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

511–520 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#511

Post by adinisom »

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…

Censorship in the form of moderation often makes sense for businesses seeking to maintain their properties. If I run a forum for car enthusiasts, I should be able to curate the community and limit discussions on locomotives.

But what of the platforms that make my forum possible? The Cloudflares the protect from DDoS, the DigitalOceans that provide the servers, the ISPs that provide transit, the Facebooks that provide social media support? Should they have the freedom to decide they don't like my forum and kick me off? I've come to believe that the more general purpose a service is and the more communication it controls, the more harmful the business's freedom to censor is for a free society.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#512

Post by donatj »

CydeWeys wrote: post #382
donatj wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose definition of "hateful extremist"? Anyone who would censor another person qualifies as a hateful extremist in my book.

The platform operator's, of course. Let's take an extreme example of someone almost everyone agrees was a hateful extremist -- Osama bin Laden. Prior to his death, should he have been allowed to post on Twitter encouraging the murders of more people? Would Twitter have been a "hateful extremist" for banning him and other Al Qaeda accounts? Or -- and here me out here -- would it have been acceptable to ban him? If so,…

I mean death threats are clearly the line. That’s not the issue at hand though.

Death threats are already banned from facebook unless their against celebrities / politicians - which to me is a weird distinction to make.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#513

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #490
whoisburbansky wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "ignore voices you don't like" argument completely fails to account for the effect of those voices on the millions of people around you, and the effect of their changed actions as a result, on you in turn. It's like saying "pretend you're the only person in the world."

Sure, the effects of speech on the real world has always been the reason for censorship. "Ignore voices you don't like" isn't a refutation of that old and honest argument in favor of censorship, it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech.

> censorship actually protects freedom of speech

I believe it does. And I don’t believe it’s a dishonest argument.

But I sincerely respect your position (to use the cliché: I understand where you’re coming from...). And I agree to disagree.

Will you agree to disagree with me, though?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#514

Post by throwaway894345 »

hangonhn wrote: post #503
throwaway894345 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally ambiguity leaves more, not less room for doubt, but IANAL.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#515

Post by malwrar »

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…

It is amusing that you propose the vigorous use of force (“Ban Them. All of them. Today”) to eliminate voices you deem fascist. If you feel this strongly about the harm of holocaust denial, have you considered working to convince people the holocaust did in fact happen? It’s pretty easy—-plenty of evidence exists to suggest it happened and all attempts I’ve encountered of people make a case otherwise have been debunked. I guess it’s not worth the effort to actually talk to people though, easier to just convince someone they’re wrong by threat of force.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#516

Post by zests »

andybak wrote: post #211
zests wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labeling of "slippery slope" as a "logical fallacy" versus a "consequentialist logical device" is becoming quite the political statement. Check out the history and the talk page of the wikipedia article for slippery slope. For the record, I disagree that it is a logical fallacy in all cases.

> For the record, I disagree that it is a logical fallacy in all cases. Isn't that ambiguous? You could mean: > It is not a logical fallacy ever. or > It is not always a logical fallacy. I suspect you mean the latter but some might intepret you as meaning the former.

Yes, I can see how the wording could be confusing. I mean the second interpretation as you suggest.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#517

Post by evgen »

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.

All of those things are incredibly rare occurrences, and there is still a greater probability that you will be the victim of one of them than that the country becomes North Korea.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#518

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

nostromo wrote: post #482
whoisburbansky wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "ignore voices you don't like" argument completely fails to account for the effect of those voices on the millions of people around you, and the effect of their changed actions as a result, on you in turn. It's like saying "pretend you're the only person in the world."

Censorship still isn't the answer. If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Censorship may even protect people with views you find objectionable -- because that person is shielded from having disagreements with others.

> If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way.

Again, that’s not how people work. “The marketplace of ideas” is an idealism, a mini-utopia. It does not account for known and unpatched vulnerabilities in human psychology - and a fix from the vendor is not expected any time soon.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#519

Post by disown »

creata wrote: post #248
logicalmonster wrote: post #176

Digital book burning 2.0. “But it’s ok, we’re the good guys and doing it for the right reasons”, says every tyrant ever. 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. I’ll try and give an example here that might be safe to give because it rips the Republican Wing of the Military Industrial Complex. If Facebook was one of the world’s primar…

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…

> it's clear that this is no violation of free speech.

It is a violation of free speech. Just a legal one. For example, parts of europe, russia, china, saudi arabia, etc there are legal violations of free speech. Doesn't make it right though.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#520

Post by legolas2412 »

duxup wrote: post #353
free_rms wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're making a narrow case that holocaust denial is specifically bad and not endorsing more policing by facebook in general? There's certainly precedent for holocaust denial being considered specifically and uniquely harmful, although it feels a little dated in the year 2020.

All hate groups seem dated, sadly hate doesn't seem to just sort of become a thing of the past :( As far as you question goes to some extent yes. I wouldn't want to see some sort of litmus test for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. A specific christian identity group (randomly made up here) that is hateful, no problem with removing them. All Christian groups, no.

> for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group.

As an atheist, I do find them a hate group. Are you going to declare militant atheism intolerant, or religion?

Post reply on HN