Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#501

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #233

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.

Those things you worry about are already illegal. Direct threats of violence (through speech) are already illegal. Funding raising for terrorism is already illegal, including fundraising through speech.

> Those things you worry about are already illegal.

This is where free speech absolutists lose me. They say that all speech should be protected and as soon as they find an exception that is just labeled "not speech". Why then can't we use a definition of "not speech" that includes Blood Libel?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#502

Post by jaywalk » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:54 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.

Free speech simply does not exist in a number of (perhaps any?) European countries.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#503

Post by hangonhn » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #310

nabla9 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil law systems have "The abuse of rights principle". It means that legal right can't be used in the purpose of _only_ causing annoyance, harm, or injury to another or violating or invalidating the rights. In the EU the principle is codified in the article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They both prohibit the use of rights in a way that…

This seems like it would be very difficult to litigate. How do you ascertain the "predominant motive"? How do you define "serious or legitimate"? To whom? If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head-covering (or a Christian wearing a cross necklace) in a French school, it's probably very serious and legitimate to her , but perhaps not to a tribunal of secularists. There aren't any silver bullets for the issue of speech fr…

I wonder if that may be intentional so that when people to litigate it, it's going to be pretty obvious and leave very little room for doubt.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#504

Post by throwaway894345 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #405

throwaway894345 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 by coworkers and nearly terminated for interviewing a black man who expressed concern about crime in his neighborhood

Which of these are things an employer would reasonably fire an employee over? I don't think any reasonable person would believe that these people would have been fired if it weren't for the concerted canceling. Otherwise why would people bother petitioning the employer if the employer would have fired them anyway?

Moreover, do cancel-culture proponents really want to cement the precedent that employment is just an ordinary association, and that anyone's employment (and thus livelihood and health insurance) can be terminated on the whims of their employer? Would they feel comfortable allowing a Trump-voting employer to casually part ways with an employee upon finding out they support Biden? Bear in mind that you and I and those we know are probably much more likely to be in high-demand tech positions than the median American.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#505

Post by saas_sam » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

ephimetheus wrote: post #444

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.

A cursory search reveals your characterization to be inaccurate. Note: I had no real interest in this topic until I read your critique which just sounded totally outlandish to me. The ONLY people complaining about this limitation are people with terrible motives? No legitimate philosophers, political scientists, free speech activists exist with valid critiques? They're all just evil historical revisionists, eh? Doubtful...

Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#506

Post by freen » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

If you replace “Holocaust denial” with “spam”, we would be having a very, very different conversation here on hacker news.

Why do some folks think removing spam is ok, but not content the owner of the publishing platform finds abhorrent?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#507

Post by nrmitchi » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

jakamau wrote: post #50

In a semi-related tangent, The Economist recently had an article about the unintentional destruction of evidence when deleting terrorist propaganda. The content should be removed from discourse, but I think there is value in making it a silent ban instead of deletion. Keep the post visible to only the poster, no one else can see or interact with the material once it's been flagged. It's effectively deleted, evidence…

The points are all valid, and grey-balling content like this is a common pattern to prevent abuse; if it is clearly deleted, it will just be re-posted.

That being said, I'm not sure I understand the destruction of evidence concern... are we to believe that Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc ever actually delete anything? Even if it's totally removed from Facebook externally, I have 0 doubts that Facebook could product the content if required.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#508

Post by vixen99 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

Certhas wrote: post #360

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 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…

From your comment we don't actually know at all what we're (or rather, you) are 'talking about'. Asides from you about what these people are really like, whoever they are, don't amount to a salient point. Perhaps you can give an example instead.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#509

Post by strawberrypuree » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #202

strawberrypuree wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be noted that there actually are debates among historians about the Holocaust but these are not over whether it happened [...] Will this be allowed on Facebook? I don’t have an opinion either way, but I think the original concern with removing “Denial” content was that it would impact this type of debate.

Why would it, as no real historian denies the Holocaust. But that is besides the point, as these discussions propably don't need facebook to take place. And if they do, that in itself might be part of the problem.

The GP established there are legitimate conversations being had about aspects of the Holocaust that do not deny that it happened. This is a nuance that sets a precedent for other discussions of controversial topics. I think it’s important that common people understand the difference between Denial, Revisionism, and legitimate debate, and have a way of discovering this information without being lumped in with antisemites

I somewhat agree that it doesn’t “need” to happen on Facebook, and I think it’s OK to stake that out as a rule: Don’t debate anything about the Holocaust on Facebook, take it elsewhere. Meet with your history buff friends on Telegram and hash it out.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#510

Post by AHappyCamper » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

My grandparent's families were mostly wiped out. We lost over 300 on my Dad's side, and there's no number for how many we lost on my Mom's side - everyone was killed. I grew up listening to my Grandmother screaming when she had panic attacks and night terrors, and the stories we heard were horrific. I'm so so glad that Facebook has done this. Maybe it hurts freedom of speech, and maybe it's overreach - I don't know - those are large and complex subjects. From the subjective point of view, it just makes me happy that they are putting a stop to it.