Most recent example in my memory is the guy who livestreamed himself on FB shooting that female reporter. A spokesman for the paper told the Guardian: “We recognise that in the aftermath of horrific events such as these there will be sensitivities around reporting, and we take those responsibilities seriously. There was a version of the clip autoplaying on its homepage. MailOnline’s version of the story features an autoplaying clip of 18 seconds of the suspect’s livestream, showing him leaving his car, weapon in hand, cutting it as he enters the front door of Al Noor mosque on Deans Avenue. Traditional news outlets have taken starkly different positions. But eight hours after the attack videos were still live, obscured behind a warning that they may “show violent or graphic content” but not deleted. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been struggling to keep video of the attack offline, with new versions being uploaded as quickly as they can be taken down, while many traditional media sites including MailOnline, the Sun, and the Mirror hosted edited videos of the same footage.įacebook, where a man claiming to be the attacker livestreamed footage of the shootings, removed the original video about an hour later, but by that time copies of the footage had started to circulate across other social media sites.įacebook’s community standards explicitly ban “individuals engaged in mass murder” from having a presence on its network, and the company has deleted the account associated with the suspect.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |