Personally I’m considering doing a monthly series (not explicitly Bevry related) where I react / add commentary to darknet videos, to add some balance to the everyday protected (sheltered) existence we live, with some respect and empathy for what those who protect us endure.
React to this post via a like, or a reply, or privately via DM if you wish to see such commentary and participate in its discussion.
Obviously I will not be sharing nor viewing nor entertaining nor participating in any way with content which very existence is illegal, as I have no interest in that.
The content I plan to cover is legally coverable however censored by big tech.
Regarding the legality for me as an Australian resident, it seems as long as I ensure distribution only occurs to adults, and that I avoid illegal content, then it should be okay. I will do more research:
Perhaps distribution of the source material is too inconvenient, and commentary only is most sensible.
The safest option would be significantly blurring the source video and muting the source audio. This would mean the video only contains my contribution, which would be journalistic speech, which would be protected even under YouTube guidelines, which means that I can make an 18+ adult channel on YouTube (YouTube have a channel option for this) and let them handle the Australian requirement of distribution and age validation, something that I don’t want to handle. Which seems it would hit all the legality requirements.
As to why I want to do this. Viewing such material is often traumatic to viewers who haven’t yet integrated violence and mortality into their worldview. And often for those who have integrated it, they did so in isolation and silence. People deserve more than that, they deserve the ability to discuss and reconcile trauma. The availability of such material online, and for some of us, in our everyday lives (such as brutality), causes many to radicalise from such isolated and competitive wisdom. Opening a space where those interested can collaboratively discuss such events, allows radicalisation to cease into integration, from the utility of openly collaborative wisdom.
For instance, participating in an anti-police protest and witnessing a smoke grenade get launched into a protestor’s skull, is traumatic, and incurs the risk of radicalisation against police.
However, in the same day, one can also see an instance where a police officer is glassed by a bottle, or businesses being raided by rioters. Which would in isolation cement one’s belief that the police are correct.
Without seeing the diversity of the footage, then we are victim to the radical narrative of those who claim to be protecting us, and cannot integrate against the complexity of reality.
Unless we illuminate tragedy when it beckons, left alone tragedy is bound to amplify.
The hated have no voice, they are only left to radicalise. Hearing them, hearing their plight, will go a long way to justice, to eliminate indignation and promote forgiveness.