Murder videos on facebook - acceptable?

facepollutionfacepollution Posts: 6,834
edited October 2013 in A Moving Train
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499

Apparently facebook now think it's OK for videos of things like decapitations to be shared, because they believe that people should be able watch it and 'condemn it'. Nevermind the psychological effect watching something like that could have on a child. I know some people might say that that kind of stuff is available all over the net, but you would have to actively search for it to view it, which is not the same as a video popping up on your news feed and clicking out of morbid curiosity - as we all know, you can't un-see some things.

Secondly, where is the respect for the poor victim? Shit like this gives me a really heavy heart, that a person could do that to another human being is hard enough to believe, but for people all around the world to watch their last agonizing breaths.......

I've just read a news update whilst typing this, saying that facebook have agreed to now post warnings with such videos and not make them available to children. They also said that they will remove content if it believes violence is being glorified. But who are they to decide whether people are glorifying it or not? I'd wager that the majority of people are clicking out of morbid curiosity, the same as they would any of the gore sites out there, but this way they can some how justify it because it's on their news feed.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    I agree with you on the victim comment though. On our local news, I've seen many a body in the street covered, or shots of their footless shoe in the street after a hit and run, pools of blood on the sidewalk after a shooting...and I think my god, what if that was a loved one they're showing? What good does it do to air that?

    Not that I haven't indulged my share of morbid curiosity over time, but I'm kinda past that these days. I don't necessarily have to view footage of heinous acts to be aware they occur and denounce them.
  • AnnafalkAnnafalk Posts: 4,004
    It's wrong, that's what I think anyway..
  • hedonist wrote:
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    Well you only have to be 13 to have a facebook account, and it seems most kids these days have smart phones, making it harder for parents to track I guess.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    hedonist wrote:
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    Well you only have to be 13 to have a facebook account, and it seems most kids these days have smart phones, making it harder for parents to track I guess.
    I hear ya. Both of those make me shake my head...so young for these things!
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,172
    Boobs...still banned.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyV wrote:
    Boobs...still banned.

    yep, what about if you agree to only condemn them :-?
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,611
    what better way to sell more ad content?

    Frankly i dont need to see a video of murder in order to condemn it. Or animal cruelty either for that matter.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    I've said it before when I hear stories like this: the purge doesn't seem like a bad idea
  • My kid was shown a brutal video at school by one of his buddies. He told me about it and I asked to see it- I wanted to know what he saw.

    It was very challenging to try and provide some form of guidance in light of what he saw.

    Growing up is much different than when I was growing up. Parenting is much different than when my parents parented.

    Take pornography for example. In our tree forts, stashed under things, if we were lucky we had a portion of a Playboy to look at. Nowadays, in seconds, kids can access all kinds of pornography.

    Innocence has been lost- murder videos reflect this fact. There's no going back either. It's become a question of how do we deal with the reality.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    It's not a good sign of society that a question like this even needs to be brought up.
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    Jason P wrote:
    It's not a good sign of society that a question like this even needs to be brought up.

    Truth
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • is facebook a legit news source now?

    they can't show that stuff on tv, why would it be acceptable on facebook? wouldn't that essentially be showing a snuff film? but then again, hard news sources USED to show things like self immolation, but for some reason the news is more sanitized now.

    i dunno, if a photo of a breast or butt gets censored, then atrocites should be censored as well. just my opinion. the human body should be embraced, not censored.




    ***edit, i have kinda rethought my position on this. i was thinking in terms of american society. if i think about it, the arab spring was basically organized, documented, and blogged via social media. the war in syria is being chronicled on social media. the israeli occupation of palestinian land is being documented on social media. it is an important too now. i am thinking that perhaps the horrors of war and atrocites need to be seen by the masses.... put a disclaimer and make people click that they are over age 18 and let the videos stand. i do think that the nudity ban does need to be overturned though..
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • haven't we all been desensitized enough already?

