New Zealand has always had an official censor (Office of Film and Literature Classification [1]), responsible for what works are available in the country.
They already have an internet filter which blocks access to certain domains/ip ranges/etc. [2]
Of course they would require similar abilities once Facebook came to their notice by broadcasting a terrorist's murder spree. [3]
It would have been "You are selling to New Zealanders.
We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice."
One important aspect is that NZ (and Australia as well IIRC), have always had laws that gave name suppression to people accused of a crime and its been illegal to publish names of accused if they were granted name suppression. I think this is one of the primary cases how some of the censorship laws have been used.
But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why.
(I used to submit for classification for adult content for distribution in NZ or streaming in hotels)
Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.
> so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.
I have no big problems with websites limiting what users can post (HN is also ding this!), but I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them.
Content that should be made illegal to post anywhere at all is in my opinion extremely rare, and basically all censorship system should censor less. Sadly, some things needs to be blocked and once system exists it inevitably gets misused.
New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help.
Therefore, they'll help set policy for what needs to be taken down, but a politician will not be able to take down content, they may request the censor office does this, but they won't be able to force them or do it themselves.
NZ is an outlier in the world, but it is a very strong liberal democracy. It has very low levels of corruption, very high levels of public confidence in government, very transparent ways of operating, and very strong media and public participation to hold the public sector to account.
Other countries might abuse this system, but I doubt New Zealand is.
The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.
Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. The whole idea is that ministers do in fact make decisions so that somebody can be held democratically accountable for them. But sometimes we limit their decisions to appointments, i.e. choosing who to delegate power to. If that person messes up then we hold the minister accountable for putting their faith in the wrong person. The comment was pushing back on the idea that politicians are the ones doing the censoring. In that sense they are largely correct -- censorship is one of those powers you do not want to give directly to the politicians. And you can set it up so they don't get it. That's all.
> New Zealand has very strong separation between policy makers (the government) and the agencies that enforce policies. The government can't tell the police what to do, they can't tell treasury what to do, they can't tell defence what to do, etc. All they can do is write policy, approve funding, and request help.
Seems like it is less a democracy than rule by a professional elite with a thin veneer of elections to keep the people happy.
No, there is a lot of transparency and oversight, including to any member of the public, and ultimately the government sets policy. I can just request any document, and in fact I used to work in the public service where a coworker would frequently request any correspondence about him by staff or managers under the official information act. He was paranoid but had the ability to do it.
An example is during covid, the government set policy around what could be done but the police were ultimately in charge with how they enforced it. Additionally New Zealand has a culture of egalitarianism and community. While there is growing inequality, there isn't an elite yet.
The government provides checks on the public service and the public service provides checks on the government.
Another example is the treasury prevents the government going into debt unless there are extreme circumstances and a plan to get back into surplus. The government can't just cut taxes and up borrowing to buy votes, they need to be fiscally responsible and that's controlled by the treasury.
Ultimately New Zealand has a reasonably direct, accessable, and transparent form of government which represents the community that it serves, it is rated top in the democracy list for a reason.
Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive?
Because trust me, New Zealand's opposition parties, social media, and the real media, would be on that like flies on shit if there was even a hint that it had happened. All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted."
I guess it's good to live in a nation where corruption is low, and the rule of law applies to all, the media is free, and who deliberates on questions of law isn't decided by politicians.
Because I know that any of the behaviour you posit would be absolutely called out.
Like the time a New Zealand Prime Minister sent the Police in to find an investigative journalist's sources, because it embarrassed him and his government.
Or the time that the New Zealand Defence Force sicced the internal intelligence service on the same journalist to find his sources because he embarrassed them...
> Considering I can't prove a negative, are you able to prove a positive?
Yes. In communist Poland "You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored" was used and designed to keep criticism of ruling class and ruling system out of public view.
----------------------------
Note that I am not claiming that NZ is currently abusing this system, or that NZ system is intended to provide such use.
I was responding to
> Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.
that is not really indicating anything, except lack of USSR-level censorship.
Maybe confusion was caused because I responded to
> But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why.
treating is a claim in general, not specifically about NZ
(I do not want to claim anything about NZ as I am not familiar with it)
Do you understand the distinction between moderation and censorship?
Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want.
Gmail running spam filters is moderation. The government blocking you from sending emails to journalists is censorship.
> Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want.
Except when it isn’t. All media content goes through classification and censorship in New Zealand. You cannot air anything on tv without classification.
My comment was on the processor of classification and censorship that occurs during the classification process.
> Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want.
Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want.
You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content.
>>Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.
This was your original comment. Yes, people want moderation of their platforms, otherwise they become unusable. Most people want some degree of censorship (CSAM is the obvious case). But there's a big difference between Twitter censoring something and the government doing it. For example Facebook can say "hey we don't want people posting nude photos" - that's censorship. And that's fine; they don't want to run a site that has nude photos.
>>Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want.
Yep, they do both, in varying degrees. The government should be more restrained.
>>You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content.
Yes, it absolutely is censorship. And if twitter wants to do that I'm fine with that. I don't want the government doing that.
Because people downvoted me to -4 before anyone commented. Since I only talked about censorship in regards to traditional media it was safe to assume people dislike censorship of traditional media. Which is a contradiction to wanting censorship and moderation on social media.
> Yes, it absolutely is censorship. And if twitter wants to do that I'm fine with that. I don't want the government doing that.
I agree but Twitter in the past is very inconsistent in its moderation and censorship. Stuff that’s an absolute violation of rules is allowed but borderline violations on the right are quickly dealt with. I’m fine with a private company doing it if it’s consistent.
These are just language tricks. We aren’t censoring anything, we are simply moderating out the voices of our political opponents.
There are always trade offs but I think we are better off with zero censorship. What are we worried about? Will we become Jihadists after seeing a Taliban post? Are with that impressionable that anything we see sticks in the brain as truth? If so, perhaps we should try to solve the root problem.
“Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want.”
These definitions don’t work, because there is always some (possibly extremely small) population that wants the content, ergo you could say all moderation is censorship to some people.
when I do it's moderation, when they do it's censorship.
Between this and the matt taibi twitter discussion, the conclusion is that Americans overwhelmingly are for censorship of " the otherside", but wants to do it in such a way that it can't be called censorship. It's not that they don't want censorship, but they don't want to do it in a transparent way in which a government entity/clerk hands in a takedown request to fb/twitter, instead they want embedded partisan operatives operating through backchannels to takedown content they don't like in absolutely opaque fashion. The point is to claim - "see it's not censorship" even though the end result is the same. All it matters is how it looks like, not what it is.
