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…
> a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall How can you tell if they are beyond reason if you are not allowed to read their arguments?
Removing Holocaust Denial Content
361–370 of 823 posts
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Civil law systems have "The abuse of rights principle". It means that legal right can't be used in the purpose of _only_ causing annoyance, harm, or injury to another or violating or invalidating the rights. In the EU the principle is codified in the article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They both prohibit the use of rights in a way that…
This seems like it would be very difficult to litigate. How do you ascertain the "predominant motive"? How do you define "serious or legitimate"? To whom? If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head-covering (or a Christian wearing a cross necklace) in a French school, it's probably very serious and legitimate to her , but perhaps not to a tribunal of secularists. There aren't any silver bullets for the issue of speech fr…
Here is summary in English https://korkeinoikeus.fi/en/index/ennakkopaatokset/shortsumm...
>Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that to invoke the freedom of association or the freedom of speech in order to disrupt parliamentary democracy, to promote national socialism as an ideology, or to justify the defamation or demeaning of an ethnic group was an abuse of these rights, as the objective was to cancel democratic government or to materially undermine other fundamental rights and human rights. Accordingly, the objectives and the activities of the association were not to be afforded the protection of the freedoms of association or of speech.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#363Earlier 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.
To clarify, are you saying that when threats are censored it's not an encroachment of free speech because they aren't "part of a dialogue"? If so, then how is holocaust denial any different?
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#364Admirable 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…
People are always going to have ideas which conflict with the mainstream, ideas that incite outrage and seem totally absurd. If history has anything to say about the matter it's that some of these absurd ideas have proven themselves correct despite mainstream acceptance, even outrage, to the contrary. If these ideas were silenced because they clashed with the mainstream then societies would seldom have progressed beyond dogmatic belief. What immediately comes to mind is viral FB content proclaiming masks as a panacea for Coronavirus and the government will abduct your children if you test positive. God forbid Facebook won't be removing that content though, because it doesn't clash with the mainstream zeitgeist that our reaction to the outbreak hasn't caused more long term harm than good at this point.
Good grief, I never thought I'd find myself defending the existence of Holocaust denial content on the internet, but it blows my mind how in the age of the internet we STILL don't understand how to deal with trolls.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that this is an encroachment on free speech. Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_. The government is not allowed to silence you on most things you say. However, things like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (the age-old example) are not free speech. Moreover, Facebook is not the government and does not need to allow you to say anything you want. People who would…
Our first amendment rights in the US restrict the government from prohibiting free speech. But that doesn't mean free speech isn't a principle that can, and should, be applied in other areas of life. When people say Facebook is violating free speech, that absolutely makes sense as a violation of a principle that many of us care strongly about, and that our society is to a great extent founded upon. Just because free…
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#366Regardless 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 toda…
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anyone who even knows what Parler is, let alone has used it. This is gonna be the next Voat. Websites that are predominantly extremist content because the only people using them are those banned from all the major platforms don't tend to succeed.
I think that largely speaks to your bubble has blinded you, and thus the problem as a whole. With people on the right, Parler is very well known. There are a pretty large number of celebrities and politicians - and unlike Gab not merely people who were dumped from other social media platforms.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not using abstraction, I'm using the literal meaning of the word. Intolerance is not allowing something, usually that you disagree with. Censorship = Intolerance. Further, I don't think not believing in something, nor expressing that disbelief thereof qualifies as "intolerance" by any definition. What specifically is not being tolerated?
Holocaust denial is inseparably bound up with being intolerant of the right for Jews (and Roma, and Homosexuals, and so forth.) to exist. If you are a holocaust denialist, then you are by definition absolutely intolerant, and I am perfectly fine with you being expunged from any community of the civilised.
I am a person of jewish descent, and I find the action of silencing people far more disturbing and closer to that of the reich, than those of the people being silenced.
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#369Earlier 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…
no no no no no. Please read the paradox of intolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content
#370How are they going to determine what is HD? Some scholars get labeled denialists because they have different estimates for the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. Seems worrying to have FB moderators determining what's acceptable historical debate and what is wrongthink.