What a fig leaf! Hollywood has drenched its entertainment content with violence for generations. At the same time, concealing images of US and its allies war crimes.
We engage with fictional violence of many types but are repelled by actual, unneeded violence. This seems like we're processing things properly.
Old Guy Thoughts: In my experience, intellectual
calculations of worthiness aren't intrinsically
valuable. What is harmful are those things
that turn out to be harmful. And that's it.
For our calculations of what is harmful - those
fail all the time.
You're also required to performatively react to this news without considering the track, record this administration has in the courts. You are NOT supposed to notice the repeating pattern that "Monday Trump says the war continues and makes threats, Mid-week escalation, Friday resolution with negotiation 'progress' or some kind of 'deal'."
DO NOT LEARN FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS. Just stay in a constant state of distracted anxiety without realizing how you're being cynically manipulated.
Live TV has allowed obscenities or graphic scenes when its for news/public interest (eg footage from war). It will be easy to use that as justification for this.
If you don't understand the differences between journalistic considerations of a news organisation versus a government, then up is down and nothing matters. Its a completely unserious position you have.
Perhaps it will be streamed by Facebook or Reddit or some social media... they seem to like selective rule enforcement as it is. Or the government/Trump TV might host/stream it themselves.
I doubt this livestream will actually happen, but if it does, I hope people will realize ahead of time that this will not be enjoyable or entertaining to watch.
A paralyzed guy, sitting in a wheelchair, will be shot, slump over, die, blood will ooze from the wound, and then that's it.
His actions were murderous and atrocious, but there is no value in watching his life being extinguished in real time. Just because it is available to be seen doesn't mean it benefits us to see it.
I am afraid that many people will realize that too late and have to deal with the memory, if not the pangs of conscience, of having watched a snuff film.
hardly anyone watches it (low 1000s), wouldn't be surprised to learn its just other news orgs looking for more news circle jerk stories or a bunch of bots there just for the comment feed / manipulation
> “She’s (Liz Cheney) a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face,” he said.
Executions are frequently public, the barrier is just that people have to attend in person, so relatively few people do so. Livestreaming is something new.
If we have capital punishment, then executions should be public so that the public understands the weight of what's being done in their name. Unfortunately, that is very far from the reason this is being done here.
That used to be the norm in many places and times. I don’t think it ever really cultivated public appreciation of its weight - and more like the opposite. It makes it lighter
Executions used to be public because people love watching bad people die. You might not like it because of some Englightenment-era idea to the contrary, but it's an inescapably true facet of human nature. The only reason Britain and France stopped holding public executions is the crowds eventually started to get too rowdy and governments needed to move them indoors.
> In theory, Hasan’s family could ask X to remove the video, and then the question is whether Elon would honor that request.
Why bother spending a blog post speculating like this and picking away at the rules? The platforms will all air the execution for the same reason all the tech CEOs attended Trump's inauguration.
My guess is they'd all prefer to cooperate, but they know that if any of their competitors defect, then they're worse off for it. Plus, there are legal hurdles to direct cooperation among competitors.
We saw a show of uncoordinated unity after the Jan. 6 insurrection, but as soon as that unity showed signs of fraying, it became hard to sustain.
That would be a steep hill for shareholders to climb, IMO. They'd have to prove that ignoring trump was not in shareholders' interest in the short term and (even harder) in the long term, right?
By your theory, couldn't (presumably other) shareholders sue over what Apple actually did? Like, maybe cowing to Trump has done damage to Apple's brand, in violation of fiduciary duty.
Even if that were a valid legal excuse (and it is not clear that it is), it doesn't hold up to moral scrutiny.
But realistically the reason they all bent the knee to Trump is probably not because they were cowards or because they wanted to protect their shareholders, but because they welcomed him being elected.
Partly because they knew it would kill off the anti-trust enforcement that was finally starting to gain steam with Lina Khan's FTC and partly because they are rich enough to play Trump's corruption game, where as long as you pay him off and linguistically publicly fellate him once in a while the world is your oyster.
So... you're saying that they are doing what they are doing because it benefits the company and makes the stock more valuable? Sounds like their fiduciary duty to me.
What a fig leaf! Hollywood has drenched its entertainment content with violence for generations. At the same time, concealing images of US and its allies war crimes.
We engage with fictional violence of many types but are repelled by actual, unneeded violence. This seems like we're processing things properly.
What a straw man! Do you think pretend Hollywood violence is the same as real snuff films?
Look! There’s a dead cat on the table!
Don’t mind high oil prices, inflation and the debacle in Iran.
Not to mention the 'philes.
You're also required to performatively react to this news without considering the track, record this administration has in the courts. You are NOT supposed to notice the repeating pattern that "Monday Trump says the war continues and makes threats, Mid-week escalation, Friday resolution with negotiation 'progress' or some kind of 'deal'."
DO NOT LEARN FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS. Just stay in a constant state of distracted anxiety without realizing how you're being cynically manipulated.
Live TV has allowed obscenities or graphic scenes when its for news/public interest (eg footage from war). It will be easy to use that as justification for this.
Reddit and other major sites are filled with gore, weird pornography, and all sort of atrocities imaginable.
Don't forget diaper fetish communities.
But this is where the pearls are clutched hardest?
glanced sideways at 40 years of media documenting and using televised state sponsors violence as satire and dystopia
I wonder what could possibly go wrong by setting the precedent for the state to execute people by firing squad on national news.
You can search major news right now and watch Saddam Hussein having his neck broken, that was at the bleeding edge of video streaming.
This is a natural evolution of technology.
