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

401–410 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#401

Post by donatj »

CydeWeys wrote: post #367
donatj wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you give some specific examples of these well-known people who are on Parler? Ideally ones that have been banned from the major platforms?

Scott Adams, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, The Daily Mail, a number of other conservative politicians I'm not particularly familiar with - That's just from a quick scan of the recommended people to follow.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#402

Post by enraged_camel »

mistermann wrote: post #331
enraged_camel wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated.

>You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated. What is caught in the "Holocaust denier" net does not consist solely of people who outright deny it occurred - there are many shades of grey, opinions in this realm are highly dimensional. This isn't to say that censorship in this case isn't justified or fairly o…

>>If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality.

The problem is that it is much easier to spread lies and misinformation than to contest and correct them. Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. This is especially true in this day and age where all it takes for something to reach massive audiences is a button click.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#403

Post by Zpalmtree »

ShamelessC wrote: post #380
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trouble is that Holocaust denial isn't spam, bots, threats of violence, abuse, or scams. It's a different interpretation of history, something that is protected under the First Amendment. Except these sites aren't considered public forums for some reason, even though they've supplanted the public forum in modern society. When a handful of corporations determine the Overton Window in society, that is a cause for conce…

Okay, just take a step back. Do we have to be so principled about all this? Holocaust Deniers are bad. Full stop. We all keep going back and forth on these principled stances about how freedom of speech is some holy thing that should be protected at all costs no matter how much damage it causes. That notion is absurd in my experience. This philosophical ideal of true freedom of speech doesn't even exist! 4Chan still…

[flagged]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#404

Post by ako »

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…

I would say there's a difference between tolerance of facts, and tolerance of lies. There's no need to tolerate people trying to hide facts with lies, which is the case holocaust denial.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#405

Post by shadowgovt »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #391
shadowgovt wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitions are a little murky. "Cancel culture" also isn't threats and harassment---it's deplatforming. It's using freedom of association to deny guilt by proxy for spreading someone else's lies, threats, and harassments.

Cancel culture is very often concerted petitioning of someone's employer into terminating someone's employment (harassment) or the threat of the same (recall the Hispanic utility company employee who was terminated for making the 'ok' sign inadvertently or the data scientist who was terminated for Tweeting a prominent black academic's research on the efficacy of nonviolent protests or the journalist who was harassed…

If petitioning your employer to fire you for something you said works, maybe you said something that your employer would fire you over?

That's, again, not harassment and threats, it's your employer using freedom of association to deny guilt by proxy for spreading someone else's lies, threats, and harassments.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#406

Post by tayo42 »

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…

I think people arguing against the fallacy clearly didn't read it or aren't arguing in good faith.

There is an important line, where it only applies to ideas or arguments that can't be addressed logically. If you have an intolerant idea that can't be addressed logically then it should be censored. If you ignore facts, you can't be argued with based on logic. Your intolerant opinion should be censored. This idea isn't that sinister.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#407

Post by fastball »

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…

Oh god, please not this parodox of intolerance stuff again.

It is a wholly untested and unproven idea. Stop parroting it as if it is something more than that.

Regardless, it is generally agreed that Popper was not talking about intolerant ideas but intolerant behavior i.e. violence and forced suppression. Popper's actual words were "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols", that last bit being pretty important.

Denying the Holocaust, detestable though it may be, does not forcibly violate the freedoms of anyone else.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#408

Post by devthrowawy »

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.

Seeing as the holocaust was an enormous industrial operation i'm going to image there are many details about it that can be debated. But now that conversation cannot be had because fb will always take the side of the more abhorrent fact. Anything less is denial.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#409

Post by codegeek »

lki876 wrote: post #150
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 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…

How is a lie "free speech" though ? Water is wet. If someone says they don't believe Water is wet, isn't that outright false and has nothing to do with "opinion or free speech" ? Holocaust is a fact so the deniers are just lying correct ?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#410

Post by CydeWeys »

donatj wrote: post #401
CydeWeys wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give some specific examples of these well-known people who are on Parler? Ideally ones that have been banned from the major platforms?

Scott Adams, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Sean Hannity, Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, The Daily Mail, a number of other conservative politicians I'm not particularly familiar with - That's just from a quick scan of the recommended people to follow.

None of these people have been banned from the major platforms though, and as far as I can tell all of them are still active on the majors. Parler is thus only one of many social networks that they use, and likely not the one with the most reach. So deplatforming them from the majors would have an effect.
Post reply on HN