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

141–150 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#141

Post by analyte123 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #40
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…

How would you have them weigh in on the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, or Tianenman? Each of those conflicts has deniers of various levels, some of whom are states. And, if Facebook gets it wrong (and perhaps decides the Tianenman square massacre was a hoax by the West to discredit the CCP) - how should we respond then? This is a company that was censoring pictures of mothers feeding their babies, but still has conten…

Comparing the Holocaust to any other state-sponsored atrocities is arguably downplaying or in Facebook's words "distorting" the Holocaust.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#142

Post by Cthulhu_ »

dotancohen wrote: post #121
myko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will do the opposite though I think - most of the "antitrust" arguments targeting Facebook seem to be upset that this type of content is being removed / Facebook (and YouTube, Twitter) have too much power in what we see/read.

> have too much power in what we see/read. You choose to type h t t p facebook dot com into your browser. They have absolutely not power in what you see or read, you go there voluntarily. Just stop going there.

True, but that's for people who are awake; in this case, we're not actually dealing with (sane, rational, critically thinking) individuals, but with statistics. Nobody cares about individuals denying the holocaust or whatever, but when it becomes a movement, or a feeling, or a suspicion in enough people, it becomes a statistically significant trend that can influence politics, elections, votes, etc.

I mean there's tons of anti-intellectualism going on now wrt anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, corona-deniers, obama-is-a-kenyan-lizard-man, trump-is-immune-to-the-rona, etc. These are rational individuals, they may not be on Facebook or they may, it doesn't really matter because in the end it's a numbers game.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#143

Post by klyrs »

pfortuny wrote: post #111
duxup wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how that is a slippery slope?

Who defines unreasonable? Should Newton stop being explained beacause he is flawed? Or do we need a disclaimer in every single video about mechanics? What about photons as small pieces of matter? Ehat about the existence of God?

Sorry, but Newtonian physics, the particle nature of photons, and the simple existence of god are not examples of intolerance. If censorship on the basis of intolerance is, in fact, a slippery slope that is connected to these benign topics, you'll need to show how they're actually connected

Edit: oh, I see. You're one of several responders who have latched onto OC's use of the word "reasonable" and are disengenuously attacking that word outside of the actual context. Excellent example of attacking the weakest form of somebody's argument and applying the slippery-slope fallacy from there. We can do better than this, folks.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#145

Post by qsort »

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…

Popper never said anything of the sort. Quoting from the same link you posted:

"The term "paradox of tolerance" does not appear anywhere in the main text of The Open Society and Its Enemies. Rather, Popper lists the above as a note to chapter 7, among the mentioned paradoxes proposed by Plato in his apologia for "benevolent despotism"—i.e., true tolerance would inevitably lead to intolerance, so autocratic rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" would be preferable to leaving the question of tolerance up to majority rule. In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of benevolent tyranny, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided."

"The chapter in question explicitly defines the context to that of political institutions and the democratic process, and rejects the notion of "the will of the people" having valid meaning outside of those institutions. Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed applies only to the state in a liberal democracy with a constitutional rule of law that must be just in its foundations, but will necessarily be imperfect".

Don't get me wrong, I make no excuses for those people. They are garbage human beings that I would rather see dead than alive, but we must be sufficiently lucid to keep separate our personal preferences and our public policy proposals.

Facebook certainly has 100% the right to make that move, and I'm personally happy to see it. But the floor is extra-slippery. Let's be careful.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#146

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#147

Post by tr352 »

leftyted wrote: post #104
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…

> This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact, one where the tolerant voices aren't drained out by the relentlessness and irrationality of the intolerant. What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. This is an encroachment on free…

This seems to be one of those things where the arguments pro and con have already been so endlessly hashed out that it’s simply become a matter of choice which camp you’re in.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#149

Post by gridlockd »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #95
shrubble wrote: post #60

It's how it starts though, with an easy target... when say 3 years from now, you can't criticize FB for their known co-operation with the surveillance programs of the government without having your content automatically detected and removed, you might have a different view. This is only because of FB's refusal to let you more easily control what is seen on your feed. You controlling the feed settings would remove FBs…

Come on. First they came for the Nazis?

Considering how casually the word "Nazi" is thrown around these days, perhaps that should indeed be a matter of concern.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#150

Post by lki876 »

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…

> This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech

Maybe this is necessary and good, but of course it's an "encroachment on free speech". That's literally what is is. We can obfuscate this by replacing the words "encroachment on free speech" with "heavy-handedness" to get the sentence above. But really what is says if we remove the obfuscation is:

> This encroachment on free speech isn't an encroachment on free speech

That makes no sense.

Again, it may be a good idea, but censorship with a good reason remains censorship, or as you put it, an encroachment on free speech.

Post reply on HN