Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#441

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:34 PM UTC

tarboreus wrote: post #319

jamamp wrote: post #203

Earlier 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…

My goodness, "Free Speech" whatever HN folks imagine it to be does not mean you get to use FB's infrastructure to disseminate it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#442

Post by tomp » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #387

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…

> 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…

Can't you be a holocaust denier (i.e. a strictly historical perspective) without also being pro- "outright violence"? That's like removing all of BLM just because some of them are also violently rioting...

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#443

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

konjin wrote: post #430

Certhas wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

>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". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do…

[deleted]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#444

Post by ephimetheus » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #114

How 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.

Holocaust denial is banned in Germany (same as swastikas by the way). It works really well. The only people complaining are literally people trying to twist perception of the arguably worst crime in the history of humanity, to make Germany look like a victim. FB is clearly doing the right thing here. Free speech has limits.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#445

Post by remram » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

jdpedrie wrote: post #284

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…

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.

Wouldn't forcing Facebook, a private company, to promote and convey any and all content equally, even content that they fundamentally disagree with, be restricting their own freedom of speech? Why should they be forced to distribute such messages?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#446

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

serial_dev wrote: post #326

creata wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Believe me, the world would look a lot different if Facebook were actually an arm of the government.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#447

Post by ngcazz » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

konjin wrote: post #430

Certhas wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

>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". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do…

When Holocaust denialism spreads it erodes solidarity with its victims, and people who do it are wittingly or not contributing to build the conditions for its repetition. So yes, we should be having the argument.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#448

Post by bjourne » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

iambateman wrote: post #252

Some comments are calling this move intolerant censorship, when it is not. Tolerance is accepting that another person has a different view. But the people who are pushing lies about the Holocaust or a flat earth don’t have a different opinion, they are lying about well-known, verifiable facts. Now, some may say that censors often hide behind “facts” to suppress ideas they don’t like. The difference is that the Holoca…

The slope is incredibly slippery. It starts with Holocaust denial, then pedophilia advocacy, then saying blacks are racially inferior to whites, then to plain old anti-Semitism, then to saying men have higher iq than women, then to militant vegans ("meat is murder you say, incitement!"), then to people wishing that Trump will die in Covid, then to people arguing that U.S. soldiers should be drone-striked.

Two weeks ago Facebook banned a seminar arranged by a U.S. university because one of the speakers was Leila Khaled. A 76-year-old lady who hijacked two planes 50 years ago. How can what she had to say be so "dangerous" that Facebook had to ban her? Sooner or later, this censorship will encroach on what you have to say too.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#449

Post by whoisjuan » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

jdpedrie wrote: post #388

whoisjuan wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ad…

Well I already said it. I say that Facebook is within their rights (by your definition) to "censor" this. Personally I don't consider this censorship. What else do you want me to say? You're talking about this like if it was a science where 2+2=4, and that's far from reality. That's why I provided an alternate angle, showing that in other countries Holocaust Denial is a crime.

I'm not changing what "freedom of speech means". I'm telling you that freedom of speech doesn't come with extra rights to give you the ability to disperse your thoughts and Facebook is also well within its own freedom of speech rights (as a Corporate personhood) to enforce whatever content rules they want.

Either way, I'm not even trying to argue here. You believe this is censorship. Fine. I respect that and really don't see that as an irrational thought at all. There's some sound reasoning around your idea that this is censorship. I just think that trying to create blanket definitions for "censorship" or "freedom of speech" is an easy escape to allow people to behave like shit. That's what I think. Totally a personal opinion, though.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#450

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

konjin wrote: post #430

Certhas wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

>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". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do…

There is a a very very close to zero percent chance that somebody that is denying one of the most heavily documented genocides in history is acting in good faith.