Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#471

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

mistermann wrote: post #396

freen wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are transmuting a private organization’s choice, which is equivalent to a person kicking nazis out of their dinner party, into something only a government can do: limit free speech. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/

Not true. Rather, you (and the cartoon) are confusing the abstract general principle of free speech, for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If one steps back and observes this conversation from a disinterested 3rd party perspective, one might notice that these same arguments, based on falsehoods from both sides, reoccur every single time the topic comes up . And if one exercises this practice over…

You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Both are fully compatible with any understanding of “free speech” constitutionally, politically and socially.

Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No?

That’s the fundamental question that is being asked.

If your answer is no, you would not kick nazis out of your dinner party, on account of “free speech”, well, that is your free speech. Mine is kicking the nazis out.

If you would not permit me to alter my behavior to stop my resources and forum to be utilized by nazis, meaning I must support and publish nazi material, your position is very extreme, severely limits my autonomy and in many ways forces me to “speak” on behalf of others.

“Free speech” that does not allow for others to express the consequences of that speech is not, in fact a support of free speech.

If you say “I hate nazis, but you must allow them to publish on your website” you are effectively prioritizing one type of speech over another. You are saying I must allow nazis at my dinner party. (Note: the government, with its force of law, is very, very different)

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#472

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

That anything in history is beyond doubt or beyond denial is anti-intellectual and should worry everyone. That's not history, that's religion. It is religion that demands absolute obedience and absolute acceptance.

Everything from George Washington to the dropping of nukes to even the native genocides are allowed to be debated and even questioned. Why is the holocaust the sole exception? Especially considering it isn't even part of american history and last I checked facebook is an american company.

If russia, china, north korea, saudi arabia, etc all said or forced their social media companies to remove content denying, criticizing or disputing X, we'd call that censorship. And yet, here we are, the top comment is praising this censorship.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#473

Post by monksy » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:42 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…

> Facebook is a private platform and when you sign-up and use them you abide by their rules. This is not censorship.

It is until it isn't. The big question here is: Is it a common carrier in which people use it, or is it responsible for content on there?

When they start sticking their hand in it to determine what is and isn't acceptible content on there, imo they violate the claim that they're a common platform/being a common carrier.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#474

Post by mcfly1985 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

remram wrote: post #425

jcadam wrote: post #155

To save free speech, we have to destroy free speech. In the future, some historian is going to write the seminal work on the decline and dissolution of the United States - and there's going to be an entire chapter dedicated to social media.

"destroy free speech" You will find that Holocaust denying specifically has been banned by law from a number of European countries for a very long time. And free speech is still doing just fine. This might not be the slippery slope you believe it is.

Europe banning speech doesn't make it ok. The truth has nothing to hide.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#475

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

Shish2k wrote: post #423

I find it interesting (/ sad) that even on HN, we have a bunch of people saying things like "This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.” as if it’s an obvious fact that this is a good thing with no bad side effects; and people saying things like "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.” as if it’s an equally un…

[deleted]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#476

Post by runarberg » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #72

runarberg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn’t it? Do you have any examples, or should I just take your word for it?

I'd suggest approaching this from the other direction: providing even one counterexample would refute GP's assertion.

True. Great grand parent was pretty strong in their claim “has not once yielded positive results in the history of the world.” I only need to provide one counter example to disprove this, while they need something far more significant, like several examples and a sufficiently good description of some mechanism for why this is the case in general.

ashtonkem mentioned Alex Jones (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24754897) that is a pretty good counter example, and is sufficient to refute the original claim.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#477

Post by disown » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:43 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…

> 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.

That's hilarious. The intolerant are justifying their acts by labeling the others as intolerant. It's the basis of all tyrannies.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#478

Post by mcfly1985 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #227

pm90 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly but it probably will read different from what you seem to think.

History is written by the victors, eh? I guess we'll just have to wait and see (or, rather our descendants will).

[flagged]

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#479

Post by 3np » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

Shish2k wrote: post #423

I find it interesting (/ sad) that even on HN, we have a bunch of people saying things like "This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.” as if it’s an obvious fact that this is a good thing with no bad side effects; and people saying things like "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.” as if it’s an equally un…

My (IMO) middle-ground take:

Facebook runs a walled garden and has full authority to censor all they want within it. They can make rules and enforcement as arbitrary any forum admin or subreddit mod. I think this is as it should.

No company should have authority over personal communication or public debate.

Facebook only has the power users hand over to them. IMO it's clear that no company should be in the position that they are in. The answer isn't solidifying Facebook's role as central arbiter of free speech and regulate their role as moderator over public debate and private communication alike, but to transition to a state where the application, protocol, social graph and mode of communication aren't coupled with moderation by a given entity.

Decentralize and federate.

There's work to be done, but we need to fill the gap.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#480

Post by TeaDrunk » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

devthrowawy wrote: post #383

pjc50 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As an LGBTQ immigrant a lot of those things are quite scary personally.