It all started with Periscope and Blab, two services that allowed any user to install basic software and then, through that software, broadcast live to the internet. Anyone who wanted to find that user and watch whatever he was doing online could do so fairly easily.
Just like the big news companies’ “live from where the action is,” there was an understandable draw for those who not only saw this as an innovative marketing tool but also for some who sought self-aggrandizement. Other people were watching them and paying attention to whatever they were saying and doing.
As with so many innovations in our society, however, the problem is that while 99 percent of the world might be normal, stable, sane people who see the capability to livestream as something fun and interesting — the other 1 percent are drawn to dumb, violent, sadistic, and even horrifying actions in front of the implacable, unblinking camera’s eye and live audience.
Related: Mark Zuckerberg’s Distorted Reality
Now the livestreaming horror stories just won’t stop.
In January, a young mother collapsed and died while broadcasting on Facebook Live. Viewership went up as she was gasping for breath and her children were screaming, but no one thought to call the authorities. A few weeks later, Nakia Venant, a troubled teen in foster care, committed suicide while broadcasting live on Facebook. She wasn’t the first to livestream her suicide, either.
Sometimes tragic livestreams are just bad luck or bad timing — but the impact is the same to the viewing audience. Last summer, for example, Chicago resident Antonio Perkins was shot and killed in a drive-by attack while he was livestreaming himself drinking with friends in a residential neighborhood.
A Chicago resident was killed in a drive-by attack while livestreaming.
Just a few weeks ago, while most people were enjoying an Easter or Passover meal, a man in Cleveland was uploading video of himself shooting and killing a 74-year-old grandfather.
After he was done, the killer logged onto the social network for a livestream chat about his horrific actions and twisted motivations.
[lz_ndn video=32318460]
Most recently, in a ghastly murder-suicide, a young Thai father, Wuttisan Wongtalay, hung his 11-month-old daughter while livestreaming the event from an abandoned hotel in Phuket — then killed himself.
But it’s not just killings and suicides. Assaults, too, are a possibility on livestreams. In March, for example, a couple of teenage boys in Chicago livestreamed their sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. According to police, at one point more than 40 people were watching, yet not one of them thought to call 911.
To be fair, occasionally a livestream of a crime can be beneficial, as demonstrated by the footage of Philando Castile of Minneapolis, who was shot by police during a routine roadside stop. That was livestreamed by his girlfriend, Lavish Reynolds, and helped shine an important light on police abuse. But that’s a rarity compared to the tragedies.
Related: Tech-Loving Kids Now Have Their Own Super Bowl
The problem with Facebook Live, YouTube Live, and every other livestreaming service that offers people the chance to gain an audience are those one percent — the nutjobs, weirdos, sadists and criminals. At this point, Facebook insists that Facebook Live is “available to all pages and profiles on Facebook.”
Let’s be candid about this because, unfortunately, the one percent have ruined it for all the rest.
The solution seems fairly clear: For people who aren’t verified through some sort of vetting process, allow them the ability to livestream only to their own circle of friends, not to the general public at large.
Related: The YouTube Stars Most of the World Doesn’t Know
It’s an easy solution, and it takes away the “15 minutes of fame” lure: People won’t gain much notoriety when, at best, a half-dozen of their digital friends may or may not stumble upon their livestream. If you’re in the broadcast industry, if you’re a celebrity or other famous person with lots of followers, Facebook verifies your account — and that mechanism is already in place. It’s what the little blue checkmark next to some people’s account names denotes; you’re able to go live to the public.
Whether that’s the optimal solution or not, it’s clear something needs to change. Technology should be helping us create a world that’s safer and less dangerous, not one where, at any moment, we might stumble across a livestream of a heinous crime or tragedy.
The ball is in Facebook’s court. Let’s hope for all our sakes that the company makes the decision to create much-needed restrictions — and not just claim they can catch these terrible livestreams and shut them down even as the crimes are being committed. More needs to be done.
Join the Discussion
Comments are currently closed.