So if Twitter or Facebook take something down that both the sender and the receiver want, but an advertising conglomerate doesn’t, based on worries about brand safety or whatnot, is it censorship or moderation?
I think there are different perceptions on what Facebook's tool does.
It could be "send to the front of the moderation queue." or, it could be "ban it immediately globally".
People's perception also probably depends on how far they believe a ban applied to Facebook extends. Does it extend to NZ only, or worldwide?
If I were designing this system:
1) Upon receipt of a ban request by a governmental org.
2) If legally required, immediately ban it to all IP ranges inside of that country/region - there is typically a SLA with penalties here, e.g. 1hr in EU.
3) Send it to the front of the moderation queue.
4) If it comes back marked "not allowed", ban it globally.
That way, the legal bans only apply to the smallest allowed region, but we then take that as a strong hint that it might not be allowable on the platform in general.
That allows us to operate in Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the US, each country with different things considered "illegal speech".
If some readers think this is NZ deciding for the world what Facebook publishes, they will have a very different response to someone who thinks the takedown only applies in NZ.
Moderation on the internet is difficult problem. From past experience from submitting classification requests, they are pretty lenient on what gets classified. But it’s not like it’s done behind closed doors.
What I don’t like about some moderation tool on Facebook is that we don’t know what is moderated, by who, for who, and why.
I saw someone else say there should be a registry of sorts for moderated content so it’s visible which I think is good. (The moderation not the content itself)
> We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice.
I wish companies in the free world would unite to choose the latter option, and so force New Zealand to choose between giving in and allowing freedom of speech, or having their Internet become as useless as North Korea's.
All of the defenders of the policy reminds me of when Google's CEO Eric Schmidt in 2009(!) famously defended mass surveillance:
> "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
If what the gov is censoring is so important then they should publicly post a list of everything they censored (Google's public DMCA list is a good example). They have nothing to hide right? If it's for the public good then the public should have the option to see what they were being protected from.
Well, we have some knowledge; we know for a fact NZ has censored the manifesto and recorded video stream of Brenton Tarrant, the guy who elaborately planned and carried out a massacre of 51 people at a mosque in Christchurch. I believe they've done the same for stuff like ISIS and other terrorist materials, but I don't know the specific details of that.
In the Tarrant case we do know: the manifesto (not too hard to find) is about equal parts polemic and roadmap/planning document. The video recording is from a helmet-mounter camera and basically looks like a first person shooter video, except that all the targets are fleeing civilians. It's not impossible for people in NZ to see these materials; academics, journalists and so on can apply for permits to obtain and possess the material. Absent that, possession is, as I understand it, a crime, but one with a very low chance of being caught. The primary intent of the law is to have a strong sanction to prevent people distributing it and inciting similar incidents in the future.
I'm not convinced that forcing the materials fully out of circulation is a foolproof preventive strategy, but it certainly creates barriers to the acquisition/ collection of such material by wannabes, and collecting this sort of material is definitely A Thing among other mass shooters, who are quite a bit more social than most people imagine and have an online community of sorts.
So the free speech argument generally goes along the lines of 'we don't know what we don't know, allowing the free flow of ideas is the only rational way to ensure freedom of life and the discovery of new ideas without inhibition.' But from NZ's point of view, they definitely don't care for a repeat or innovation in the practice of massacres, and the surviving relatives and neighbors of the dead presumably don't care to see the murder of family and friends become a an entertainment commodity or be weaponized by trolls who use the material to traumatize them further (please, let's not pretend that this doesn't happen). And they've balanced their prohibition with exceptions for serious analysis and study with a straightforward application process, albeit a subjective one that is administered by bureaucrats rather than a mechanical system.
So there's a concrete example, with come added context (sorry, it's late and I'm not at my main machine so I'm not going to dig up a pile of links/documents to flesh it out to article quality). So, should we accord any weight to those considerations, including the exceptions, and if not why not?
> It's not impossible for people in NZ to see these materials; academics, journalists and so on can apply for permits to obtain and possess the material. Absent that, possession is, as I understand it, a crime, but one with a very low chance of being caught. The primary intent of the law is to have a strong sanction to prevent people distributing it and inciting similar incidents in the future.
This is not accurate. After the incident the NZ police were demanding that websites turn over IP logs for people accessing the manifesto or video, using that to get subscriber info from ISPs, and then attempting to imprison people for up to 14 years just for mere possession of illegal information [0].
And the idea that someone would have to get a license to see that material is just fundamentally offensive to the idea of free expression and access to information. For one, anyone who does journalism is a journalist, whether they have a Twitter account or a CNN primetime show. The NZ government should butt right out of attempting to gatekeep the profession that holds them to account. There is an overwhelming public interest in the populace being able to access that material, despite its extremely horrific and offensive nature. For one, it is evidence used to convict a man for multiple murders. A fundamental principle of a fair justice system is an open court system, and that means allowing people to access and examine the court transcripts and exhibits, including the videos and documents. It was also just an extremely newsworthy event that affected millions of people in New Zealand (public policy changes) and at least hundreds of millions worldwide [1]. It's quite Orwellian to cite this as the inciting incident for restricting the right of free expression and seizing firearms, while not even letting citizens examine the evidence first-hand! That's how we end up with crazy conspiracy theories about crisis actors.
I think we should consider such arguments — but we must consider their inverse: what happens when they’re wrong or abusive?
And we’ve seen that answer during COVID: those tools will be used to silence qualified scientists engaged in civil debate by bureaucrats enforcing their preferred choice — an act of totalitarianism. That will lead to loss of life as QALY negative treatments are enforced with the might of the state.
There’s around 7,000 deaths per year in NZ (based on a quick Google) and the non-COVID death spike has averaged 10% for two years — so about 1,400 people.
Censorship then comes down to a question:
Do we prevent 28 Christchurch shootings for every COVID-style bureaucratic fuckup?
I’m against NZ’s censorship because I decide what I get to read and hear, not the government. That such laws are rarely enforced is worse, not better. It means the authorities are engaging in favoritism and possibly going after their political opponents.
> "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Well great! Let's find out all the judgements of the secret courts, all the top secret info, where our money is going, etc. Government works for us right? I don't want to be nannied, I want the truth. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
Why should the government have privacy but the individual not? Very asymmetric no? Whenever the government does something wrong, we likely don't find out at all, but if we do we have to go to its courts or legal system to get it addressed. It, on the other hand, can fine us for vices where no one is harmed.
