REFERENCE:

Matters of Facebook Live or Death:

The Ethical Challenges of Live Internet Broadcasting

On March 15, 2019, a mass shooter entered two

mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing

51 people and injuring 49 others. The shooter

publicized his murderous actions by streaming

parts of the mass shooting on Facebook Live, a

feature on the social media app that records and

posts live video. The feature allows the user's Facebook friends to observe and interact with

them in real time, as well as like and comment on the live video. As with all content on

Facebook, a viewer can report the video if it violates community standards, but this process

often takes time. In the case of the Christchurch mosque massacre, the video was up long

enough to go viral, coming across possibly thousands of users' feeds. Facebook has since

removed the original video, but because users have screen recorded or downloaded the

video, parts of it are still floating around the internet today. Facebook Newsroom, the official

Twitter account for Facebook Communications, confirmed in a tweet that within 24 hours of

the video ending, over 1.5 million uploaded videos containing parts of the violent livestream

were removed from the site, with 1.2 million being stopped at the uploading stage.

Within three weeks of the mass shooting, the Australian Parliament passed legislation

penalizing Facebook if it does not remove violent content in a timely manner. Failure to do so

could see executives facing up to three years in jail, or fines of up to 10% of the platform's

annual turnover (Griffiths, 2019). Some have proposed time delays, effectively limiting the

"live" nature of immediate broadcasting promised by Facebook Live. In an op-ed for The

Conversation, Jennifer Grygiel argues that installing a time delay can help decrease the spread

of violent content or content that does not abide by Facebook's standards. Time delays are

normal in televised news content now, but there are important differences between cable

and broadcast content and internet content. On Facebook, there are many live videos being

posted, and too few moderators to scan all of them before they are viewed and shared by

others. Facebook has challenges controlling regularly posted content, so some might wonder

what difference a slight delay in Live broadcasts would make.

Why should anyone want Facebook Live to retain the immediacy of its current broadcast

model? For some Facebook users, it's a way to broadcast messages that are liable to be

unreasonably censored by others. In a June 2016 sit-in on the floor of Congress focused on

the lack of gun-control reform after the Pulse nightclub shooting, Democrats used Facebook

Live and Periscope as ways around the C-SPAN cameras being turned off by Republicans

during the protest (Newton, 2019). For others, it's a way to immediately connect to a mass

audience watching from afar. For almost two years, Congressman Beto O'Rourke used

Facebook Live almost daily to talk about issues to fellow constituents in Texas who could not

make it out to his rallies in every county in Texas (Guynn, 2018). Aside from politics,

Facebook Live has been used by educators to help ensure success for their students. Principal

Yatko / CC-BY-SA 4.0 / Modified

2 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org

Belinda George at Homer Drive Elementary uses Facebook Live for "Tucked in Tuesdays,"

where she reads bedtime stories to her students. In a school that is 94% economically

disadvantaged, she stated the goal of going on Facebook Live and reading to her students was

"to bridge the gap between home and school... to form relationships with my scholars and

their families" (Brown, 2019). While George can just record her reading a book and upload

later, she couldn't interact with them the way she can in the Facebook Live connection.

While the exposure to violence on one of the biggest social media platforms has its negative

effects, some say it also has the power to bring justice to its victims. Danny Cevallo, CNN's

legal analyst, discussed how because of the sharing nature that Facebook has, it is often the

first place detectives look for evidence of criminal behavior: "Sometimes, these cases would

be completely unwinnable for the state if not for the defendant providing all the

incriminating evidence against himself on social media" (Cevallo, 2017). This op-ed was

released in response to the four Chicago teens brutally beating a disabled student while

broadcasting this atrocity on Facebook Live. Because they broadcast the event on Facebook

Live, they were quickly identified, arrested, and convicted for this crime. While justice was

served, however, the disabled student victim was still humiliated in front of the many

Facebook users who watched this video before it was removed by Facebook.

Facebook Live's immediacy and speed, both in broadcasting a message and in others sharing

it, has brought people together and has incited or reveled in violence against others. Its

availability to everyonefrom ordinary citizens to politicians to mass murderersshows a

democratizing force inherent in the technology. But what is the price paid for putting this

ability to quickly "go live" in the hands of so many communicators? What ethical problems

arise when content can be shared and used in ways that the original poster did not imagine?

What values are in conflict in the controversy over Facebook Live?

How do the worries over Facebook Live relate to debates over free speech? Would

eliminating one's ability to immediately "go live" with content curtail their freedom

of expression?

What are the best arguments for eliminating Facebook Live? What compelling reasons are there to keep this technology?

How might you navigate the ethical conflicts brought about by Facebook Live? How

would you mitigate or reduce any side-effects to your proposed solutions or

changes?