[–] [deleted] 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think what they mean is that they didn't get the choice not to watch it because it appeared on their wall/timeline/whatever and just started playing. And personally, unless you specifically open a YouTube page or the like, autoplay video isn't any different than autoplay audio in my mind: something that belongs in the goddamn nineties like other mullet-level mistakes.

0
0

[–] LardOn4Bacon ago 

That's what they want. Easier to control...

0
0

[–] Quawonk ago 

Obviously, live sharing is a bad thing. People should only have access to the approved story for their own protection.

0
3

[–] Northvvait 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

On the upside, people that see videos of unpleasant events can't be fed an authority-approved story of how it "really" happened.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You may be joking, but you raise a good point about the nature of offensive content. Facebook's model is to pretend that offensive content doesn't exist. Reddit's model is to play nanny and decide for you what's offensive and remove it. Voat's model is to give users the tools to filter/block offensive content, as well as giving content creators the tools to mark NSFW posts. Of the three, I like Voat's model because it doesn't ignore the problem and it doesn't take control of the solution away from the users. I do think it's time for mainstream social media like Facebook and Twitter to reevaluate how they deal with offensive content.

2
1

[–] St_Alfonzos_Pancakes 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

This post is bullshit. Essentially what you said /u/FuttsMcButts

0
9

[–] FuttsMcButts 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I'm pretty sure him waiting for the camera to pan back to his victims before unloaded reached more people than his limited social media accounts. Also how is being caught up on whats happening in the real world a dark side of internet sharing?

0
5

[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That's a good point, and I don't like the way they glossed over the live TV broadcast in the article. I think their angle is that the prevalence of auto-play and easy sharing make it difficult to stop a graphic story from spreading. I don't agree with that angle because I don't think social media networks should play nanny goat over what content can be shared and what stories go viral. But I do think that better tools should be made available on these networks for sharing NSFW content. Voat does it, and Facebook/Twitter should accept the fact that NSFW content is going to be shared regardless.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] brokenmonkey 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I can't speak for everyone, but I saw the video without having a description of what it actually was. It was just a youtube link. Say what you want about censorship, but at the very least, put up a warning. I genuinely felt sickened and disturbed by what I saw. Would never have clicked the link if I knew it was the killer filming from his point of view.

0
8

[–] ChillyHellion [S] 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I think you're right. I think that Facebook's problem is that it would rather pretend that NSFW content doesn't exist and isn't being shared on their network, which is just foolish. I would rather see better tools akin to what Voat has when dealing with NSFW content and graphic footage. Let me mark a post as NSFW when I share it to disable autoplay and hide the thumbnail. Give users those tools and stop ignoring the problem completely.