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

531–540 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#531

Post by hef19898 »

strawberrypuree wrote: post #509
hef19898 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 antisemi…

Given how much conspiracy shit happens on Telegram, I wouldn't advise using that.

That being said, as long as the discussion is based facts, primary sources as much as possible and doesn't cherry pick and stake up the Holocaust against other war crimes, I agree that we need these discussions.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#532

Post by glasss »

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.

You and I have a right to not do anything with those people. But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to do that with people where we disagree on reasonable things. I'm not willing to have a civil discourse with people that adamantly refuse to believe facts and think I'm a part of a larger conspiracy.

Does that mean censorship of all of these people / ideas is the answer? I don't think so. But I know that if I ran a platform where people were discussing holocaust denial I would ban them. I'm willing to admit I might be a hypocrite on that front, but alas I am a human.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#533

Post by anigbrowl »

globular-toast wrote: post #177
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I draw the line at hate. If one side wants to destroy me do I have to listen to their arguments?

I think it would be wise to learn why somebody hates you, yes. There might be a very good reason for it.

Strategically it's certainly important to know who your antagonists are and what motivates them. But in the situation where you already know that, there's no need to entertain their antagonism.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#534

Post by colordrops »

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 is not allowed in a number of European countries. And free speech is still doing just fine."

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#535

Post by UncleMeat »

free_rms wrote: post #269
duxup wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me a wholesale ban on a religion, whose practitioners vary wildly seems like a completely different thing. Holocaust denial is pretty specific in comparison.

What % of a religion would need to be, say, anti-gay, before we deem the whole thing problematic and ban it from facebook? The more I investigate "where to draw the line", the more I'm convinced we aren't capable of doing so in a just fashion.

100% is fine.

That's the thing with neonazis. They are 100% in agreement about ethnic violence. It isn't a side effect of their belief system. It is the core of their belief system that undesirable people should be murdered.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#536

Post by jkinudsjknds »

nostromo wrote: post #491
ephimetheus wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It works really well. Because it's banned, it's impossible to know how well it works. I'm reminded of Iran's leader claiming they have no gay people. Of course he would think that, because if they were openly gay they would be jailed.

The point of the ban is to prevent supporting HD, not to ban believing it. Ban works.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#537

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

malwrar wrote: post #515
ShamelessC wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 debunk…

To be fair, social media does facilitate both social contagion and echo chamber formation, the combination of which can form very fastidious communities.

Its not a simple issue, but I don't think putting this power in the hands of a few for-profit corporations is the right solution.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#538

Post by raverbashing »

dcolkitt wrote: post #527
zemptime wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it linked off this article so I'll throw another relevant one here - "The Most Intolerant Wins" See: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Additionally full of all kinds of flavorful anecdotes like: > I once pulled a prank on a friend. Years ago when Big Tobacco were hiding and repressing the evidence of harm from secondary smoking, New York had smoking and nonsmoking sections in…

> "The Most Intolerant Wins" Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever. The past three centuries have had ups and downs, but overall there's been a remarkable and consistent global trend towards tolerance, liberalism, and democracy. This didn't happen because intolerant groups decided to let up on their zealotry. It didn't even happen because intolerant ideas were violently suppressed. (In almost e…

> Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever.

Do you think the major religions got to be the size they are because people though their story was cute?

> totalitarian ideologies like fascism and Marxism consistently failed to gain traction

WWII and their aftermath shows exactly the contrary.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#539

Post by gridlockd »

hef19898 wrote: post #311
gridlockd wrote: post #124

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. Where is the evidence that this is true? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is literally a crime, yet de-facto Neonazi…

Just by comparing the position of the GOP with some positions of, say the AfD and the former FN (Germany and France respectivley), I could make the case that right wing parties have a much smaller voter base in these two countries then the US.

I don't think it's useful to conflate anything right of center with fascism. I was thinking of parties like NPD or Golden Dawn, which aren't just "right wing", but thinly-veiled Neo-Nazi parties, attracting hundreds of thousands of votes.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#540

Post by lostgame »

AHappyCamper wrote: post #510

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 -…

>> Maybe it hurts freedom of speech, and maybe it's overreach

That you are even willing to say that is both admirable and shows just how far out of control the concept of 'freedom of speech' has gotten; and how unfair it is - when you, whose family actually died from the Holocaust - allow room for these perspectives, while they would look you in the eye and tell you, point-blank; your family didn't die / you're making it up?

I think freedom of speech needs to have some sort of intentional hate speech clause.

Theoretically within the space of such a clause diplomatic discussion should be able to take place.

People are equating freedom of speech with freedom for hate speech, and since there are laws against hate speech, we have seriously conflicting laws.

Post reply on HN