Murder Posted on Facebook Prompts Outrage and Questions Over Responsibility

[Mister Cheese]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/t...pgtype=article

On Easter, Steve Stephens drove around downtown Cleveland on what he said was a mission to commit murder — and soon he had an audience of millions for his shooting of Robert Godwin Sr., 74, which he recorded and posted on Facebook, the police in Cleveland said.

On Monday, the authorities nationwide were looking for Mr. Stephens, 37, with the police as far away as Philadelphia saying they had received calls about sightings of him in that area.

Now Facebook is facing a backlash over the shooting video, as it grapples with its role in policing content on its global platform.

It is an issue that Facebook, the world’s largest social network, has had to contend with more frequently as it has bet big on new forms of media like live video, which give it a venue for more lucrative advertising. The criticism of Facebook over Mr. Stephens’s video built swiftly Monday, with critics calling it a dark time for the company and outrage spreading on social media over how long it had taken — more than two hours — for the video to be pulled down. Ryan A. Godwin, the victim’s grandson, pleaded with other users on social media to stop sharing the video online.

This is dangerous. I'm gonna start saying that right now. A video like that should be pulled down immediately. Yes. And it's unfortunate that it stayed up for that long. Since now it will likely be on the internet forever. Once you put something on the internet, it's on there. You can never get rid of it. But if you give the power to pull anything down from the internet that you want, people are going to abuse it.

Facebook’s dilemma is part of a debate that has pulled in other technology giants, including Twitter, Amazon and Google. As these companies have rushed to provide tools for people to widely share their intimate moments more frequently, they are dealing with a rising tide of calls to more proactively filter the type of content that appears. In recent weeks, Google’s YouTube has been scrutinized for posting advertising next to racist video content, while Twitter contends with hate speech almost daily.

Going to comment about youtube's situation first. It's bullshit. Because ads are targeted. They can appear next to anything. If you search for certain products and then go on youtube. Watch your videos, watch a video about I don't know, say pro white genocide? That does not mean that, that product supports the message in that video. I don't know where this came from. Or why this is happening. And Twitter's hate speech thing is also a load of shit. They're left leaning. They recently banned a lot of right leaning posters for no apparent reason. And they're still doing it. Their flagging system is automatic.

But the attention is often focused on Facebook because of its nearly two billion users and global influence. It is an issue that is bedeviling Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive. Facebook has encouraged users to post more — it has spent the last two years emphasizing its push into photographs and video, underpinned by a thesis that cameras have become more important in how people share moments of their lives with their friends.

The company was not prepared for the consequences of that push. Last summer, the death of Philando Castile, a Minnesota man shot by the police during a traffic stop, was broadcast by his girlfriend live across Facebook. In January, three men in Sweden were arrested on suspicion of raping a woman and streaming the assault live to a private Facebook group. In February, two radio journalists in the Dominican Republic were fatally shot during a Facebook Live broadcast.

Some groups have pressured Facebook to take a stronger role in reviewing content posted on its platform. In a letter this year to Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s director of global policy, the American Civil Liberties Union called for the social network to be more transparent in its censorship process and to agree to an external audit of its practices.

This is happening more and more often. Facebook live, Youtube streaming. You can stream from anywhere with a good wi-fi connection now. Or if your phone company is good enough. And it's going to keep happening. Traumatic events can be streamed live. And companies are helpless to stop it it seems, because they won't be able to take notice until thousands are watching. And then they will be blamed for it. I don't think they can actually do anything about it without screwing up. Like taking down streams that probably shouldn't be taken down.

I suppose the question is this. Should Facebook/Google be held responsible for violent content that gets on to their site? Even if it gets taken down quickly?

[melodramocracy]

What responsibility exactly? Dude could have live streamed this on any number of platforms.

Had he not done so, it would have take far longer to figure out who did it. I'm really not seeing the problem here other than someone wanting to desperately fingerwag about anything.

[Tijuana]

The Facebook live streaming is a bit of a concern, imo.

It's taken a ton of effort to get some media outlets to stop repeating the names of mass shooters over and over, effectively giving them a huge platform posthumously. This signals to the next potential mass shooter that he or she will become famous from their heinous act, and people will discuss their manifesto, reasons for the crime, or ideas.

I feel like if a crazy person can use Facebook to give themselves the platform, it can only lead to trouble. I don't know what the heck you do about it. They certainly are not the only streaming or self uploading video outlet. But obviously their reach FAR surpasses that of any other platform, and maybe even media outlets themselves. Stay tuned; sadly there is probably more to come...

