Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#151

Post by brianfryer » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

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…

It might be worth considering The Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#152

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #90

Long overdue. It's worth going into why this is something that is worth doing and also why FB has historically not done it. FB's position for a long time was that they would not remove material just because it was factually inaccurate, in other words they treated Holocaust denial as being essentially ignorance. There is a truly cringeworthy clip of Facebook spokesdrone and former UK deputy PM Nick Clegg in a document…

Holocaust denial is also a marketing strategy for fascists. The average person is repulsed by obviously fascist ideas because they know what happened with the Nazis. So fascists try to first convince them that actually, you were lied to about the Nazis. https://youtube.com/watch?v=HOHthnsuhPw

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#153

Post by duxup » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #98

duxup wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves" To me that seems like a pretty clear line. Some groups will invariably try to straddle it, but plenty of groups on Facebook make it quite clear their level of hate for others.

Sure: > 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. Could easily be used to ban Islam on Facebook. Or Scientology. Or far left / far right governments. Or Antifa / Proud Boys / other vigilante groups. Or popular…

To me a wholesale ban on a religion, whose practitioners vary wildly seems like a completely different thing.

Holocaust denial is pretty specific in comparison.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#154

Post by Spivak » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

rednerrus wrote: post #29

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…

Where do we draw the line? Is this a Pacifica kind of issue where we'll know it when we see it?

Somewhere. Usually what happens is that it's drawn at the place that makes everyone unhappy. It's far enough in that some will cry censorship make casual dystopian insinuations, but well short of anything that actually makes in impact leading others to say it's ineffective because they can see obvious hate being allowed. And it happens because line-drawers are terrified of type 1 errors thanks to the media shitstorm that happens whenever it happens to someone with an audience.

This pattern happens everywhere: It's the same story with Google and obvious-spam/scams, and Amazon with fakes. Until a company has the balls to say that you're gonna have to suck it up and deal with false positives the cycle will continue forever.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#155

Post by jcadam » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

To save free speech, we have to destroy free speech.

In the future, some historian is going to write the seminal work on the decline and dissolution of the United States - and there's going to be an entire chapter dedicated to social media.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#156

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #136

globular-toast wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#157

Post by mtberatwork » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

If that were to happen, then you would take your criticism to a different platform or your own domain. Facebook isn't the Web let alone the Internet.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#158

Post by kick » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

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…

Facebook isn't a collection of books, and it isn't a collection of speech: the speech is a side effect.

Facebook is a virality engine. How do you get content that's appealing to the widest variety of people shoved into their faces?

The popularity of a President almost always goes up by starting a war, because the American public loves war. It's how Bush Jr. got the popular vote after losing it so miserably the first time.

People love hate, so an engine aiming to do nothing but push content with the possibility of going viral, viral, will endlessly promote the most inflammatory content. It drives engagement! The speech doesn't matter at all; it could be anything. On their other popular platform, a platform with a younger population, the most popular post is literally a picture of an egg. It's more a video game than a "marketplace of ideas."

Of course, the obvious solution would just be for Facebook to stop suggesting this content algorithmically rather than removing it outright, but hey, I'm not Facebook. It's not an attack on speech for a company that makes money off of suggesting content to other people to stop suggesting some variant of content, though, because again: the content never mattered.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#159

Post by latch » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

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?

Well, if you believe in the First Amendment, then Facebook itself gets the freedom to decide what does and doesn't go on its platform.

If you want something more generic, you could start with hate speech laws in Australia, Belgium, Canada...Spain, Switzerland, the UK, etc. Or even more generally, the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

So, there's plenty of established frameworks to base your work off of and they've been around long enough that we can measure what the impact is.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#160

Post by zests » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #71

NewOrderNow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is slipperiest of slopes if I ever heard one.

Can you explain how that is a slippery slope?

Assuming you support facebook's move to remove this content, would you not also support the removal of similar content that you also consider objectionable? Do you not hope that this leads to more content removal or is this the only piece of content that you consider necessary to remove?

By my estimation -- and there are certain individuals where this might not be true -- if you support this you likely _want_ this to be a continued effort to remove objectionable content.