Mum angry block on video of Christchurch shootings came too late for her 16-year-old son

Monday, 18 March 2019

A Tauranga mother says attempts by social media companies to remove horrific video footage of the Christchurch shootings from their platforms came too late for her 16 year-old son, and that they need to change their focus.

Facebook, the world largest social media platform, admitted it could still not be sure that footage of the Christchurch shootings would not be circulating on Facebook and Instagram on Monday.

That was despite staff working 'around the globe and around the clock' to remove it.

Facebook said it had removed or blocked 1.5 million attempts to upload and share footage that was apparently live-streamed by the gunman before and during the attacks on mosques in Christchurch in which 50 people were murdered.

Tauranga mum and agri-scientist Amanda Gilbertson was educating one of her children about why the Christchurch shootings video should not be watched, just before she found out it was too late for her 16yo.

People leaving floral tributes at the Kilbirnie mosque under the guard of armed police a day after the Christchurch mosque attacks.Paul Kifford with his 14-year-old twin children Toby and Hana.

* 'Thousands' of Christchurch shootings videos removed from YouTube, Google says

* Christchurch mosque shootings: Man claims responsibility for shootings, records assault on video**

However, it could not guarantee that none would be visible on the platforms because people were still attempting to upload it, a spokesman for the company said.

Agri-scientist Amanda Gilbertson believed social media firms could have considered temporarily disabling the uploading of videos or delaying their publication, after they became aware live footage of the attacks was circulating on their platforms.

Gilbertson returned home after having had a conversation in her car with her other son and a friend about why the video should not be spread.

'I got home and checked in with my other kid and he said he had seen the video and there were piles of bodies.

'It was gut-wrenching. Once you have seen something like that you can't 'unsee it' – it is a lot to process.'

'I was angry at the innocence that has been ripped away. I wasn't there alongside him when he saw it.'

Facebook was deciding whether to take action against people who shared or uploaded the footage on a case-by-case basis, depending on their motivation, its spokesman said.

Some people had been blocked from using Facebook, or from using all of its features, he said.

'In some cases people are doing it to try to condemn or raise awareness of what has happened, in which case the intent is slightly different.'

Spark managing director Simon Moutter also criticised the social media giant on Friday, tweeting that he agreed with an assertion that if Facebook 'put as much effort into algorithms for preventing the spread of hate material, as they put into targeted advertising they could easily solve the problem'.

Spark and other major internet providers had now blocked more than 10 overseas websites that had decided to host footage of the shootings, spokesman Andrew Pirie believed.

'We have had a large body of support.'

Facebook's spokesman explained it was using 'video and audio-matching technology' to try to detect instances of the video being uploaded or shared.

But any time someone made a 'tweak' to disguise it that created what was in essence a new file that needed to be detected and blocked, he said.

Facebook was now seeking to block and remove any part of the video from being uploaded and shared – including by news organisations – and not just the shootings themselves, the spokesman said.

Many media organisations had been using the start of the video in their coverage, he explained.

'The Government has made the determination that all shares of the video including by media organisations that might be edited to not show the graphic content is now objectionable.'

Prior to receiving that advice on Sunday, Facebook had not wanted to intervene in editorial decisions made by the media, he said.

The maximum penalty under the Objectionable Publications Act for being in possession of an objectionable publication is 10 years in jail, while the maximum penalty for sharing such material, for example by reposting it, is 14 years.

Facebook's spokesman was unable to comment on whether the company should have temporarily removed the ability to upload videos to its platform or delayed publishing videos in the aftermath of the attacks.

Facebook is now blocking all footage taken by the Christchurch attacker, including that edited and broadcast by some media organisations.

It was too early to say whether any policies might need to be changed, he said.

But he said Facebook would 'fully engage' with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison if they had any questions 'not only with relation just to the Facebook live stream but also the broader investigation that I suspect will be underway following this incident.'

Facebook's focus at the moment was on 'removing that harmful content from our services', he said.

'We have teams working around the world and around the clock on this.'

Gilbertson said she 'lived and breathed' in the tech industry, but social media firms came from the brains of 'tech bros' delivering what their pioneers had wanted as young men.

'They didn't anticipate that they would be used by such hateful people for such hateful reasons. As much as we love their platforms, there are some things that should not be shared.

'If I wanted to find that video now I probably could,' Gilbertson said. 'I think there should be as much effort spent on this as there is from making money from their platforms.'

Information on how to report offensive content to major social media platforms is available here: how to report.