That’s such a ridiculous over exaggeration of the situation in New Zealand.
Frankly it’s disappointing the amount of people on HN posting knee jerk reactions about this article who also have no idea about New Zealand’s politics. Worsened by the irony that they are themselves living in countries with greater censorship than New Zealand (and at least New Zealand is transparent about such matters. Which is more than can be said for Britain or America).
You are not forced to pay income taxes anymore than you are forced to use toll roads to go to the grocery store or pay sales taxes when you get there.
A taxpayer can choose not to engage in activities which incur taxes, so long as he is willing to forgo his corresponding reliance on the structures of social trust and physical infrastructure.
A slave will be beaten if he does not work.
The hyperbolic analogy you are looking for is not slavery but a mafia protection racket.
The filter is voluntary for ISPs to join, and the Department of Internal Affairs (which runs it) doesn't have the power to make it mandatory.
Also the Office of Film and Literature Classification lets you look at the classifications for everything online (including stuff that is banned), IIRC with a reason as to why it was classified the way it was.
IP filters don't really work for something like facebook or twitter though - they block everything or nothing - really you need to get them involved to limit what they send to NZ clients
NZ would have turned Facebook off, and said precisely why - Facebook wanted the ability to continue to distribute videos showing a terrorist
murdering New Zealanders who were praying.
The NZ Government would have won that argument.
"Facebook refused to honour and respect our laws. They prefer to distribute illegal content, so we have turned them off at the border."
It wouldn’t happen. Facebook works because it’s more than social media. You have a market place, clubs, businesses, etc on Facebook.
When you take all that away because you can’t advertise your Facebook page. Or your parents can’t just open their phone to see photos of your baby. The effort outweighs the benefit and people won’t use a vpn to access it.
Just a fringe group of people who want the content no matter what.
No, he's talking about the ability to install an IP block for packets coming into NZ, not in other countries - in the past, as I understand it this has largly been used to black hole child porn sites
I'm talking about NZ's history of censorship, the tools that they already have for Internet censorship, and why the NZ government considered it important.
The IP block is a tool. It is also able to intercept HTTP traffic for sub-domain blocks, but everything is https now, so that doesn't work.
That leaves IP blocking, which I'm pretty sure NZ would have done if Facebook had refused to block content deemed illegal to import into NZ.
NZ has blocked the importation of books and video going back to 1880 (according to Wikipedia)[1].
New Zealanders continue to decide to keep the Classification Office - none of the political parties consider it an "issue". It works for the kiwis.
It was several years ago, but as I recall, Some (not all) NZ ISPs installed the filtering system, which let most IPs through, but redirected some to web proxies which were configured to filter banned content.
How does that work with Whatsapp? It claims E2E. Yet Australia requires companies to develop backdoors if necessary to get access to private information.
So NZ has laws that censor some content, and an official office of the censor that decides which things are illegal and which are not - for example the snuff film made by the Aussie terrorist in Christchurch is illegal in NZ, even though Elon has let it return to Twitter it's still illegal for Twitter (or Facebook) to show it in NZ.
You may disagree with censorship, or with what should censored, but most western countries still have censorship laws and media companies need to honour them.
If you disagree with the laws in your country, go out and change them, that's what democracy is all about. But you don't get to change other countries' laws.
Companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc that want to provide international services need to actively honour ALL the laws in the countries that the operate in - those laws may be contradictory, if a movie can be shown in country A but not country B needs then they need to make sure that can't happen or else they are in legal peril - having a portal that a country can use to declare what is illegal in that country is probably a great idea, the alternative is for say Facebook having an employee who spends all their time monitoring the output of a country's censorship office.
Such a portal can be abused, obviously we don't want governments just banning random stuff they don't like, rather than the process of an independent process like NZ's Censor's office, equally we probably don't want to publish the things that are being reported ("look over here, that's where all the child porn is"), I think this is a difficult are - perhaps we should make what's reported here open, but only in categories without giving URLs/details
The problem is such laws can, and will, be used to self-perpetuate.
For example: In Brazil the constitution says you have free speech and the right to criticize government officials...
Yet the judiciary branch, although often they rule it is free speech when someone criticize lawmaker, will happily say it is NOT free speech when someone criticize a judge.
Cue most recent elections, not wanting to enter in the merits of who deserves to be president, but one obvious case of abuse of office happened when the supreme court ruled that a retired member of the court should be censored and that reporting any news about this subject should be censored too, all because that retired member explained the technical legal details of a past decision, and the supreme court decided that even though everything he said was factual, correct and true, it "could be used for misinformation" and thus should be censored.
Western censorship laws tend to be really old, New Zealand's had such a law since 1857 (around about when we first started passing laws, before that the UK's probably applied) - and are largely aimed at obscenity (not political discourse)
I'd challenge you to show where the NZ Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act allows censorship because of a particular political point of view
It looks like most of the political censorship in NZ was to suppress anti-war publications, which has been less of an issue since that particular law was passed. Other censorship laws blocked movies like All Quiet on the Western Front as well as communist publications.
The only political point of view I've noticed that was censored under that particular act (based on 5 minutes of perusing Wikipedia) was supporting euthanasia, which is illegal in NZ
How would you or me know they didn't sensor political speech on Facebook or another social media platform?
Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Is the publisher of content on social media being notified they are censored in NZ ? Do they have a right to appeal ? How will they appeal if they don't get notified ? Is the appeal process simple and inexpensive enough for independent content creator to avail ?
For censorship to work, the system of censorship should be very objective, clear and transparent and with avenues for inexpensive recourse.
NZ and all commonwealth countries which have similar systems are not close to that. These are system as you say were not designed for social media so have no business censoring social media unless they have adapted ( which they have not). Inefficient bureaucracy also suppresses free speech not just conservative or authoritative regimes.
As you can imagine, most of the decisions seem to be focused on CSAM. But it also lists non-video censorship.
I'm not sure I'd call it highly visible, but it's very easy to find and search. I have no idea what the disputes process looks like, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have one.
Can you make the same case using a country sharing a similar lack of public sector corruption with New Zealand? New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries, Brazil not so much: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
The key word is operate. If you operate in a country you have to follow its laws. If you run a business as a single entity you only have to follow the laws of the country there it is based.
Why? Because the jurisdiction of foreign countries ends at their border.
My products are sold globally but are probably illegal in many places. I don't give a flying fuck about complying with another countries laws. For example, one of my businesses is illegal in China, do I self censor it to prevent having Chinese customers? No, if any Chinese break the law using my products - that's on them, it's their choice, I give them the power to do what they want.
