I actually agree - I thought a one hour turn around time was not bad. But it actually involved people calling Facebook to make them aware. But also the point it was posted to 8chan is thier point as well. He wouldn't have been able to do that if it was detected quicker, is that deterrant (considering he was caught) enough to potentially make the perp 2nd guess his actions? Of course the counter argument is simple - never stopped anyone before either.

There is an element of best of both worlds here. We want the tech to be able to distinguish a unique horror and prevent in ASAP but everything else should be OK. I totally get the counter arguments why people are strongly dissenting of this law and everything it stands for.

The best counter argument I heard yesterday was media. Why can TV show graphic details with a warning, but essentially now online journalism will only be able to write up text articles until someone takes the time to fine tune this legislation. There are so many unintended consequences being raised because it was a 3 day hatchet job of legislation and the process of doing this needs to stop.

Edit: I want to add, I personally believed this was a reining in the internet type of bill that had been speculated with recently. Now that I have heard industry bodies domestically speak about it, the intention of the law I still kind of agree with to an extent. The way it is written (and the gaps it has), how it is solidified and the way it came about is totally not OK.