[charbroiled]

> Of the deleted comments examined across platforms and countries, between 87.5% and 99.7%, depending on the sample, were legally permissible.

Even of the content that’s not “legally permissible,” it’s worth questioning what exactly is not permitted. It was mere months ago that the EU threatened YouTube for hosting “incitement to violence or propaganda for terrorist organizations”—a lot of which was actual real footage of massacres that is valuable and should not be suppressed in a free society, yet keeps getting taken down from platform after platform due to pressure from regulators. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37884292

This is a common practice in cultures that don’t believe in free speech according to the American standard. For example, videos of the Christchurch mosque shootings were banned by the New Zealand Chief Censor (yes, that’s a real title—https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/news-items/res...). Sharing the video can get you arrested. https://gizmodo.com/18-year-old-arrested-in-new-zealand-for-...

Surely it’s distasteful to keep these sordid videos available to and viewable by the general public, but when the government prohibits citizens from forming their opinions from stark video of real events, it drastically empowers inflammatory rhetoric on social media—more legally permissible according to their standards—to influence people’s opinions instead. That leaves society as a whole worse off.

[squigz]

On the topic of such videos, I do feel like more people need to view these things. Not casually, or as entertainment, but to get a glimpse of what these events are actually like. I watched the Christchurch shooting, and seeing the callousness of it all... I don't know, it changes you.

[brokenmachine]

I agree. I've seen a lot, but that Christchurch video was a very hard watch.

But in a way I'm happy I did see it, just to know what some people are capable of.

I feel that I'd be quicker to react if I was ever unlucky enough to be in such a situation because of it. My brain wouldn't be in shock and trying to work out if it was real or not for so long.

[brnt]

The problem is that people understand things differently. What is a valuable lesson for you, can be an inspiration for others. This is actually quite well researched so you can't just keep such violent materials accessible to all and not know you are helping some radicalise.

Why not store such things in archives accessible to researchers with a articulated and plausible research questions?

[raxxorraxor]

I would believe that this research is as sound as research for violence in movies or games.

This is different, these were events in real life. But the "studies" are certainly not conclusive. It is the "stochastic terrorism" argument, which is trivial and very likely wrong.

And it can serve as a (bad) argument to remove any and all content. There is not place for it in democracies.

[squigz]

Can you link to that research?