Facebook does operate in NZ but it's unclear whether this company is responsible for the public facing product, or is just reselling advertising from a seperate company. It could be dissolved tomorrow and nothing would happen because NZ isn't going to block Facebook like Iran or Egypt.
The NZ government has no legal or defacto control over what happens on Facebook.
> If you run a business as a single entity you only have to follow the laws of the country there it is based.
That train of thought hasn't worked out well for a lot of business people running, say, online gambling that violates US law, while based in Bermuda. They often get detained in transit through the the US.
If you want to operate in a market, you have to obey the laws of the nation governing that market. Otherwise, you don't get to.
In New Zealand it does - The Harmful Digital Communications act provides a safe harbour provided someone like Facebook participates in helping deal with abusive content, and takes it down where appropriate
Again, as I said above, countries can pass their own laws - that's what gives them the legal right to do stuff - equally Facebook is free not to do business in any country they like
I am starting to think that a middle ground in the censorship wars would be to have a publicly available domain that shows what exactly is being censored in that country that anyone can look at.
So that way governments could still use these tools where appropriate (because sometimes there is a good reason for censorship) but journalists/lawyers/activists would still be able to see what is being censored with a little effort which would allow journalists to provide transparency.
This could allow for government to still censor but keep the public's trust about how censorship is used.
> I am starting to think that a middle ground in the censorship wars would be to have a publicly available domain that shows what exactly is being censored in that country that anyone can look at.
that is a bare minimum, but insufficient by itself
Yeah, that defeats the purpose of censoring leftist news organizations. Ain't happening, the public must know in their hearts that censorship only affects the far right. Only then can they accept it.
I wonder if we need some kind of other independent institution for this. Like every proper democracy should have a separation of powers with: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary.
Maybe the "misinformation office" should follow some kind of law but isn't directly managed by politicians.
The last paragraphs of the article discuss the U.S. government and California:
> Most other governments haven’t admitted that they have access to these portals. However, last year The White House did admit that the United States (US) Surgeon General’s Office is flagging posts for Facebook to censor.
> The Intercept’s report on this Facebook content takedown portal claimed that several other United States (US) government agencies have access to the portal, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
> Documents released as part of 2021 lawsuits suggest that the California Secretary of State’s Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC) also has access to the Facebook takedown portal and a similar type of portal on Twitter.
Is it really surprising that some users would have "pro tools" of some sort with major websites? Or an API? Like, the ability to batch-report content for review?
It is not surprising. I think reporting is good, not a problem. Reporting is not censorship. Misinformation is an acute problem. Who better to fight against it than a democratically elected government? Who else is on people's side? Mega-corporations? Dictators? This reporting of mis-information should be transparent however. Reporting on misinformation should be made public. Of course.
I looked at both of those websites. Utterly dystopian. It feels like GPT is writing from an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative view point. This is the future, only now.
The question was: “ Has the government, any division of the government, any member of the government, or any organisation acting on behalf of the government, ever had partner access to Facebook’s takedown portal previously found (since removed) at https://facebook.com/xtakedowns/login?”
Here[0] is Meta's Nick Clegg telling Indian journalists that Meta does not take sides in politics. Looks like they provide tools to the ruling political parties to do what they want. This is a way for "possible deniability".
An argument has been made over the past few years that a free country has to be able to ban or censor a vector of foreign propaganda, in order to protect its freedom and democracy.
Note that this "takedown portal" is just a "flag content" portal. It doesn't mean Facebook automatically takes it down but does get immediate attention.
This seems a reasonable compromise after the NZ experience with the Christchurch shooter where immediate action to take down the stream would have been appropriate.
I’m sure Jacinda Ardern and her current government are being targeted internationally by hybrid warfare type disinformation techniques. My guess is that it’s a reaction to her being held up as an example of a young progressive woman in a position of power and getting through the beginning of Covid without to many deaths by relying on a functional social contract. Read a piece like this with a critical eye to what power struggles behind the scenes produced it.
Also in the context of the mass murder in Christchurch live streamed on Facebook.
a country of 5 million people in the middle of nowhere
This is a specious argument to make on a site called hacker news on the internet in 2022. The fact that video could be livestreamed globally from NZ with only a GoPro and a phone renders your argument moot. NZ is not a hugely powerful country or in a militarily strategic location (much), but it's a wealthy developed country that's part of the Anglosphere and fully plugged into the digital economy. If you can't see how NZ could be leveraged this way, you need to think more about technology, history, and how they have impacted each other through the centuries.
She's the head of government of a relatively wealthy country whos party has a majority, despite MMP, with no independent executive, no upper house, and no constitution.
That's the opposite of a figurehead. She has more power than any other western politician.
She does not have any power, her party has power collectively. A prime minister has no more power than any other minister. She's not like a president, she can't decree law.
NZ also has a constitution, the constitution is made up of multiple discreet documents including Te Tiriti O Waitangi, the founding document of New Zealand, the bill of rights act, the human rights act, the constitution act, etc.
The lack of a constitution is in some ways a good thing, democracy has to evolve as time evolves, some countries place too much of their identity in outdated laws which are 231 years old.
The lack of a constitution is in some ways a good thing, democracy has to evolve as time evolves, some countries place too much of their identity in outdated laws which are 231 years old.
Other countries rely too much on a badly translated treaty not signed by half the country describing an arrangement that no longer exists that's 182 years old.
Might be best not to throw stones from single-paned glass houses.
Cool, so I understood correctly: In response to "NZ has no constitution", you respond first that it does and then follow with why it's good that it doesn't.
I thought this was such a bold argument that I must have misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry, I meant the lack of an overarching constitutional document gives more flexibility as it's not one thing which is held up as an almost holy document. The closest we've got it the treaty of Waitangi.
In case anyone else got interested about how wealthy NZ is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wea... says it's the 28th most wealthiest country. Interestingly it has a high wealth to gdp ratio, so a choice of total "wealth" as the criteria makes it seem higher than looking at total GDP rank where NZ is 51st.
Sounds exactly like the kind of baseless conspiracy theory that would be made up to try to deflect criticism about authoritarian actions by a government.
I’m sorry but hacker news is not the correct place for serious discussion of NZ politics, please go to the Trademe forums or the Nzherald comments section.
There is evidence of funding coming in for some radical right groups. I’m not sure an instant dismissal is possible order, but the OP giving a link or two would have been helpful.