[dcschess05]

The Facebook live streaming is a bit of a concern, imo.

It's taken a ton of effort to get some media outlets to stop repeating the names of mass shooters over and over, effectively giving them a huge platform posthumously. This signals to the next potential mass shooter that he or she will become famous from their heinous act, and people will discuss their manifesto, reasons for the crime, or ideas.

I feel like if a crazy person can use Facebook to give themselves the platform, it can only lead to trouble. I don't know what the heck you do about it. They certainly are not the only streaming or self uploading video outlet. But obviously their reach FAR surpasses that of any other platform, and maybe even media outlets themselves. Stay tuned; sadly there is probably more to come...

What do you purpose? With a user base of a billion+, you are going to have a few nut jobs. There is no way around it.

[Tijuana]

What do you purpose? With a user base of a billion+, you are going to have a few nut jobs. There is no way around it.

Read my post. I already answered your question, before you asked it.

[Docturphil]

The Facebook live streaming is a bit of a concern, imo.

It's taken a ton of effort to get some media outlets to stop repeating the names of mass shooters over and over, effectively giving them a huge platform posthumously. This signals to the next potential mass shooter that he or she will become famous from their heinous act, and people will discuss their manifesto, reasons for the crime, or ideas.

I feel like if a crazy person can use Facebook to give themselves the platform, it can only lead to trouble. I don't know what the heck you do about it. They certainly are not the only streaming or self uploading video outlet. But obviously their reach FAR surpasses that of any other platform, and maybe even media outlets themselves. Stay tuned; sadly there is probably more to come...

I would say image recognition technology could put a stop to this, but the whole live streaming thing makes that a bit difficult. Not to mention running a stream through an image recognition algorithm can be very resource intensive especially considering the scale of Facebook. I'd say it's possible for them to do, and I'd be willing to bet that they're working on it. They have the technology and power. I'd say it's just a matter of time until they have a reliable means to filter out violent shit.

And even if they never get there. It's not Facebook's fault. All we can really ask of them is that they take that kind of shit down as soon as possible.

[Tijuana]

I would say image recognition technology could put a stop to this, but the whole live streaming thing makes that a bit difficult. Not to mention running a stream through an image recognition algorithm can be very resource intensive especially considering the scale of Facebook. I'd say it's possible for them to do, and I'd be willing to be that they're working on it. They have the technology and power. I'd say it's just a matter of time until they have a reliable means to filter out violent shit.

And even if they never get there. It's not Facebook's fault. All we can really ask of them is that they take that kind of shit down as soon as possible.

Yeah, I don't know what you do about it. But, I fully expect this to become a thing. Most people don't even know what twitch or periscope are so, for most of the planet, live streaming is a new thing.

[Krawu]

Shouldn't people be more concerned with preventing murders from being committed to begin with rather than worrying that someone might see how it happened? I mean the video isn't hurting anyone, is it?
No, instead they take it as another pretense to crack down on freedom and anonymity on the internet. Idiots. Go enforce a law or two.

[Mister Cheese]

Shouldn't people be more concerned with preventing murders from being committed to begin with rather than worrying that someone might see how it happened? I mean the video isn't hurting anyone, is it?
No, instead they take it as another pretense to crack down on freedom and anonymity on the internet. Idiots. Go enforce a law or two.

Well... when it's your grandfather and it's being shared by thousands of people. How would you feel then? Also it's someone being murdered live. Really? That's not fucked up at all?

[Docturphil]

Yeah, I don't know what you do about it. But, I fully expect this to become a thing. Most people don't even know what twitch or periscope are so, for most of the planet, live streaming is a new thing.

Amazon's AWS Rekognition, Microsoft Azure's Cognitive Services, Google Vision API, Facebook, Snapchat's Ukrainian acquired company Looksery, they're all already utilizing some machine-learned image recognition technology. It's pretty impressive stuff. I really think it's just a matter of time before Facebook's live stream automatically filters out violent content.

[dcschess05]

Read my post. I already answered your question, before you asked it.

So you purpose no streaming for anyone? I am just guessing because you don't come out and say that. Or do you mean that you don't know what to do about it? Either way those options contribute nothing to the conversation.

