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

271–280 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#271

Post by seph-reed »

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…

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And how can anyone call themselves an adult if they need some third party to come in and censor things for them? You can block, you can mute. You can stick to trusted groups. You can also learn self control and not feed the trolls.

If we want to control intolerance effort should be put into making the systems by which we personally and purposely block it from our lives more robust. And if they're going to try to create a universal bubble, it should at least be possible to leave it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#273

Post by noarchy »

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 memories of the Cold War are fading quickly? Now in 2020 people (on both the Left and Right, mind you) are, with a straight face, trying to argue that social media should be seen as a "public utility", and regulated accordingly. We're rapidly on track to losing what is left of a free Internet.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#274

Post by enraged_camel »

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…

>>What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree.

You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#275

Post by fag_tits »

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…

(((Schlomo Detected)))

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#276

Post by _jal »

refurb wrote: post #233
pjc50 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Those things you worry about are already illegal. Direct threats of violence (through speech) are already illegal. Funding raising for terrorism is already illegal, including fundraising through speech.

Facebook is not the legislature. You can make Lessig-style Code Is Law arguments, but the fact remains they are not defining the bounds of legality, they are defining the bounds of acceptable on their platform.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#277

Post by whateveracct »

nickpp wrote: post #246

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.

Uh I think the difference is all that killing done by communists were done by despots but not core to the ideology.

Here someone goes again, doing the fascists' propaganda work for them. All-powerful and ever the victim.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#278

Post by rriepe »

wbronitsky wrote: post #210

Let’s say I own a bullhorn shop. In fact, I have purchased every bullhorn shop, distributor, and manufacturer of relevance in the world. Someone, a self proclaimed Nazi, comes to me, the owner of every bullhorn, to buy a bullhorn in order to convince others to be Nazis. I, a Jew, refuse to sell the bullhorn to the Nazi. Am I being overly simplistic? Probably, but I don’t see where my analogy fails. I fail so see the…

The Nazi would claim to be oppressed by the Jew. Would you deny the purchase to anyone making such a claim?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#279

Post by anm89 »

hggythhdtr wrote: post #260
oxygenmolds wrote: post #197

Good, I like being told what to think so that I don't have to have any opinions of my own. This frees up my mind to focus on consuming new products.

You think there's some kind of debate or question around the existence of the Holocaust?

He didn't say that. This is dishonest bullying.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#280

Post by read_if_gay_ »

wbronitsky wrote: post #210

Let’s say I own a bullhorn shop. In fact, I have purchased every bullhorn shop, distributor, and manufacturer of relevance in the world. Someone, a self proclaimed Nazi, comes to me, the owner of every bullhorn, to buy a bullhorn in order to convince others to be Nazis. I, a Jew, refuse to sell the bullhorn to the Nazi. Am I being overly simplistic? Probably, but I don’t see where my analogy fails. I fail so see the…

Define Nazi, define “in order to convince others to be Nazis”. Your analogy is dealing in extremes only. In practice it’s not a clear cut. That is missing in your analogy.
Post reply on HN