This is a long way from conspiracy theories like "Jacinda Ardern and her current government are being targeted internationally by hybrid warfare type disinformation techniques." and "it’s a reaction to her being held up as an example of a young progressive woman in a position of power and getting through the beginning of Covid without to many deaths by relying on a functional social contract."
Sure, some shadowy entity (probably connected to Putin and also secret Nazis) are waging hybrid warfare on New Zealand because Jacinta is so progressive and young and a woman, and that's why she needs the ability to take down any facebook content (critical of her authoritarianism?), also something something covid and mass shootings. Just screams hysterical ultra left wing fear mongering conspiracy theory.
I linked to an article on Steve Bannon and his shenanigans.
Being concerned about that man is far from hysterical left conspiracy theory. He is a problem and New Zealanders overwhelming reject his crap (see local body elections, and the coming general election).
This is disturbing news about New Zealand's access to the Facebook takedown portal for censorship. It's alarming that the government has such direct control over what content is allowed on the platform and raises concerns about freedom of speech. This is yet another example of the need for more transparency and accountability in the relationship between tech companies and governments.
Freedom is defined differently in different countries, in New Zealand the general rule is you have freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't impact on the freedom of others.
Therefore, you can have freedom of speech but you can't live stream a terror attack, which is what happened. A foreign terrorist live streamed an attack on Facebook.
Despite this, NZ ranks as the second freest country in the world, and has much less censorship than other countries like the US who don't even crack the top 10.
I would be wary of a government telling me that a horrible terrorist attack has taken place, that a video exists with clear evidence of who did it and why, but that I'm not allowed to view it or show it to others.
Why would you want to see it? How could viewing it improve your life? There are things in life you can't unsee. Like, really unsee. Awake at 3am can't unsee.
They don't want people to see it because it will motivate copy cats. People get perverse enjoyment from it, like that white supremacist from Christchurch who put a kill counter on it.
What do you think the survivors think about that video being out there for you to enjoy? The victims families?
At the very least we have the right to privacy here, you can't legally film people on private property without their consent.
> They don't want people to see it because it will motivate copy cats.
The problem with that line of argument is that even if it's true, it undermines democracy. Democracy is based on the equality of all citizens. But you're segmenting people into two groups: those with superior intrinsic qualities and moral and intellectual strength that they can watch the problematic video without turning into copycats. People usually include themselves in that group and believe this group can work in the censorship office.
And then the other group, which is perceived as weak and in needs of protection (usually included: people we don't like).
Note that you must make the judgement who belongs in which group before anyone is allowed to see the problematic video. Note who makes the official judgment.
New Zealand has one of the strongest democracies on earth. It’s hard to square that reality with the fear that we are weakening it by blocking this sort of content.
Arguing that we would have an even strong democracy if we could watch a video of that nut job shooting people is quite the claim. The killer has inspired other hate crimes, and I believe his video is a big part of his way of spreading his message.
Yes, we have laws that's why we live in a society.
People that work in the censorship office don't make calls based on morals, that make calls based on policy, they also face mental health challenges and get the support needed to a look at this content without radicalising or breaking down.
While pushing for your right to view the video, you're also ignoring the rights of the victims. How is it that you're right is more important than theirs?
All these companies have to be censorship platforms even if it does not make economic sense to them. Otherwise DC and the governing elite will crush them for not serving their interests and their close circle of “allies.” Bet that portal would be shut if New Zealand got close to China or strayed away from the party line.
This may sound defeatist or paranoid, but I heard from somebody that works at a relevant company that most countries have the ability to censor/tap all types of things based on their local laws which may be very self serving politically (e.g. India).
I guess this isn't too surprising if you've followed the China/Apple thing.
They already have an internet filter which blocks access to certain domains/ip ranges/etc. [2]
Of course they would require similar abilities once Facebook came to their notice by broadcasting a terrorist's murder spree. [3]
It would have been "You are selling to New Zealanders. We will have the ability to censor information passed to NZ IP addresses, or we will block the IP range, your choice."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_Office_(New_Zea...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_New_Zea...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
(I used to submit for classification for adult content for distribution in NZ or streaming in hotels)
Edit: so HN wants Twitter moderation and censorship but a country censoring videos and text books is a big no no.
I have no big problems with websites limiting what users can post (HN is also ding this!), but I have big problems with politicians having ability to for example take down content criticizing them.
Content that should be made illegal to post anywhere at all is in my opinion extremely rare, and basically all censorship system should censor less. Sadly, some things needs to be blocked and once system exists it inevitably gets misused.
Not sure what the proper solution is.
Therefore, they'll help set policy for what needs to be taken down, but a politician will not be able to take down content, they may request the censor office does this, but they won't be able to force them or do it themselves.
NZ is an outlier in the world, but it is a very strong liberal democracy. It has very low levels of corruption, very high levels of public confidence in government, very transparent ways of operating, and very strong media and public participation to hold the public sector to account.
Other countries might abuse this system, but I doubt New Zealand is.
The Prime Minister can only exercise control over the military by policy? They have no input to operations at all? Seems extraordinary. Wikipedia says that ministers exercise authority.
Seems like it is less a democracy than rule by a professional elite with a thin veneer of elections to keep the people happy.
An example is during covid, the government set policy around what could be done but the police were ultimately in charge with how they enforced it. Additionally New Zealand has a culture of egalitarianism and community. While there is growing inequality, there isn't an elite yet.
The government provides checks on the public service and the public service provides checks on the government.
Another example is the treasury prevents the government going into debt unless there are extreme circumstances and a plan to get back into surplus. The government can't just cut taxes and up borrowing to buy votes, they need to be fiscally responsible and that's controlled by the treasury.
Ultimately New Zealand has a reasonably direct, accessable, and transparent form of government which represents the community that it serves, it is rated top in the democracy list for a reason.
Is this a hypothetical? Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.
depends on a country
> Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.
This does not mean that no content was taken down solely for criticizing politicians.
Because trust me, New Zealand's opposition parties, social media, and the real media, would be on that like flies on shit if there was even a hint that it had happened. All it would take is someone saying "Wtf, my FB post calling Jacinda Ardern a pretty communist was mysteriously deleted."
I guess it's good to live in a nation where corruption is low, and the rule of law applies to all, the media is free, and who deliberates on questions of law isn't decided by politicians.
Because I know that any of the behaviour you posit would be absolutely called out.
Like the time a New Zealand Prime Minister sent the Police in to find an investigative journalist's sources, because it embarrassed him and his government.
Or the time that the New Zealand Defence Force sicced the internal intelligence service on the same journalist to find his sources because he embarrassed them...
