Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#241

Post by rriepe » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #207

amadeuspagel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

> You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc. Simply ignore the internet-radicalised mass shooters! Ignore the people raising funds for murderers. Ignore the people gathering molotovs to protest, and the others encouraging each other to run them over with cars. I'm sure none of that stuff will ever happen to you.

We have to ignore it now because of this new rule. How are you going to respond to something you can't see?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#242

Post by DuskStar » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #176

Digital 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…

I'm personally waiting for Facebook to start removing 'misinformation' on the Armenian Genocide in Turkey.

(Turkey officially denies that such a genocide ever happened, so 'misinformation' could go either way depending on your geographic location)

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#243

Post by realmod » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

lki876 wrote: post #204

Spivak wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be careful because you risk taking all the meaning out of the terms when you say that anything other than a completely unfiltered firehose is encroachment on free speech because you catch spam, bots, threats of violence, abuse, scams, etc. in the crossfire which (at least to me) are not types of speech that should be protected.

Spam, bots and scams aren't speech in any meaningful way. They don't attempt to say anything. Threats of violence and abuse may be speech in some sense but is in no way part of a dialogue.

How is spam and scams not speech?

Hate speech, scams and spam are all speech and they should all be removed and not tolerated.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#244

Post by ok123456 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #180

HashingtheCode wrote: post #148

[flagged]

People are entitled to their own opinions, but Facebook is not required to provide a platform for them if they want to voice them. Same with flat earthers; they are entitled to their opinion, but nobody owes it to them to provide them a platform. I'm not sure if it's classified as hate speech, but it will be classified as fake news and false/misinformation. Keep in mind that the forces behind these "post-fact" trends…

If they're actively going to curate what is and isn't allowed, as far as perfectly legal speech goes, then they're no longer a common carrier and no longer subject to the protections afforded to such entities.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#245

Post by josephcsible » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

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?

> Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones?

Because Facebook wields more power than most countries' governments do. This would almost certainly be a lot less upsetting if it were a smaller site doing it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#246

Post by nickpp » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

OK, but when are they gonna remove communist-propaganda content?

Communism is not even mentioned in their Hate Speech Policy and believe it killed a lot more people than even fascism (90 million vs 10 million). Today this hateful ideology is spreading completely unchecked in Social Media.

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

As a Communism-survivor I feel very strongly about it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#247

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #161

qsort wrote: post #145

Earlier 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.

It's OK not to like people who want to kill you for what you are rather than anything you did. You do not, in fact, owe anything to people who dispute your right to exist.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#248

Post by creata » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #176

Digital 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…

You call it "digital book burning", and you call Facebook a "primary communication channel", because your argument necessitates that you exaggerate so. If you see Facebook for what it is --- not an arm of the government, not the only voice anyone has, but just one of many communication platforms --- it's clear that this is no violation of free speech.

Facebook isn't determining "what is true"; it's just determining what it is okay with hosting.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#249

Post by whoisjuan » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

lki876 wrote: post #150

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…

Not really. Freedom of speech as defined in the constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. This is not censorship. Facebook can ban whatever they want. They are not censoring anything. They are just denying the use of their platform to spread absurd anti-semitic ideas that have no place in an educated and civilized society.

I have said this before in HN, but I'll say it again. There seems to be this idea that freedom of speech comes with an automatic and superseding right to distribution. That's 100% wrong. You can believe whatever idiotic ideas you want but you can't claim freedom of speech to force other people to give you a platform for your beliefs.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#250

Post by hggythhdtr » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #176

Digital 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…

If holocaust denial, flat earthers, plandemic, and qanon is the kind of stuff we get when FB does nothing, then I'll take my chances on them removing some content, thanks.

Besides, with a disinterested moderator you don't automatically get pure free speech. Others step in to influence the system, to push their "truth" to their benefit.