Removing Holocaust Denial Content

It's amazing to me that people don't see the irony that a major tactic of the nazis was quelling free speech.

We are so scared of the nazis that we act like them. This is of course how they framed it too. They would have claimed they needed to protect themselves from the dangerous ideas, literature, art of the Jews.

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

We shouldn't tolerate things that are objectively and provably false. Denying the holocaust is one of those things, and therefore we shouldn't tolerate it.

First, that wasn't a hyperbole. Second, you don't have to be a holocaust denier to be pro free speech, and the guy you're replying to probably isn't one.

Holocaust denial is a very bad thing, why would you smear someone with it just because they love free speech more than you do?

Regardless of my opinion on holocaust denialism, I'll never be comfortable with such a large communications platform having the power to decide what ideas are acceptable and unacceptable to discuss. Like all of us, I hold a number of opinions that many believe are incorrect or harmful so I feel the need to defend the principles of freedom of speech regardless of the issue at hand.

As for this policy change, I wonder what the limits will be here? Holocaust denialism isn't something I know much about, but my understanding is that there are different categories of holocaust denialism. A lot of holocaust "denialism" isn't strictly denial of the holocaust, but more the extent to which it happened. Many will argue that there were far less than 6 million deaths – which as I understand it isn't supported by the majority of academics.

However I do believe some denialism is academic in the same way a small handful of scientists disagree about climate change, there is also some academic disagreement about the treatment of Jews during holocaust and the total number of Jews killed. Are these kinds of discussions also off limits? Would I be allowed to share academic research which suggest 8 million Jews died, but not 4 million? Or is only discussion that centres on the 6 million number acceptable?

I suspect as usual any legitimate discussion that happens to fall outside the bounds of what's socially acceptable to those enforcing this policy will be removed and the bounds of what's acceptable will continue to shrink. I know Twitter and Reddit ban people for having the wrong academic views on race and gender these days so I assume this policy will be enforced similarly.

It does seem going forward only those with the correct views on race, gender, global warming, COVID-19, history, and social issues will be permitted access to digital communication platforms. I'm just thankful Facebook and Twitter weren't around to police wrong think during the gay and civil rights movements tbh.

Congratulations, you’ve discovered the paradox of tolerance (which the parent helpfully linked)?

There can be no stable and 100% tolerant society, because by definition that means that nothing will be done to stop intolerance from taking over. Given that 99% tolerant (with an exception for “no nazis”) is about as tolerant as it’s possible to be, most people use “99% tolerant (with an exception for no nazis)” and “tolerant” synonymously.

It’s not perfect, and yes it would be clearer if every single use of the word “tolerant” was replaced with “99% tolerant” and came with an explanation of the paradox of tolerance in the footnotes, but I think most people already understand what is meant here.

IMO it’s more nonsensical (and dangerous) to go the other way, using "1% intolerant” and “intolerant” synonymously - as then people start getting the impression that “banning holocaust denial content” (1% intolerant) and “gassing the Jews” (100% intolerant) are equally bad acts.