    I'd be furious if I found out one of my daughters was able to view a video of such real brutality so easily.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    hedonist wrote:
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    Well you only have to be 13 to have a facebook account, and it seems most kids these days have smart phones, making it harder for parents to track I guess.

    That's not tough to police at all. Don't let them have a smart phone.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    know1 wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    Well you only have to be 13 to have a facebook account, and it seems most kids these days have smart phones, making it harder for parents to track I guess.

    That's not tough to police at all. Don't let them have a smart phone.
    But but...then they'll be mocked! The Joneses must be kept up with, you know.
  • know1 wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    Well you only have to be 13 to have a facebook account, and it seems most kids these days have smart phones, making it harder for parents to track I guess.

    That's not tough to police at all. Don't let them have a smart phone.

    I know where you're coming from, I guess it's just become acceptable for young kids to have phones these days - I know how much pressure my 11 year old niece put on my sister to get her a phone for her birthday, which of course came from the feeling of being left out because all her friends have them.

    Anyway, I've given this topic a lot of thought over the last few days and come to the conclusion that I can't continue to support a company that thinks it is acceptable to allow this kind of content to be so readily available. Their rules on what is and what isn't acceptable is fucking farcical. They stipulate that a video is ok so long as it comes with a warning and doesn't seem to glorify the content - in which case presumably ANYTHING is acceptable, child rape, child murder?.......they argue that users should be able to reflect the world we live in, yet the context of these videos is completely ambiguous and ultimately decided by the viewer. Some people will view it out of morbid fascination and condemn it, whilst there will be some who derive some perverse enjoyment from it.

    Obviously there is no real way of policing the internet as a whole, and with the advancements in technology such videos will always be available, but there are places where thsee videos belong - gore sites for people who actively want to search for and view such content, not on a social media site.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    You make good points, facepollution...and it makes me think too (out loud here) - what about footage of wars, of the Holocaust, of countries where still the inexplicable happens? Sometimes seeing the horrors of our past (and present) can be beneficial in some small way, whether via learning, blinders off, prevention, etc.

    Definitely should be warnings on these things though (plus the parental supervision as metioned before).
  • Couple things:

    Warnings almost serve as promotional tools. They do not produce the effect people think they might.

    Phones have become very purposeful. I like my son to have a phone for many reasons. My daughter is 12 and she doesn't have one yet, but there have been many moments when we wished she had one. She wants one, but this is not the reason why she will get one soon.

    Kids are going to come across these types of things- phone or no phone.

    I don't have Facebook and never will.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • hedonist wrote:
    You make good points, facepollution...and it makes me think too (out loud here) - what about footage of wars, of the Holocaust, of countries where still the inexplicable happens? Sometimes seeing the horrors of our past (and present) can be beneficial in some small way, whether via learning, blinders off, prevention, etc.

    Definitely should be warnings on these things though (plus the parental supervision as metioned before).

    But those kind of videos have context, they're typically presented with a story detailing the history surrounding what happened, a video with the tagline 'see how much of this video you can watch', however, is simply trivializing an unspeakably evil act, and shows zero respect or compassion for the victims and their families.

    I've also been witness to the kinds of people who view these types of videos, and their interest is not simply to condemn it (why would you need to see someone have their head cut off to condemn it?! surely we all know that's wrong, right??) - some guys at work the other day were passing around a phone with a video of a guy cutting the end of his dick off! I remember loads of people watching Saddam's hanging too - it is sheer morbid curiosity.

    There's a reason why these kinds of videos aren't featured on the evening news, and that's because they are essentially snuff films, which up until a few years ago were still regarded as unacceptable.
  • Warnings almost serve as promotional tools. They do not produce the effect people think they might.

    Absolutely, it's almost like "I dare you to watch this".

    All the while facebook continues to rake in billions of dollars - it absolutely sickens me.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Couple things:

    Warnings almost serve as promotional tools. They do not produce the effect people think they might.

    Phones have become very purposeful. I like my son to have a phone for many reasons. My daughter is 12 and she doesn't have one yet, but there have been many moments when we wished she had one. She wants one, but this is not the reason why she will get one soon.

