Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#541

Post by slg » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #501

refurb wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. This is not a binary choice between free speech and no free speech. It is a debate over where to place the line. We have plenty of speech that already falls on the illegal side of the line such as threats or libel. Some people want to move the line so a few more things are on the illegal side. Free speech absolutists aren't making a fair argument when they respond to that good faith request with "any change means the end of free speech".

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#542

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:13 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).

History isn't written by the victors. This is a common if pithy misunderstanding. For example, there has been explicit effort among historians over the last 40 years to give voice to previously silent actors throughout history. Examples include women, the poor, and the colonized.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#543

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #484

shadowgovt wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Well they probably did something to deserve getting fired" is certainly a take. I'd ask though, would these companies still fire you if there wasn't a mob, social media or otherwise, causing a ruckus?

That's a little irrelevant; if someone wasn't complaining, it's likely one's boss wouldn't know.

But that doesn't imply it's the mob's fault; it's up to the person who said the things to not say things their employer would fire them for.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#544

Post by BlueTemplar » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

jarbus wrote: post #338

Facebook really can't win, it seems. Damned if they ban, damned if they don't.

I've seen people predicting this would happen when the platforms decided to start to police content years ago.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#545

Post by dudul » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:15 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.

That's a good point, and maybe it would be interesting to compare how much Holocaust denial is a problem in these countries and in the US.

Has the criminalization of such hate speech helped at all with solving the problem?

That being said, a lot of countries in Europe do not have the concept of "free speech" as is it defined in the US.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#546

Post by baobabKoodaa » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #483

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the "free-speech proponents" do not adhere to your specific definition of what should be considered free speech. The kind of speech which is often labelled "harassment" by its opponents is often labelled as "free speech" by its proponents.

> The kind of speech which is often labelled "harassment" by its opponents is often labelled as "free speech" by its proponents. If they are doing this, then they are contradicting themselves, but in all of the debates to which I've been a party, the free speech position has always held that coercive behavior (threats and harassment including quid pro quo harassment) are out of bounds of free speech. Once in a while…

> If they are doing this, then they are contradicting themselves

Not sure I follow anymore. Who is contradicting themselves, and how?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#547

Post by whoisburbansky » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

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.

How does this work with people who are dead set from the beginning to refuse to listen to what you have to say, and refuse to reason in good faith?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#548

Post by geodel » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

freen wrote: post #496

_greim_ wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) compa…

Those who cannot compartmentalize seem to think it would be a violation of “free speech” for me to kick nazis out of my dinner party, for hacker news to ban trolls, etc. In many ways, the unified absolute freedom of speech camp, no one should ever prevent nazis from posting on hacker news because it is a limitation on the nazis “freedom of speech” are arguing for a substantially more invasive understanding of freedom…

Or you can take your rants to your own little website and leave folks here to discuss their "racist and destructive" ideas. By your own argument this should not be any impediment on free speech.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#549

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #504

shadowgovt wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 em…

> 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?

If we're talking about the US, that's already extremely firmly cemented outside of specific union protections (I haven't heard about unions going to bat for employees getting called out; I'd be interested to see if it's happening).

It's a major issue with the way American employment works, but is somewhat orthogonal to the question of calling out people for bad behavior. People can lose their health insurance if their employer doesn't like their haircut also; the root issue is that health insurance ought not be tied to employment.

> Would they feel comfortable allowing a Trump-voting employer to casually part ways with an employee upon finding out they support Biden?

That happens all the time. So does employers supporting employees' support of a political candidate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/18/miles-taylor-former-trump-st...

Politicization of labor isn't new. My relatives who are union are required to spend off-job time working a phone bank for a few hours every election cycle in support of the candidate the union is backing; it's part of their union agreement.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#550

Post by mistermann » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #402

mistermann wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated. What is caught in the "Holocaust denier" net does not consist solely of people who outright deny it occurred - there are many shades of grey, opinions in this realm are highly dimensional. This isn't to say that censorship in this case isn't justified or fairly o…

>>If your case is correct, "in fact", it should be defensible in the context of a non-simplified representation of reality. The problem is that it is much easier to spread lies and misinformation than to contest and correct them. Mark Twain once said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. This is especially true in this day and age where all it takes for something t…

This is indeed a problem, so acknowledge it as such. But do not use this problem as a justification for misrepresenting actual reality - that is dishonest. If your position is correct and righteous, misrepresenting reality should not be necessary.

It is a rather sad and concerning state of affairs that there is such a widespread aversion to honesty on a site as normally clear-thinking as HN. As well, there seems to also be a very strong aversion to discussing this phenomenon (that people regularly misrepresent reality here) in the abstract. I am infinitely curious about this behavior, that is observable in large quantities.

-------------------------------------------------

EDIT: FYI, I am only allowed a few posts per day here (overton window maintenance?), so I will have to put my answer to your child comment here as an edit...

> Sorry, what exactly am I misrepresenting?

This:

>> You can disagree with opinions, but not facts. Facts are... facts. That the Holocaust happened is a fact. Denying that fact should indeed not be tolerated.

The ~dispute regarding the holocaust does not consist of a simple binary of whether the event occurred, or not. There is all sorts of complexity and uncertainty (as is typically the case in reality, our recorded history of it, and alterations to that recorded history of historic events as time progresses)...and in turn, our individual perceptions of events (which we mistake for reality, as is always the case in every conversation of this type on HN, and elsewhere) are highly inconsistent with each other, as well as with that which physically occurred.

So my question is: why describe it as if it is a simple binary? What is the motive for this misrepresentation? Might it be perhaps, with conscious intent or not, to persuade others to adopt your style of thinking and opinions? Just speculating of course - I am very interested in knowing the actual underlying reason of why there is such a strong aversion here on HN to discussing reality in its true, high dimensional nature.

I speculate that: because we do not do this, it has real world effects similar to that which would be experienced if one wrote software on top of a specification that leaves out 3/4 of the actual complexity of the problem space. And so, I beat this same dead horse, day after day, hoping that some day one individual will be able to acknowledge that indeed, there is actually a horse in the room.