Edit - You are going to have to weigh the pros and the cons. IMO Facebook streaming is a smart option for the company and a useful tool for society. To remove the capability because nutjobs are gunna nutjob makes no sense.

[TITAN308]

Shouldn't people be more concerned with preventing murders from being committed to begin with...

And how do you propose they do that?



???

[Aeluron Lightsong]

It's messed up that a killing gets streamed but at the cost of screwing over privacy and freedom...well no thanks.

[I Push Buttons]

Short of banning all streaming/social media/video hubs, people will always post this shit. All you can do is exactly what they have already done, police it after the fact.

[Tijuana]

Amazon's AWS Rekognition, Microsoft Azure's Cognitive Services, Google Vision API, Facebook, Snapchat's Ukrainian acquired company Looksery, they're all already utilizing some machine-learned image recognition technology. It's pretty impressive stuff. I really think it's just a matter of time before Facebook's live stream automatically filters out violent content.

Alternatively, they could also not leave murder video uploads live for like days....

- - - Updated - - -

Shouldn't people be more concerned with preventing murders from being committed to begin with rather than worrying that someone might see how it happened? I mean the video isn't hurting anyone, is it?
No, instead they take it as another pretense to crack down on freedom and anonymity on the internet. Idiots. Go enforce a law or two.

Like, almost no murders in history were prevented by police. That's not how it works. They just lock up who killed you, after the fact.

If you want to keep yourself from being murdered, you will have to defend yourself. I would get a gun of some kind if you want to avoid being murdered.

[Creotor]

I would say image recognition technology could put a stop to this, but the whole live streaming thing makes that a bit difficult. Not to mention running a stream through an image recognition algorithm can be very resource intensive especially considering the scale of Facebook. I'd say it's possible for them to do, and I'd be willing to bet that they're working on it. They have the technology and power. I'd say it's just a matter of time until they have a reliable means to filter out violent shit.

And even if they never get there. It's not Facebook's fault. All we can really ask of them is that they take that kind of shit down as soon as possible.

They certainly do not have the technology that could recognize all (or even most) of the unwanted content and let the rest through. It's simply not there yet.

[Docturphil]

They certainly do not have the technology that could recognize all (or even most) of the unwanted content and let the rest through. It's simply not there yet.

They absolutely do, or other companies do at least. They probably just aren't comfortable with the cost. Like I said it's very resource intensive to constantly be processing images. They could do it with a single video for sure. They may just not be willing to implement such a thing on a large scale yet, or they may be unsatisfied with the accuracy. I'd be very surprised if they don't have something like this within the next 5 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Alternatively, they could also not leave murder video uploads live for like days....

If it was up for that long... yikes. But I feel like you're exaggerating.

[Creotor]

They absolutely do, or other companies do at least. They probably just aren't comfortable with the cost. Like I said it's very resource intensive to constantly be processing images. They could do it with a single video for sure. They may just not be willing to implement such a thing on a large scale yet, or they may be unsatisfied with the accuracy. I'd be very surprised if they don't have something like this within the next 5 years.

- - - Updated - - -



If it was up for that long... yikes. But I feel like you're exaggerating.

No one does. You're effectively arguing that someone has the algorithms that are as good as a human or better at processing visual content. Where are you even getting this from?

[Tijuana]

They absolutely do, or other companies do at least. They probably just aren't comfortable with the cost. Like I said it's very resource intensive to constantly be processing images. They could do it with a single video for sure. They may just not be willing to implement such a thing on a large scale yet, or they may be unsatisfied with the accuracy. I'd be very surprised if they don't have something like this within the next 5 years.

- - - Updated - - -



If it was up for that long... yikes. But I feel like you're exaggerating.

I don't know how long it was but, Zucker commented today that it was problematic. Just assume I'm always exaggerating lol.

[Mister Cheese]

They absolutely do, or other companies do at least. They probably just aren't comfortable with the cost. Like I said it's very resource intensive to constantly be processing images. They could do it with a single video for sure. They may just not be willing to implement such a thing on a large scale yet, or they may be unsatisfied with the accuracy. I'd be very surprised if they don't have something like this within the next 5 years.

- - - Updated - - -



If it was up for that long... yikes. But I feel like you're exaggerating.

It was for two hours. Videos like this do not last long when they do not have much attention. But it could have been pulled down sooner. No reason for it to be up as soon as it gained as much attention as it did. Facebook's staff should be on the lookout for this kind of stuff 24/7