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/104638742/police-apo...
https://i.stuff.co.nz/opinion/130640313/the-dirty-politics-b...
The fact that a) these things happened concerns me but b) that it was exposed to the light heartens me.
So yeah, if you've got evidence of what you posit actually occurring, please share it.
Yes. In communist Poland "You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored" was used and designed to keep criticism of ruling class and ruling system out of public view.
----------------------------
Note that I am not claiming that NZ is currently abusing this system, or that NZ system is intended to provide such use.
I was responding to
> Because plenty of content on FB criticising New Zealand's politicians.
that is not really indicating anything, except lack of USSR-level censorship.
Maybe confusion was caused because I responded to
> But that sort of censorship is fine. You submit the content for classification. With documentation. And they send it back with a detailed report of what needs to be censored and why.
treating is a claim in general, not specifically about NZ
(I do not want to claim anything about NZ as I am not familiar with it)
The post saying that would also be deleted in that scenario.
Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want. Censorship is blocking content that both the sender and the receiver want.
Gmail running spam filters is moderation. The government blocking you from sending emails to journalists is censorship.
Except when it isn’t. All media content goes through classification and censorship in New Zealand. You cannot air anything on tv without classification.
My comment was on the processor of classification and censorship that occurs during the classification process.
> Moderation is blocking content when the sender wants to communicate something the receiver doesn't want.
Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want.
You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content.
This was your original comment. Yes, people want moderation of their platforms, otherwise they become unusable. Most people want some degree of censorship (CSAM is the obvious case). But there's a big difference between Twitter censoring something and the government doing it. For example Facebook can say "hey we don't want people posting nude photos" - that's censorship. And that's fine; they don't want to run a site that has nude photos.
>>Then Twitter, Facebook, etc do not have moderation teams. They have censorship teams. Because they are blocking content people do want.
Yep, they do both, in varying degrees. The government should be more restrained.
>>You might disagree with Trump. But removing his tweets and banning him is censorship as people do agree with him and do want his content.
Yes, it absolutely is censorship. And if twitter wants to do that I'm fine with that. I don't want the government doing that.
Because people downvoted me to -4 before anyone commented. Since I only talked about censorship in regards to traditional media it was safe to assume people dislike censorship of traditional media. Which is a contradiction to wanting censorship and moderation on social media.
> Yes, it absolutely is censorship. And if twitter wants to do that I'm fine with that. I don't want the government doing that.
I agree but Twitter in the past is very inconsistent in its moderation and censorship. Stuff that’s an absolute violation of rules is allowed but borderline violations on the right are quickly dealt with. I’m fine with a private company doing it if it’s consistent.
There are always trade offs but I think we are better off with zero censorship. What are we worried about? Will we become Jihadists after seeing a Taliban post? Are with that impressionable that anything we see sticks in the brain as truth? If so, perhaps we should try to solve the root problem.
These definitions don’t work, because there is always some (possibly extremely small) population that wants the content, ergo you could say all moderation is censorship to some people.
Between this and the matt taibi twitter discussion, the conclusion is that Americans overwhelmingly are for censorship of " the otherside", but wants to do it in such a way that it can't be called censorship. It's not that they don't want censorship, but they don't want to do it in a transparent way in which a government entity/clerk hands in a takedown request to fb/twitter, instead they want embedded partisan operatives operating through backchannels to takedown content they don't like in absolutely opaque fashion. The point is to claim - "see it's not censorship" even though the end result is the same. All it matters is how it looks like, not what it is.
It could be "send to the front of the moderation queue." or, it could be "ban it immediately globally".
People's perception also probably depends on how far they believe a ban applied to Facebook extends. Does it extend to NZ only, or worldwide?
If I were designing this system:
1) Upon receipt of a ban request by a governmental org.
2) If legally required, immediately ban it to all IP ranges inside of that country/region - there is typically a SLA with penalties here, e.g. 1hr in EU.
3) Send it to the front of the moderation queue.
4) If it comes back marked "not allowed", ban it globally.
That way, the legal bans only apply to the smallest allowed region, but we then take that as a strong hint that it might not be allowable on the platform in general.
That allows us to operate in Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the US, each country with different things considered "illegal speech".
If some readers think this is NZ deciding for the world what Facebook publishes, they will have a very different response to someone who thinks the takedown only applies in NZ.
What I don’t like about some moderation tool on Facebook is that we don’t know what is moderated, by who, for who, and why.
I saw someone else say there should be a registry of sorts for moderated content so it’s visible which I think is good. (The moderation not the content itself)
Yes, of course? I can choose not to use Twitter but I have no choice but to submit to censorship.
Yes, that's actually very sensible.
I wish companies in the free world would unite to choose the latter option, and so force New Zealand to choose between giving in and allowing freedom of speech, or having their Internet become as useless as North Korea's.
> "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
If what the gov is censoring is so important then they should publicly post a list of everything they censored (Google's public DMCA list is a good example). They have nothing to hide right? If it's for the public good then the public should have the option to see what they were being protected from.
In the Tarrant case we do know: the manifesto (not too hard to find) is about equal parts polemic and roadmap/planning document. The video recording is from a helmet-mounter camera and basically looks like a first person shooter video, except that all the targets are fleeing civilians. It's not impossible for people in NZ to see these materials; academics, journalists and so on can apply for permits to obtain and possess the material. Absent that, possession is, as I understand it, a crime, but one with a very low chance of being caught. The primary intent of the law is to have a strong sanction to prevent people distributing it and inciting similar incidents in the future.
I'm not convinced that forcing the materials fully out of circulation is a foolproof preventive strategy, but it certainly creates barriers to the acquisition/ collection of such material by wannabes, and collecting this sort of material is definitely A Thing among other mass shooters, who are quite a bit more social than most people imagine and have an online community of sorts.
So the free speech argument generally goes along the lines of 'we don't know what we don't know, allowing the free flow of ideas is the only rational way to ensure freedom of life and the discovery of new ideas without inhibition.' But from NZ's point of view, they definitely don't care for a repeat or innovation in the practice of massacres, and the surviving relatives and neighbors of the dead presumably don't care to see the murder of family and friends become a an entertainment commodity or be weaponized by trolls who use the material to traumatize them further (please, let's not pretend that this doesn't happen). And they've balanced their prohibition with exceptions for serious analysis and study with a straightforward application process, albeit a subjective one that is administered by bureaucrats rather than a mechanical system.
So there's a concrete example, with come added context (sorry, it's late and I'm not at my main machine so I'm not going to dig up a pile of links/documents to flesh it out to article quality). So, should we accord any weight to those considerations, including the exceptions, and if not why not?
