Posted on 03/18/2019 11:20:08 AM PDT by Star Traveler
Social media companies have been told to “clean up their platforms” or be prepared to face the “force of the law” by Home Secretary Sajid Javid.
Writing in the Daily Express, Mr Javid said: “Tech companies must do more to stop his messages being broadcast.”
Despite the original video being taken down, it was quickly replicated and shared widely on other platforms, including YouTube and Twitter.
Mr Javid urged people to stop viewing and sharing the “sick material” online, adding: “It is wrong and it is illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at technewsboss.com ...
It's the 'Homogenization' of Speech, according to what the 'state' will allow.
It was a Facebook murder.
It isn’t wrong to view it.
It is disgusting and disturbing and reminds me and others there are actually crazy people in the world and we should be ever vigilant to ensure mitigate any damage to other they may perform...
Well the USA and Trump will win.
Things ARE bad now with maybe 45 percent of the country being at least some degree left of center, but fully 85 percent of the people accept Trump as the legitimate president, a number in line with past presidents.
Things were pretty bad before WWII. I hear there were quite a bit of Socialists then too.
The fight will never end.
And we need to make sure Trump wins in 2020
By a similar argument, we could have prevented the Trump dossier from going public.
It’s spread around the world now, available for anyone who wants to see it and there isn’t a thing they can do about it besides suppress their own citizens like China and North Korea. Talk about taking a bad situation and making it worse.
And when the bearded ones post their violent videos, is the reaction swift and definitive, like it is here?
Of course not. They get to share their neck slicing videos.
1. It shows their favored group, Muslims, being mowed down indiscriminately. This makes the "authorities" look bad, because they weren't able to protect their friends.
2. It shows that ONE armed and trained citizen probably would have been able to stop the attack. Since gun-grabbing is high on their agenda, they can't have this obvious demonstration that self-defense is an innate, God-given right, as it should be.
Your point is well taken....one single guy in the first mosque with a pistol could have limited this to just five or six victims.
In other news : “Muslim goes crazy and shoots up train killing whites”.
The New Zealand government will need to take over the local Internet to prevent it.
An obvious component is the memes put forward in the Manifesto are very critical of the current New Zealand government, which is very far left and pro-muslim.
Muslims are currently only 1% of New Zealand population, but the percentage is growing rapidly.
American based tech firms should tell them to pound sand. the internet in this aspect is like a radio signal broadcast out for anyone to listen too. Foreign govts cannot tell companies under US law what to do under threat of their law. Only PC wimpiness can get them to ‘voluntarily” comply.
Yeah, in fact, in the video ... it shows that one UNARMED MAN almost got the shooter and disarmed him. From what I saw, he had a hold of the gun and almost got it away from the shooter. Maybe if he had been just one second faster, he would have done it.
So ... yes ... an ARMED MAN or woman, would have definitely been able to take him down!
By banning it, the public reaction will be to SEEK IT OUT.
The Trump coup has caused me to question initial reports of events as reported by government. I have no idea what happened in New Zealand but I do know the report will be used by the left to forward their agenda.
What kind of voyeur gets their kicks by viewing a guy storming a building and slaughtering fifty people? It is my opinion that anyone that watches these snuff films are not much better than dirt.
Also, what sick individual will actually sit and watch a video of somebody beheading someone.
People are so desensitized that it seems as if nothing bothers them.
Already happening. Aussies are server banned from certain sites through providers. 4chan is talking about it.
The problem here ... is ... (as someone else on Free Republic mentioned to me yesterday) ... when something like this is suppressed, then it is a wide-open door for anyone to simply ‘make up’ whatever they want to say about what happened.
For example, I’ve already been told several times that this was fake, because (for one thing) there was no blood there, as one would expect.
Well, if I didn’t have the ability to have already seen it, I would not have been able to tell the person they were wrong. But, I did ... however ... he still didn’t believe me. Then I had to point him to an obvious spot and then on examination he saw it and then backed off the claim.
It’s stuff like this that happens, when you suppress the information. You can multiply this one instance and one item, over and over again ... it’s already happening out there on the Internet, because it is so suppressed.
Prezactly. Guess it’s back to IRC?
Illegal in what country? Yours? You don't make or enforce laws for the entire planet, Mr Javid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.