

simianwords

15 hours ago

I’m uncomfortable with this. But on the other hand, executing someone just for the sake of it and not showing it to anyone else is much worse. At least this has a purpose beyond vengeance

mathw

11 hours ago

The purpose of the death penalty itself is vengeance. It does nothing to prevent crime, it just promotes a culture of violence. How can a government condemn murder when engaging in it themselves?

Livestreamed or not, this is immoral and Australia are quite right to try to block it. All countries should be seeking to do the same.

bluefirebrand

9 hours ago

> The purpose of the death penalty itself is vengeance. It does nothing to prevent crime

It prevents at least one person from ever doing crime again

I see the same arguments made about long prison sentences. It doesn't do anything as a deterrent to others so it's useless!

That's only true if the goal is deterrence. Not if the goal is simply to lock a criminal away from the rest of society so they can't do more crime

That all said, I'm not in favor of public executions making a comeback.

10xDev

9 hours ago

1. It is a crippled man

2. People who believe in martyrdom will never be deterred by this. Many grow through adversary, look at the Houthis.

3. There is no proof that it even works on ordinary people with the opposite effect sometimes taking place (brutalisation), it is a terrorist strategy. If it worked, you would see more countries doing it.

simianwords

8 hours ago

what's the point of killing a person then? if no one even knows it happened, its for pure retribution which is arguably worse

10xDev

6 hours ago

No brutalisation is worse. There doesn’t need to be a point for sadistic people.

simianwords

10 hours ago

> The purpose of the death penalty itself is vengeance

That can be changed if you live stream it and then it becomes deterrence

perilunar

9 hours ago

Yes it is immoral, but we are wrong to block it for that reason. Better to do it openly than behind closed doors, so we can see how barbaric they really are.

notagainffs

14 hours ago

It is worse *not* live-streaming it?

The purpose of the live-stream *is* the ugly thing. It is not a retribution from the state meted out on the perpetrator. It is propaganda. It is similar to ISIS beheadings.

I hope you did not mean that the propaganda is a good thing in this case.

cloudie78

15 hours ago

[flagged]

krapp

10 hours ago

Social networks are not and have never been neutral carriers, nor are they required to be such. They have always been "arbiters of truth and morality" in that they have always blocked certain kinds of content, like threats and CSAM. Few if any legal platforms have ever allowed the live streaming of a murder.

mathw

11 hours ago

I have seldom been so shocked by a comment as by having my very existence made the moral equivalent of a state-sanctioned murder.

TalkingCodeMonk

10 hours ago

The new nazi's reign of global terror and indoctrination is just getting started.

Be prepared for these extremists and terrorists to grow bolder and bolder. They consistently equate empathy with weakness; the leading Nuremberg psychologist concluded "Evil, I think, is the Absence of Empathy" [0].

[0] https://dirkdeklein.net/2019/05/22/evil-i-think-is-the-absen...

notagainffs

14 hours ago

Are you for leaving ISIS beheadings up on social platforms as well? Those are "legal" in the jurisdiction where they happened (self-proclaimed caliphate and all that). What about CSAM from countries with lax laws about those things?

Your comment about LBTQ+ is interesting. That is most likely blocked in backwards countries where things like that are illegal, or various platforms would face consequences in those jurisdictions.

cloudie78

9 hours ago

I’m either blind or I can’t edit my original post.

I love it how people completely got tilted as soon as I dare touch the sacred cow that is LBTQ+ and completely fucking missed the main point I was trying to articulate:

“Unless it’s governed by a democratic process.”

Mindless fucking clowns.

notagainffs

5 hours ago

I think the adjective "mindless" is appropriate, but not in the way you think.