How many people outraged at this have clicked out of a tab of streaming toilet cams? It's greater than zero I assure you.
> How many people outraged at this have clicked out of a tab of streaming toilet cams?
Excuse me? What is this?
If you don't understand the differences between journalistic considerations of a news organisation versus a government, then up is down and nothing matters. Its a completely unserious position you have.
I think there's a big difference between having spaces dedicated to kinks you find gross and openly celebrating the slaughtering of political rivals.
We need Monday Night Rehabilitation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLts-sXlLEM
Yeah between Mike Judge and The Simpsons all future is fortold.
Perhaps it will be streamed by Facebook or Reddit or some social media... they seem to like selective rule enforcement as it is. Or the government/Trump TV might host/stream it themselves.
The original title is:
> Hey Platforms: Your Violent Content Policies Are About To Meet The Pentagon’s Firing Squad
Pentagon solution: We are going to ex3c*te this man
Oh man. That kind of self censorship BS is such a pet peeve of mine that I almost missed the point of your comment.
I doubt this livestream will actually happen, but if it does, I hope people will realize ahead of time that this will not be enjoyable or entertaining to watch.
A paralyzed guy, sitting in a wheelchair, will be shot, slump over, die, blood will ooze from the wound, and then that's it.
His actions were murderous and atrocious, but there is no value in watching his life being extinguished in real time. Just because it is available to be seen doesn't mean it benefits us to see it.
I am afraid that many people will realize that too late and have to deal with the memory, if not the pangs of conscience, of having watched a snuff film.
It will happen on Truth Social. Did you forget the president OWNS a social network?
The one he wants to sell algo traders high speed front-runner access to for a smooth $100k a month?
bruh https://www.whitehouse.gov/trumptv/
That's just a YouTube embed
No, it's a brand, a platform and societal acceptance. YouTube embed is just what it does now.
hardly anyone watches it (low 1000s), wouldn't be surprised to learn its just other news orgs looking for more news circle jerk stories or a bunch of bots there just for the comment feed / manipulation
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
Can you think of a promotional event that would be benefecial to that platform's notoriety
As I said in another thread. The point is to desensitise society before moving on to more extreme behaviour.
[flagged]
Wrong wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(psychology)
this is so tedious
do you think the administration does not have other targets for the firing squad who are not even criminals? I'll give you zero guesses
https://19thnews.org/2024/11/trump-liz-cheney-shot/
> “She’s (Liz Cheney) a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face,” he said.
this firing squad was not Hegseth's idea.
You've decided this unilaterally for everyone else, including the families of the unarmed service members who were murdered?
All executions should be public if not for transparency's sake.
Executions are frequently public, the barrier is just that people have to attend in person, so relatively few people do so. Livestreaming is something new.
If we have capital punishment, then executions should be public so that the public understands the weight of what's being done in their name. Unfortunately, that is very far from the reason this is being done here.
That used to be the norm in many places and times. I don’t think it ever really cultivated public appreciation of its weight - and more like the opposite. It makes it lighter
What weight? Shooting someone is way more merciful than long prison sentence.
You've been lied to your entire life about this.
Executions used to be public because people love watching bad people die. You might not like it because of some Englightenment-era idea to the contrary, but it's an inescapably true facet of human nature. The only reason Britain and France stopped holding public executions is the crowds eventually started to get too rowdy and governments needed to move them indoors.
The moral-outrage excuse was invented afterwards.
You can only cry "muh terms of service" so many times before it's dismissed with a collective eyeroll.
Unfortunately they blew their wad back in 2020.
Capital punishment should be abolished. These people are yet another reason why.
Related:
Hegseth Wants Public to Watch First Firing Squad Execution Since WWII
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50011771
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50013637
> In theory, Hasan’s family could ask X to remove the video, and then the question is whether Elon would honor that request.
Why bother spending a blog post speculating like this and picking away at the rules? The platforms will all air the execution for the same reason all the tech CEOs attended Trump's inauguration.
I agree, though I still don't really know what that reason is. What is the point of fuck-you money if you won't use it to say "fuck you"?
Apple's execs, for instance, definitely had enough monetary and social capital to basically just ignore Trump, and they haven't.
It's the prisoner's dilemma.
My guess is they'd all prefer to cooperate, but they know that if any of their competitors defect, then they're worse off for it. Plus, there are legal hurdles to direct cooperation among competitors.
We saw a show of uncoordinated unity after the Jan. 6 insurrection, but as soon as that unity showed signs of fraying, it became hard to sustain.
apple was exempted from tariffs multiple times, they made a ton of money off of cozying up to him
Fiduciary duty (to shareholders)?
That would be a steep hill for shareholders to climb, IMO. They'd have to prove that ignoring trump was not in shareholders' interest in the short term and (even harder) in the long term, right?
By your theory, couldn't (presumably other) shareholders sue over what Apple actually did? Like, maybe cowing to Trump has done damage to Apple's brand, in violation of fiduciary duty.
> Fiduciary duty (to shareholders)?
Even if that were a valid legal excuse (and it is not clear that it is), it doesn't hold up to moral scrutiny.
But realistically the reason they all bent the knee to Trump is probably not because they were cowards or because they wanted to protect their shareholders, but because they welcomed him being elected.
Partly because they knew it would kill off the anti-trust enforcement that was finally starting to gain steam with Lina Khan's FTC and partly because they are rich enough to play Trump's corruption game, where as long as you pay him off and linguistically publicly fellate him once in a while the world is your oyster.
So... you're saying that they are doing what they are doing because it benefits the company and makes the stock more valuable? Sounds like their fiduciary duty to me.
(I don't like it but that doesn't make it false)