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

351–360 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#351

Post by [deleted] »

bjourne wrote: post #324
whoisjuan wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#352

Post by fennecfoxen »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #305
hef19898 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is such a thing as factual truth. That we, as a society, have reached a point where we lost the basic concensus of that is very troubling. Denying the Holocaust is like denying gravity. Both things, the Holocaust and gravity, are factually true. We have to be able to call people out for denying that. And while denying gravity is just stupid, denying the holocaust is outright dangerous. Taking steps against that…

It is factually true! And yet there are many disputes over the facts in our world, and the "Fact Check" is an entire genre of opinion journalism these days, and Facebook is already applying censorship based on these opinions. Take, for instance, this overtly right-wing partisan here, John Stossel, also writing within the past week: https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2020/10/07/fake-fac... I have little traffick…

I am being downvoted by the enforcers of orthodox opinion here. Which brings me to the real reason that you shouldn't worry about a slippery slope from Facebook becoming the arbiter of Fact: Because you actually want the slippery slope to happen! You are confident that they will use their power to censor your political enemies and enforce your orthodoxies on the world.

<3

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#353

Post by duxup »

free_rms wrote: post #304
duxup wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like any given region's propensity to say not like a particular sexual orientation is dramatically different from say holocaust denial that is straight up rooted in antisemitism.

So you're making a narrow case that holocaust denial is specifically bad and not endorsing more policing by facebook in general? There's certainly precedent for holocaust denial being considered specifically and uniquely harmful, although it feels a little dated in the year 2020.

All hate groups seem dated, sadly hate doesn't seem to just sort of become a thing of the past :(

As far as you question goes to some extent yes. I wouldn't want to see some sort of litmus test for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group.

A specific christian identity group (randomly made up here) that is hateful, no problem with removing them. All Christian groups, no.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#354

Post by AnimalMuppet »

kypro wrote: post #298

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…

> I'm just thankful Facebook and Twitter weren't around to police wrong think during the gay and civil rights movements tbh.

But during that time, there were mass media. They didn't allow the now-considered-right-thinking viewpoint (in the case of gays) or were not consistent in support of it (civil rights). Those who were pro-gay and pro-civil-rights needed alternate means of communication. The same may be true today.

Fortunately, we have such means - email, phone, text, snail mail. You don't have to talk to people who think like you on Facebook or Twitter. If the mainstream media becomes too censorious, talk somewhere else.

Note well: This does not mean that I am in favor of Facebook censoring, especially if it goes several steps further than just holocaust denial. But if they do, it's not the end of dissent. Dissent just grows underground.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#355

Post by shadowgovt »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #332
rbanffy wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. True, but it kind of crosses the line when something denies well documented fact and tries to discredit reality itself. This "gamification" of alternative realities is insanely toxic to democracy and society.

Does this same denial of "well documented fact and to discredit reality itself" extend to religious doctrine, also or do the corporations get to pick and choose what realities they choose to censor?

Ah, you strike at the contradiction embedded into the US First Amendment.

It's almost like the Amendment was built as a practical tool to constrain government from actions which history showed led to people rising up and overthrowing a government, not as a holy shrine of virtues that were self-evidently virtuous.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#356

Post by baobabKoodaa »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #229
tr352 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

It sounds like you have a very, very specific idea of what should be considered free speech, and you seem to have very little tolerance for people who hold a different opinion on that topic. Rather than saying "we disagree on what should be considered free speech", you describe the people who disagree with you as confused and ignorant, who need to be educated with more debate.

I have news for you: people can have different ideas about what should be within the limits of free speech and what should not. In fact, different countries have entirely different laws regarding what is protected as free speech and what is not.

Let's consider the harassment example that you brought up: in principle I agree with you that people should not be allowed to harass each other. However, when you can quell unwanted speech by labeling it "harassment", you create an incentive for people to label more and more speech as harassment. We see this issue in practice all the time. In many places, stating facts such as "men and women have biological differences" is now considered harassment and can lead to losing your job.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#357

Post by tpush »

HashingtheCode wrote: post #164
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I draw the line at hate. If one side wants to destroy me do I have to listen to their arguments?

No you don't have to listen, you can walk away.

Being driven away is exactly why rules and legislations like these exist, so that no one has to "walk away" because of hateful people spattering their bullshit.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#358

Post by asah »

hggythhdtr wrote: post #288
anm89 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please, do clarify what they meant then. As I see it, they suggested that removing content denying the Holocaust was telling someone what opinions to have on the matter. The Holocaust is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.

thank you for saying this.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#359

Post by everdrive »

kick wrote: post #158
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…

Facebook isn't a collection of books, and it isn't a collection of speech: the speech is a side effect. Facebook is a virality engine. How do you get content that's appealing to the widest variety of people shoved into their faces? The popularity of a President almost always goes up by starting a war, because the American public loves war. It's how Bush Jr. got the popular vote after losing it so miserably the first…

>Facebook is a virality engine. How do you get content that's appealing to the widest variety of people shoved into their faces?

This is a very good way to put it. I haven't figured what the best stance would be yet, but it's clear that the old concerns about censorship are quite outdated. Almost no one can make information disappear, and instead, what modern platforms can do (as you've so well put it) is restrict or encourage virality.

What is the role of old free speech absolutists when ideas still remain accessible, but the fight is simply over how how mainstream, and how viral those ideas are? I'm not really sure, however I don't worry about things being censored on facebook. Cloudflare's power, although perhaps less impactful in practical terms, seems scarier: the withholding of DDoS protections from individual websites who hold controversial views. (and to be clear, 8kun's loss is probably a net benefit for society, I'm just thinking about the modern equivalent to a free speech principle)

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#360

Post by Certhas »

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…

This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream".

This is deeply dishonest by you. We are not talking about removing peoples right to use a platform because they are out of the mainstream and we disagree with them. That is NOT the reason. There is plenty of non-mainstream opinion around. There is plenty of things that a vast majority find disagreeable that no one is talking about removing.

Post reply on HN