    Kids are going to come across these types of things- phone or no phone.

    I don't have Facebook and never will.
    On your last point, me neither. Nor Twitter! Just not my thing.

    As to the warnings, you may be right; I don't know how others are affected by them. For me, at the least within this forum, I've made a point of avoiding links to videos of slaughterhouses, animal abuse/neglect and the like (and I wish I'd never watched the footage of the young soldier in England getting hacked in the street).

    I know times have changed, are ever-changing, but while the phones can be useful, are they a necessity? And if so, can't they be used or customized so as not to have exposure to images beyond their years and understanding and supposed innocence?

    This is where the idealistic side of me comes out, and it frustrates me because I know it's unrealistic, dammit.
  • know1 wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    Why on earth would a child have or need Facebook?

    Why wouldn't any responsible parent monitor what their child is viewing online?

    Well you only have to be 13 to have a facebook account, and it seems most kids these days have smart phones, making it harder for parents to track I guess.

    That's not tough to police at all. Don't let them have a smart phone.

    easier said than done. of course you don't have to get them a smart phone (which my wife and I will have to address in a few years). but 98% of their friends will have one. so they'll just watch it on their friend's mobile.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    I never much understood that policy when I can just as well see them freely on twitter.
  • ajedigeckoajedigecko Posts: 2,430
    I watched faces of death.
    live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
  • So I bit the bullet and closed down my account, one man protest, I don't really care - any person or company that deems a woman's brutal murder more acceptable than a naked body is not one that I am prepared to support.
  • So I bit the bullet and closed down my account, one man protest, I don't really care - any person or company that deems a woman's brutal murder more acceptable than a naked body is not one that I am prepared to support.

    Lead from where you are!
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    So I bit the bullet and closed down my account, one man protest, I don't really care - any person or company that deems a woman's brutal murder more acceptable than a naked body is not one that I am prepared to support.
    Good on ya for walking the walk (so to speak).
  • So I bit the bullet and closed down my account, one man protest, I don't really care - any person or company that deems a woman's brutal murder more acceptable than a naked body is not one that I am prepared to support.

    I did too after being sent the link to the CNN news article. I blasted it to all my contacts on crackbook and was utterly amazed by the lack of response. Only 2 people cared. The rest felt what they got from crackbook to be worth more than moral vigilance.

    As for the kid comments. Our children are given increasingly more access online, my daughter is even being directed to upload essays onto a google docs account. She has a google account I didn't know about, multiple emails I was unaware of, a Facebook profile (now deactivated) that I did not know about, and all was being accessed either on friends' phones or devices at school or at the computer lab at school. At home her laptop is locked down and password protected and parental controlled all over. We don't even have tv. But she'll find what she wants elsewhere. I don't want her to grow up with her head in the sand, but I did want to protect her innocence as long as I could. Unfortunately it wasn't long.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24608499

    Apparently facebook now think it's OK for videos of things like decapitations to be shared, because they believe that people should be able watch it and 'condemn it'. Nevermind the psychological effect watching something like that could have on a child. I know some people might say that that kind of stuff is available all over the net, but you would have to actively search for it to view it, which is not the same as a video popping up on your news feed and clicking out of morbid curiosity - as we all know, you can't un-see some things.

    Secondly, where is the respect for the poor victim? Shit like this gives me a really heavy heart, that a person could do that to another human being is hard enough to believe, but for people all around the world to watch their last agonizing breaths.......

    I've just read a news update whilst typing this, saying that facebook have agreed to now post warnings with such videos and not make them available to children. They also said that they will remove content if it believes violence is being glorified. But who are they to decide whether people are glorifying it or not? I'd wager that the majority of people are clicking out of morbid curiosity, the same as they would any of the gore sites out there, but this way they can some how justify it because it's on their news feed.

    agreed ! no need for that kind of crap.

    Godfather.
Sign In or Register to comment.