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

381–390 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#381

Post by tenebrisalietum »

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 an encroachment on free speech

It's not.

Using a third party service to publish posts is not equivalent to speech. It's more akin to press, but it's not quite like that either: it's equivalent to asking a publisher to put a communication of yours in their printed text.

Facebook is not preventing someone from physically going to any street corner or other real public place and talking about holocaust denial. Facebook or anyone else would have every right to prevent this on their property if they wish.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#382

Post by CydeWeys »

donatj wrote: post #346
CydeWeys wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can it be done? Who's been banned from the major platforms and has then established a similarly sized platform of their own elsewhere? You have to admit that this is at least a huge roadblock for hateful extremists, no?

Whose definition of "hateful extremist"? Anyone who would censor another person qualifies as a hateful extremist in my book.

The platform operator's, of course.

Let's take an extreme example of someone almost everyone agrees was a hateful extremist -- Osama bin Laden. Prior to his death, should he have been allowed to post on Twitter encouraging the murders of more people? Would Twitter have been a "hateful extremist" for banning him and other Al Qaeda accounts? Or -- and here me out here -- would it have been acceptable to ban him? If so, then there is a line somewhere. And if there is a line, then why shouldn't modern day Neo-Nazis calling for the deaths of Jews be on the other side of the line as well?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#383

Post by devthrowawy »

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.

As if any of those things are actually scary. I'm more scared of not becoming north Korea.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#384

Post by Zpalmtree »

analyte123 wrote: post #141
vorpalhex wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you have them weigh in on the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, or Tianenman? Each of those conflicts has deniers of various levels, some of whom are states. And, if Facebook gets it wrong (and perhaps decides the Tianenman square massacre was a hoax by the West to discredit the CCP) - how should we respond then? This is a company that was censoring pictures of mothers feeding their babies, but still has conten…

Comparing the Holocaust to any other state-sponsored atrocities is arguably downplaying or in Facebook's words "distorting" the Holocaust.

Why? The holodomor has a comparable amount of deaths resulting from it

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#385

Post by throwaway894345 »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #356
throwaway894345 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dif…

You've missed the point. Free-speech is widely understood to exclude threats and harassment, but even if it were only a niche definition used by free-speech proponents the pro-cancel-culture argument would still be nonsense because it claims that the pro-free-speech argument is inconsistent and self-refuting based on a definition of 'free-speech' that includes threats and harassment. Anyone who makes this argument plainly doesn't understand the free-speech argument.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#386

Post by yeneek »

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…

It's censorship for sure.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#387

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 an encroachment on free speech

As a strong-form First Amendment supporter and free speech advocate, this sort of fundamentalism is the greatest threat to free speech across the world.

Nobody is arresting the groups fomenting outright violence against their fellow Americans. We aren’t even saying they can’t use the banking system to collect resources or our public spaces to share their ideas. We’re literally saying they’re limited from using a mob-inducing micro targeting tool.

When that gets lumped in with vilifying speech, it gets easy to curtail both.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#388

Post by jdpedrie »

whoisjuan wrote: post #342
jdpedrie wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. Of course Facebook's censorship is censorship. It is true that they are not bound by the first amendment in the same way in which Congress (and via incorporation the states) are bound, but freedom of speech is a concept which exists independent of the first amendment guarantee to its enjoyment.

In many countries Holocaust Denial it's a crime. The world it's not only the US. So let's start there. If you want to call this censorship that's within your rights of course (your freedom of speech right, nonetheless). Either way, I think people have also a wrong idea of what censorship is. If I tell you can't take a shit in the middle of my living room and you claim that I'm censoring you, then maybe you should rec…

You're missing the point. "Censorship" is an abridgement of freedom of speech. Whether it's legal censorship or illegal or even government mandated, it's still censorship. You're trying to change the meaning of well-defined terms because you're uncomfortable with what the implications of them might be. If you're pro-censorship, just say so, don't try to change what freedom of speech means.

There's no one who would advocate complete and total freedom of speech in every arena. Whether it's social, legal or self censorship, the question isn't about whether a line exists, it's where we place it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#389

Post by ravenstine »

Vaslo wrote: post #201

If we ban this speech then how can we argue against these ideas? The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. BUT we know that there are people that say the world is flat, moon landing was faked, etc. If anything I’d like to engage these people and verbally smash them. If anything, Facebook should make posts like this unblockable, so people can’t defriend or block people with who…

Technologists, including what seems to be a large portion of HN, believe that those they view as beneath them are too stupid to evaluate arguments, so they've accepted the idea of having a ministry of truth. Rather than elevate their "untermensch", their egos drive them to exercise control.

If you can't educate people to separate fact from fiction, that is ultimately the fault of intellectuals. It's one thing to teach facts in school and leave out the nonsense, but deplatforming unpopular ideas is a form of control over individuals. Where does it stop? Do we create a standard where web hosts, ISPs, deplatform ideas outside the overton window? What kind of precedent is that?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#390

Post by majewsky »

ibeckermayer wrote: post #339
brianfryer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be worth considering The Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

How exactly is the paradox of tolerance relevant here? What precisely is “intolerant” about denying a specific historical fact?

It's the other side that's being "intolerant" for not tolerating the holocaust deniers.
Post reply on HN