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

321–330 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#321

Post by free_rms »

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.

I don't know if you remember the 90s, but a lot of people wanted to ban Marilyn Manson because school shooters.

Food for thought.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#322

Post by rbecker »

dougk16 wrote: post #44
vdfs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History 101: humanity doesn't learn from history

To summarize the major issue, we're taught in schools the results of something like Nazi Germany, 6 million died in camps, Hitler was a psychopath, etc., all the details of how horrible it was and how we can never let it happen again. What we're not taught are the methodical psychological operations implemented over decades on at least 2 or 3 generations that lead up to a situation where an entire country could be fo…

> we're taught in schools the results of something like Nazi Germany, 6 million died in camps

You're taught poorly. 11 million died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#cite_note-USHMMf...

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#323

Post by hef19898 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #290
hef19898 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There you go: "He criticised the evidence for the accepted number of about 6 million victims, claiming that it was a propaganda figure of the Soviet leadership for which there were no evidence.[7]" from the above wikipedia article. Again, the whole line of argumentation matters, in which case he is misusing numbers from some sources to discredit other to come to a different total number. If you are going to challenge…

It also says a few sentences later "He came to the conclusion that the Soviet commission examining the concentration camp Auschwitz (which did not find any of the German paperwork) had made the best estimate the number of victims." Edit: I also want to clarify (again) that I'm not arguing that he is correct. I am arguing that he is labeled a denialist for his claim about the number of Jews killed, despite his believi…

Which he then used to put the overall number in doubt as Soviet propaganda. Which is dishonest.

Also, the holocaust started much earlier than Auschwitz, and it included much more than just exterminatation and concentration camps.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#324

Post by bjourne »

whoisjuan wrote: post #249
lki876 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 platfor…

You are being obtuse. Following your definition, freedom of speech wouldn't exist in anywhere other than in the U.S. because no other country has a constitution with that exact same wording!

lki876 is clearly referring to a philosophical principle, not whether Facebook's policies violates the U.S. constitution. There was probably some law legalizing Trump's murder of Qasem Soleimani too, doesn't mean it wasn't also a dick move.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#325

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

lki876 wrote: post #184
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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?

The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions. The legal differences between those entities has nothing to do with the general concept.

>The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions.

But the manner in which governments can affect free speech is very much broader, because they can criminalize and regulate it in a way that is generally binding on all societal participants.

Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments: except that the government includes the judicial branch that decides disputes over contracts.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#326

Post by serial_dev »

creata wrote: post #248
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…

> If you see Facebook for what it is --- not an arm of the government

I find it easy to see Facebook as one of the arms of the government. It's not the only arm of the government, and it's not the only thing Facebook does, but one could consider Facebook (and other social networks and tech giants) as an arm of the government.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#327

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#328

Post by throwaway568468 »

Dobbs wrote: post #183
leftyted wrote: post #104

Earlier 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…

The really quick and dirty version: I can't tolerate (neo) Nazis because they want to harm queer people, Jews, disabled people etc. The people they want to harm can't do anything to stop being targeted by (neo) Nazis. Nazis can stop being Nazis and then I'll start tolerating them. It doesn't matter if a Jew stops practising Judaism they will be targeted. It doesn't matter if a gay person is in the closet, they will b…

Do you mean that you wouldn't oppose harming or wanting to harm practicing muslims or christians as they could stop practicing?

To be fair, I understand that your idea is mainly that there is a hierarchy in the level of intolerance. But there was some losses in explaining your idea in a quick and dirty way.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#329

Post by asah »

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…

no no no no no. Please read the paradox of intolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#330

Post by freen »

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…

You are transmuting a private organization’s choice, which is equivalent to a person kicking nazis out of their dinner party, into something only a government can do: limit free speech.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Post reply on HN