Where was this at the inception of Facebook?
Removing Holocaust Denial Content
221–230 of 823 posts
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#222Admirable 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…
Civil law systems have "The abuse of rights principle". It means that legal right can't be used in the purpose of _only_ causing annoyance, harm, or injury to another or violating or invalidating the rights.
In the EU the principle is codified in the article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They both prohibit the use of rights in a way that they nullify or weaken the rights provided by the agreements.
The principle also exists in the European contract law and property law. You can't use the property rights for the sole purpose of causing annoyance or violating other rights.
---
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/abuse-of-rights/
At least one of four conditions is required to invoke the doctrine:
(1) the predominant motive for exercising the right is to cause harm;
(2) no serious or legitimate motive exists for exercising the right;
(3) the exercise of the right is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness; or
(4) the right is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was granted.
---
edit: In the common law systems it can exist under names like "nuisance, duress, good faith, economic waste, public policy, misuse of copyright and patent rights, lack of business purpose in tax law, extortion, and others" see: Abuse of Rights: A Pervasive Legal Concept https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=17...
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#223Digital book burning 2.0. “But it’s ok, we’re the good guys and doing it for the right reasons”, says every tyrant ever. Never let speech get censored no matter how good it makes you feel in the moment. It’s the worst precedent you can ever set. I’ll try and give an example here that might be safe to give because it rips the Republican Wing of the Military Industrial Complex. If Facebook was one of the world’s primar…
Not a FB user myself, but do they not put fact check warnings on links deemed "untrustworthy"?
That ship has already sailed IMHO.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#224Digital book burning 2.0. “But it’s ok, we’re the good guys and doing it for the right reasons”, says every tyrant ever. Never let speech get censored no matter how good it makes you feel in the moment. It’s the worst precedent you can ever set. I’ll try and give an example here that might be safe to give because it rips the Republican Wing of the Military Industrial Complex. If Facebook was one of the world’s primar…
[deleted]
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The arrow of progress points in a specific direction. Pretty much everyone agrees with this. What people don't agree about is the direction.
nobody needs to agree about anything, progress is a measurement of historical average direction over timespan of decades
...and it's headed in all sorts of directions simultaneously.
Then add a few more decades and everything changes in ways you could not imagine.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
In that case, it wasn't just the total numbers, but also his views on:
- Hitler's preeemtive strike against Russia (total Nazi-revesionist BS)
- Russia overstating the numbers in their reports on Auschwitz (which goes into the HD direction, as this is a common first step in getting people to believe HD theories).
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#227To 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.
Almost certainly but it probably will read different from what you seem to think.
History is written by the victors, eh? I guess we'll just have to wait and see (or, rather our descendants will).
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Why would you want the death of somebody for merely holding an opinion, no matter what that opinion is? That was a pretty WTF moment while reading your comment.
[deleted]
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Have they? Because I still regularly encounter educated people who can't tell the difference between free speech and threats, harassment, etc. If you can't distinguish between free speech and coercive speech, then you don't understand the free-speech position that you purport to oppose ("He who knows only his own argument knows little of that").
I recall a thread on cancel culture a few months ago where virtually everyone on the pro-cancel-culture position were arguing that free speech ideals were meaningless because threats and harassment are also free speech ergo you can't oppose cancel culture without also opposing free speech--of course, threats and harassment aren't free speech, and this is precisely why free-speech proponents oppose cancel culture.
It seems like this is one area where more debate can be genuinely enlightening.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#230Admirable 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…
Free speech isn't the issue here. It's not censorship, it's moderation, and companies have every right to moderate what content is allowed on their platforms.
I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Censorship, that is the government proscribing or restricting what people say and thinks in general/public/day-to-day life, is an egregious attack on people's liberty. I think we shouldn't tolerate any limitations on free speech.
Moderation, or companies determining a code-of-conduct for the properties and platforms they control, is the same as someone telling you to shut up or get out of their house if you say something that offends them. I think what's important there is that the code of conduct is clearly stated, objective, and enforced even-handedly, which hasn't always been the case as of late.