Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Removing Holocaust Denial Content

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#131

Post by jeffreyrogers »

iron0013 wrote: post #91
OneGuy123 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says a lot that this comment got downvoted... If the Armenian genocide would have the same amount of "advertising" as holocaust does it would be on the same level of "notoriety". The media complex creates a very disproportionate cult around certain events: the holomodor claimed 2x lives as the holocaust and yet it's hardly ever mentioned. Everyone knows of holocaust but most will go "huh?" when you ask them about hol…

“Holodomor” is mentioned all the time by the conservatives and neo-Nazis that made it a meme in the first place

As far as I can tell it is a historical event that actually happened (just like the Holocaust), so I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize it by associating it with neo-Nazis (and conservatives, who I notice you're trying to smear by association).

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#132

Post by zests »

latch wrote: post #112
NewOrderNow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is slipperiest of slopes if I ever heard one.

This is a logical fallacy, and a bad one as it generally doesn't bear out how you're implying in the real world.

The labeling of "slippery slope" as a "logical fallacy" versus a "consequentialist logical device" is becoming quite the political statement. Check out the history and the talk page of the wikipedia article for slippery slope.

For the record, I disagree that it is a logical fallacy in all cases.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#133

Post by jeffreyrogers »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #127
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #114

How are they going to determine what is HD? Some scholars get labeled denialists because they have different estimates for the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. Seems worrying to have FB moderators determining what's acceptable historical debate and what is wrongthink.

Citation needed? Which scholars, what are their claims / papers, and who reviewed their work? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers used now are not entirely correct, but if there's unscientific work being done to downplay it, they're in their right to brand it as holocaust denial.

Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hoffmann

Edit: Note that he doesn't deny the holocaust at all, and his estimate is around 4 million. Which is still quite large. I'm not arguing that he is correct, but it seems absurd to call someone saying 4 million Jews were killed a "denialist".

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#134

Post by jon37 »

This whacks one mole, but there are many others.

As long as Facebook continues to recommend and target user-generated content based on engagement metrics, it will reward the sort of engagement generated by vicious deceptions such as holocaust denial. It is engineered to handle any post, including expressions of hate, by finding the most receptive audience possible for that post.

Rather than targeting a narrow swathe of Definitely Terrible content to censor, Facebook should target a wide swathe and rather than removing it, exempt it from the algorithmic feed, group recommendation input, etc. If my friend posts something hateful and I see it, I can respond and push back; if they post something hateful and only their friends who agree see it, and they also get a dozen different similarly hateful echo chambers in their group recommendations, that's far more destructive.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#135

Post by aww_dang »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #56
roseway4 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is a private entity. Facebook’s shareholders have given Mark Zuckerberg and his management team the power to manage the company as they see fit. If users disagree with the terms and conditions of using the site, they don’t have to use it.

It's a bit hilarious to me, that people advertise unchecked unfettered capitalism for internet companies, while arguing for regulation of every other company, say oil company X, due to externalities. Nobody's forcing you to buy gasoline silly!

Perhaps it is a function of groupthink. Regulation of the Internet is a relatively new phenomenon.

The suggestion that consumers of petroleum (rather than regulators) are responsible for negative outcomes is nearly a heresy in comparison.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#136

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

globular-toast wrote: post #128
ignoramous wrote: post #14

Admirable move. I think Facebook (and all its properties), Twitter, and other hyper-connected social networks must show a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves. This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speec…

> a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall How can you tell if they are beyond reason if you are not allowed to read their arguments?

I draw the line at hate. If one side wants to destroy me do I have to listen to their arguments?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#137

Post by Mvandenbergh »

shrubble wrote: post #123
Mvandenbergh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. First they came for the Nazis?

My point is, this is only an issue because FB wants you to continue to cede the power over your feed ( your attention) to them. No one on my feed, of any group or any friends, are holocaust deniers. So I would never see any such content, if my feed was fully under my control, correct?

That's fair enough. If FB was purely what it originally was - showing updates from your own connections exclusively - then of course a measure like this would be nonsensical. Only people who were directly connected to people posting it would ever see it (and many such people would be beyond hope anyway) and there would be no need to stop any kind of content "propagating" since no content ever would.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#138

Post by globular-toast »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #127
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #114

How are they going to determine what is HD? Some scholars get labeled denialists because they have different estimates for the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. Seems worrying to have FB moderators determining what's acceptable historical debate and what is wrongthink.

Citation needed? Which scholars, what are their claims / papers, and who reviewed their work? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers used now are not entirely correct, but if there's unscientific work being done to downplay it, they're in their right to brand it as holocaust denial.

David Irving to give one example.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#139

Post by amadeuspagel »

ignoramous wrote: post #14

Admirable move. I think Facebook (and all its properties), Twitter, and other hyper-connected social networks must show a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves. This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speec…

Almost any kind of censorship could be justified with the argument that some voices are "drained out" by others, so to protect the former, the latter most be censored, which is not actually "an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact". WTF does this mean? The internet is not a room where some people have to be silent so that you can hear the others. You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#140

Post by gridlockd »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #119
tonyvince7 wrote: post #51

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” - From Noam Chomsky's (Chomsky's grandparents are holocaust survivors) on the foreword for "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" for the book of Frenc…

... and Goebbels and Stalin were both part of the government . Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones? Freedom of the press means being able to print what you want, not being able to compel the printer. Facebook doesn't have to be complicit in publishing speech it finds repugnant, and why should it?

If Facebook becomes a publisher and not merely a conduit of speech, it must simultaneously be legally liable for what it publishes.
Post reply on HN