This is not accurate. After the incident the NZ police were demanding that websites turn over IP logs for people accessing the manifesto or video, using that to get subscriber info from ISPs, and then attempting to imprison people for up to 14 years just for mere possession of illegal information [0].
And the idea that someone would have to get a license to see that material is just fundamentally offensive to the idea of free expression and access to information. For one, anyone who does journalism is a journalist, whether they have a Twitter account or a CNN primetime show. The NZ government should butt right out of attempting to gatekeep the profession that holds them to account. There is an overwhelming public interest in the populace being able to access that material, despite its extremely horrific and offensive nature. For one, it is evidence used to convict a man for multiple murders. A fundamental principle of a fair justice system is an open court system, and that means allowing people to access and examine the court transcripts and exhibits, including the videos and documents. It was also just an extremely newsworthy event that affected millions of people in New Zealand (public policy changes) and at least hundreds of millions worldwide [1]. It's quite Orwellian to cite this as the inciting incident for restricting the right of free expression and seizing firearms, while not even letting citizens examine the evidence first-hand! That's how we end up with crazy conspiracy theories about crisis actors.
[0] - https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/397953/charges-laid-in-3...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_Call_to_Action_Su...
And we’ve seen that answer during COVID: those tools will be used to silence qualified scientists engaged in civil debate by bureaucrats enforcing their preferred choice — an act of totalitarianism. That will lead to loss of life as QALY negative treatments are enforced with the might of the state.
There’s around 7,000 deaths per year in NZ (based on a quick Google) and the non-COVID death spike has averaged 10% for two years — so about 1,400 people.
Censorship then comes down to a question:
Do we prevent 28 Christchurch shootings for every COVID-style bureaucratic fuckup?
I’m not sure it’s entirely obvious either way.
Well great! Let's find out all the judgements of the secret courts, all the top secret info, where our money is going, etc. Government works for us right? I don't want to be nannied, I want the truth. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.
Why should the government have privacy but the individual not? Very asymmetric no? Whenever the government does something wrong, we likely don't find out at all, but if we do we have to go to its courts or legal system to get it addressed. It, on the other hand, can fine us for vices where no one is harmed.
Frankly it’s disappointing the amount of people on HN posting knee jerk reactions about this article who also have no idea about New Zealand’s politics. Worsened by the irony that they are themselves living in countries with greater censorship than New Zealand (and at least New Zealand is transparent about such matters. Which is more than can be said for Britain or America).
Consider it a spectrum.
A taxpayer can choose not to engage in activities which incur taxes, so long as he is willing to forgo his corresponding reliance on the structures of social trust and physical infrastructure.
A slave will be beaten if he does not work.
The hyperbolic analogy you are looking for is not slavery but a mafia protection racket.
You would argue you are more free being forced to work for a mafia protection racket, than as a slave.
Also the Office of Film and Literature Classification lets you look at the classifications for everything online (including stuff that is banned), IIRC with a reason as to why it was classified the way it was.
The NZ Government would have won that argument.
"Facebook refused to honour and respect our laws. They prefer to distribute illegal content, so we have turned them off at the border."
When you take all that away because you can’t advertise your Facebook page. Or your parents can’t just open their phone to see photos of your baby. The effort outweighs the benefit and people won’t use a vpn to access it.
Just a fringe group of people who want the content no matter what.
The IP block is a tool. It is also able to intercept HTTP traffic for sub-domain blocks, but everything is https now, so that doesn't work.
That leaves IP blocking, which I'm pretty sure NZ would have done if Facebook had refused to block content deemed illegal to import into NZ.
NZ has blocked the importation of books and video going back to 1880 (according to Wikipedia)[1].
New Zealanders continue to decide to keep the Classification Office - none of the political parties consider it an "issue". It works for the kiwis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_in_New_Ze...
It was several years ago, but as I recall, Some (not all) NZ ISPs installed the filtering system, which let most IPs through, but redirected some to web proxies which were configured to filter banned content.
You may disagree with censorship, or with what should censored, but most western countries still have censorship laws and media companies need to honour them.
If you disagree with the laws in your country, go out and change them, that's what democracy is all about. But you don't get to change other countries' laws.
Companies like Facebook/Twitter/etc that want to provide international services need to actively honour ALL the laws in the countries that the operate in - those laws may be contradictory, if a movie can be shown in country A but not country B needs then they need to make sure that can't happen or else they are in legal peril - having a portal that a country can use to declare what is illegal in that country is probably a great idea, the alternative is for say Facebook having an employee who spends all their time monitoring the output of a country's censorship office.
Such a portal can be abused, obviously we don't want governments just banning random stuff they don't like, rather than the process of an independent process like NZ's Censor's office, equally we probably don't want to publish the things that are being reported ("look over here, that's where all the child porn is"), I think this is a difficult are - perhaps we should make what's reported here open, but only in categories without giving URLs/details
For example: In Brazil the constitution says you have free speech and the right to criticize government officials...
Yet the judiciary branch, although often they rule it is free speech when someone criticize lawmaker, will happily say it is NOT free speech when someone criticize a judge.
Cue most recent elections, not wanting to enter in the merits of who deserves to be president, but one obvious case of abuse of office happened when the supreme court ruled that a retired member of the court should be censored and that reporting any news about this subject should be censored too, all because that retired member explained the technical legal details of a past decision, and the supreme court decided that even though everything he said was factual, correct and true, it "could be used for misinformation" and thus should be censored.
I'd challenge you to show where the NZ Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act allows censorship because of a particular political point of view
The only political point of view I've noticed that was censored under that particular act (based on 5 minutes of perusing Wikipedia) was supporting euthanasia, which is illegal in NZ
Are they clearly documenting how many times what content is being exactly censored why and then transparently publishing that to everyone ? Is the publisher of content on social media being notified they are censored in NZ ? Do they have a right to appeal ? How will they appeal if they don't get notified ? Is the appeal process simple and inexpensive enough for independent content creator to avail ?
For censorship to work, the system of censorship should be very objective, clear and transparent and with avenues for inexpensive recourse.
NZ and all commonwealth countries which have similar systems are not close to that. These are system as you say were not designed for social media so have no business censoring social media unless they have adapted ( which they have not). Inefficient bureaucracy also suppresses free speech not just conservative or authoritative regimes.
https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/...
As you can imagine, most of the decisions seem to be focused on CSAM. But it also lists non-video censorship.
