Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#461

Post by ben_w » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #371

kick wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? Couldn't someone have said the same thing of the printing press in the year 1440?

They have done so, and it has been argued by people worried about Social Media that the introduction of the printing press directly led to the Protestant-Catholic schism and all the associated bloodshed.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#462

Post by monksy » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

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'm not in agreement that they must show a healthy level of intolerence towards groups [...]

Where they've gone wrong is that they haven't segmeneted and created a concept of different groups. They've managed to make a platform for where they want to put every group up front. (Unlike reddit, where it's specialized into individual sections)

The more extreme groups now seek to get public acknowledgement and their platform is putting it in front. (It's a winner take all scenario). Reddit isn't perfect, but at least there is dedicated groups and there is some interference detection that is being fought against.(To prevent the extreme groups from trying to take over other groups)

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#463

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

Rebelgecko wrote: post #416

aixi wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a slippery slope fallacy. The holocaust is a non-recent and well documented event, and its denial is clearly a masquerade for hateful speech. Holocaust denial is outlawed in Germany for good reasons. Not to mention Facebook is a private company and it should be free to censor whatever it wants to censor; book burning is a real issue only when its state sponsored.

>book burning is a real issue only when its state sponsored. Strong disagree from me. These corporations are becoming an increasingly large part of how people communicate. Imagine if phone companies started deplatforming people the way social media sites do- it would become incredibly hard (perhaps impossible) to live a normal life in 21st century america.

Different media. Phones are a direct-messaging platform; Facebook is a highway full of roadside billboards.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#464

Post by _greim_ » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

whoisjuan wrote: post #249

lki876 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

> Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules.

Some people are better at compartmentalizing than others. They can hold freedom of speech as it applies to the government in one thought-bucket, while holding corporate-enforced limits on their ability to say whatever they want in another.

But others can't (or won't) compartmentalize. To them, the whole freedom from the government versus freedom from private corporations distinction seems arbitrary and distracting, especially in the US, where many government roles have been subsumed by private corporations.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, just trying to gain some perspective on the issue. Personally, I'm a compartmentalizer so I see your point.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#465

Post by bilbo0s » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

remram wrote: post #445

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.

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?

This is exactly the reason non governmental entities should be allowed to do as they please within the confines of Constitutionality. If they aren't allowed that freedom, then they aren't free, and you have a bigger problem. In this sense, censorship is free speech, as you point out. But it's still a form of censorship. It's just censorship that should be allowed and encouraged like any other form of speech or expression by non governmental entities.

EDIT: (At least, that's how it works in the US. Other nations, other laws.)

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#466

Post by Steltek » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #315

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…

“The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

Unless I'm mistaken, Facebook is not a government and ignorant, uncivilized people getting whats coming to them features heavily in his works. While he certainly frowns on censorship, people intolerant and incapable of behaving themselves are usually thrown out an airlock or otherwise completely ejected from society to roam the surface Mars alone. If you're going to argue the Heinlein route, perhaps Holocaust Deniers need some frontier justice instead?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#467

Post by BlueTemplar » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

KodoCoder wrote: post #230

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…

Free speech isn't the issue here. It's not censorship, it's moderation, and companies have every right to moderate what content is allowed on their platforms. I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Censorship, that is the government proscribing or restricting what people say and thinks in general/public/day-to-day life, is an egregious attack on people's liberty. I think we shouldn't tolerate any limi…

It becomes an issue when a company gets so big that it can control a significant fraction of the above-mentioned "what people say and thinks in general/public/day-to-day life".

https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capit...

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#468

Post by nicoffeine » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

tr352 wrote: post #147

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 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.

It's an important conversation to have. Ironically, the problem is that the signal gets divided into shortened binary views which are easier to say "yes" or "no" to. The answer isn't no censorship ever or censorship is always okay. The real answer always depends on context.

The problem with platforms like FB and Twitter is that anyone can say anything, and that can get amplified organically, or by state actors, or by trolls who are just saying offensive things to get attention. It's obvious that they need some form of moderation -- in most societies, you can't legally threaten to kill people for any reason, etc.

I think the main problem is trolling and foreign interference because it is basically free. Trying to establish a fringe idea required a lot of effort when making pamphlets or sending out biased newspapers were the main ways of doing it.

In the current digital age, people who are easily influenced are being blasted with controversial ideas by algorithms that are not trying to spread good information, but get more clicks. Foreign psyops efforts and the trolls who would not publicly support an idea, but will do so anonymously, falsely inflate its value. This is a new problem. It may need a twist on an old solution, like allowing people to choose between moderated or unmoderated news feeds, with the default being moderated.

Our democracy (and dozens of others) have survived for hundreds of years with limits to free speech. In my opinion, it's reasonable and rational to trust that the generations before us were at least partially right, and save ourselves the pain of reinventing that wheel.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#469

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #292

It's amazing to me that people don't see the irony that a major tactic of the nazis was quelling free speech. We are so scared of the nazis that we act like them. This is of course how they framed it too. They would have claimed they needed to protect themselves from the dangerous ideas, literature, art of the Jews.

When the US government considers banning Holocaust denial, I'll be concerned.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#470

Post by Zak » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #359

kick wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm a free speech absolutist in that I think governments should not be able to punish speech outside of direct and imminent attempts to induce others to commit crimes, false reports of dangerous situations that imminently cause real dangerous situations, and the like.

I don't extend that to private platforms. Facebook should be free to host or not host whatever it likes, arbitrarily. What's becoming problematic is that the algorithms of tech giants now dominate content discovery. If Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Reddit decide something is bad, that something will probably have trouble gaining traction.

Most of us, me included probably think attempts to color the perception of historical events to serve racist ends are bad, and do not want them to gain traction. That does not, however mean that I want Facebook to have the power to decide what ideas get traction. I'd like to see online content discovery grow more decentralized again, and I think using algorithms optimized for something other than maximizing engagement will probably tend to reduce extremist content without much active intervention, but I don't know how to get there from here.