I'm not sure I'd call it highly visible, but it's very easy to find and search. I have no idea what the disputes process looks like, but I'd be shocked if they didn't have one.
https://register.classificationoffice.govt.nz/Pages/Screens/...
Albeit most of the entires under banned when searching without a filter are self explanatory.
Yes, they do
Why? Because the jurisdiction of foreign countries ends at their border.
My products are sold globally but are probably illegal in many places. I don't give a flying fuck about complying with another countries laws. For example, one of my businesses is illegal in China, do I self censor it to prevent having Chinese customers? No, if any Chinese break the law using my products - that's on them, it's their choice, I give them the power to do what they want.
Facebook does operate in NZ but it's unclear whether this company is responsible for the public facing product, or is just reselling advertising from a seperate company. It could be dissolved tomorrow and nothing would happen because NZ isn't going to block Facebook like Iran or Egypt.
The NZ government has no legal or defacto control over what happens on Facebook.
That train of thought hasn't worked out well for a lot of business people running, say, online gambling that violates US law, while based in Bermuda. They often get detained in transit through the the US.
If you want to operate in a market, you have to obey the laws of the nation governing that market. Otherwise, you don't get to.
It's straightforward.
Extradition treaties exist...
Again, as I said above, countries can pass their own laws - that's what gives them the legal right to do stuff - equally Facebook is free not to do business in any country they like
So that way governments could still use these tools where appropriate (because sometimes there is a good reason for censorship) but journalists/lawyers/activists would still be able to see what is being censored with a little effort which would allow journalists to provide transparency.
This could allow for government to still censor but keep the public's trust about how censorship is used.
that is a bare minimum, but insufficient by itself
Maybe the "misinformation office" should follow some kind of law but isn't directly managed by politicians.
I'd rather just have a public website available to anyone to view but updated through the normal channels. Last thing we need is another bureaucracy.
> Most other governments haven’t admitted that they have access to these portals. However, last year The White House did admit that the United States (US) Surgeon General’s Office is flagging posts for Facebook to censor.
> The Intercept’s report on this Facebook content takedown portal claimed that several other United States (US) government agencies have access to the portal, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
> Documents released as part of 2021 lawsuits suggest that the California Secretary of State’s Office of Elections Cybersecurity (OEC) also has access to the Facebook takedown portal and a similar type of portal on Twitter.
Given the overall tenor of the articles on reclaimthenet.org matches the others, would love to know who funds it.
[0]: https://thewashingtonstandard.com
[1]: https://www.australiannationalreview.com
Well, it was not part of the question so why should they disclose more details than necessary. Pointless sentence
> Please provide the number of Facebook posts your department has accessed through the portal, or at least an indication of the scope of interference.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkp2uQKDbHw
It's a Pandora's box that cuts both ways.
This seems a reasonable compromise after the NZ experience with the Christchurch shooter where immediate action to take down the stream would have been appropriate.
This is a specious argument to make on a site called hacker news on the internet in 2022. The fact that video could be livestreamed globally from NZ with only a GoPro and a phone renders your argument moot. NZ is not a hugely powerful country or in a militarily strategic location (much), but it's a wealthy developed country that's part of the Anglosphere and fully plugged into the digital economy. If you can't see how NZ could be leveraged this way, you need to think more about technology, history, and how they have impacted each other through the centuries.
That's the opposite of a figurehead. She has more power than any other western politician.
NZ also has a constitution, the constitution is made up of multiple discreet documents including Te Tiriti O Waitangi, the founding document of New Zealand, the bill of rights act, the human rights act, the constitution act, etc.
The lack of a constitution is in some ways a good thing, democracy has to evolve as time evolves, some countries place too much of their identity in outdated laws which are 231 years old.
Other countries rely too much on a badly translated treaty not signed by half the country describing an arrangement that no longer exists that's 182 years old.
Might be best not to throw stones from single-paned glass houses.
Out of curiosity, when you say "THE lack of a constitution" [emphasis mine], where are you referring to?
I thought this was such a bold argument that I must have misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wea... says it's the 28th most wealthiest country. Interestingly it has a high wealth to gdp ratio, so a choice of total "wealth" as the criteria makes it seem higher than looking at total GDP rank where NZ is 51st.
This is what came to mind for me: https://www.webworm.co/p/fakenews2
Sure, some shadowy entity (probably connected to Putin and also secret Nazis) are waging hybrid warfare on New Zealand because Jacinta is so progressive and young and a woman, and that's why she needs the ability to take down any facebook content (critical of her authoritarianism?), also something something covid and mass shootings. Just screams hysterical ultra left wing fear mongering conspiracy theory.
Being concerned about that man is far from hysterical left conspiracy theory. He is a problem and New Zealanders overwhelming reject his crap (see local body elections, and the coming general election).
Therefore, you can have freedom of speech but you can't live stream a terror attack, which is what happened. A foreign terrorist live streamed an attack on Facebook.
Despite this, NZ ranks as the second freest country in the world, and has much less censorship than other countries like the US who don't even crack the top 10.
I’m a New Zealander and fully support the blocking of that murderers content.
If that ever changes - we'd notice - and we'd make people aware of it.
I would be wary of a government telling me that a horrible terrorist attack has taken place, that a video exists with clear evidence of who did it and why, but that I'm not allowed to view it or show it to others.
I'm fine with facebook removing it.
That isn't your decision to make.
It quite literally wasn’t, and the op was ok with that. I am too.
NZs democracy functions better than most.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
What do you think the survivors think about that video being out there for you to enjoy? The victims families?
At the very least we have the right to privacy here, you can't legally film people on private property without their consent.
The problem with that line of argument is that even if it's true, it undermines democracy. Democracy is based on the equality of all citizens. But you're segmenting people into two groups: those with superior intrinsic qualities and moral and intellectual strength that they can watch the problematic video without turning into copycats. People usually include themselves in that group and believe this group can work in the censorship office.
And then the other group, which is perceived as weak and in needs of protection (usually included: people we don't like).
Note that you must make the judgement who belongs in which group before anyone is allowed to see the problematic video. Note who makes the official judgment.
Where is your line? What content is ok to block?
https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
https://apnews.com/article/australia-race-and-ethnicity-el-p...
People that work in the censorship office don't make calls based on morals, that make calls based on policy, they also face mental health challenges and get the support needed to a look at this content without radicalising or breaking down.
While pushing for your right to view the video, you're also ignoring the rights of the victims. How is it that you're right is more important than theirs?
There are plenty of problems in NZ but our democracy works better than most.
https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
I guess this isn't too surprising if you've followed the China/Apple thing.