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

641–650 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#641

Post by holoduke »

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…

I don't agree. Facebook should stop applying these ridiculous algorithms which are promoting content to you which makes no sense at all and serve the only single business Facebook has: Advertising. If facebook would solely serve you with content originated from your friends and maybe some random ads then all this conspiracy bullcrap stories won't have a chance at all and will remain in their small user circles. Also besides the usual fake content (deny of holocaust, environment etc), there is also a lot in the gray area. Think of articles about health. Articles about how to get rich. Articles about a new revolutionary cleaning device. Probably all fake. But in some cases maybe not. Its not up to Facebook to decide these matters. Facebook should change into what it should be. A social network for friends. Not a crappy advertising agent. In the latter case it's best to forbid the entire business called Facebook.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#642

Post by markdown »

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…

While I agree that this is a good move, I still think it's a great pity when certain topics are ruled unquestionable.

An elderly relative recently went down the youtube rabbithole and came out on informationclearinghouse. A few months later and he's now a full-blown conspiracy theorist.. I mean everything from 9/11 "truthism" to antisemitism-lite. I mean this person's entire personality changed. Lifelong relationships with friends and family have been lost because of this change. It's extremely sad to see.

In trying to debunk these theories, I tried to gather answers to the questions he raised. But every single one I posted on reddit was removed. These were real questions that I couldn't find the answers for anywhere, and I wasn't allowed to ask them.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#643

Post by gridlockd »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #212
gridlockd wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Facebook becomes a publisher and not merely a conduit of speech, it must simultaneously be legally liable for what it publishes.

Let's not hide behind the technicalities. Facebook makes your content available to a much larger audience than you might otherwise have access to, which is to say publishes it in the common English meaning of the word even if, under US law, it's not regarded as a publisher w.r.t user-generated content. In your terms, Facebook might be a mere conduit of speech, but there is nothing that says it has to a perfect/unfilt…

> In your terms, Facebook might be a mere conduit of speech, but there is nothing that says it has to a perfect/unfiltered conduit.

There is the provision that a common carrier must not discriminate[1]. In return, the common carrier is absolved of certain liabilities.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

I'm not saying Facebook is (or should be) considered a common carrier, I'm saying Facebook shouldn't get to have it both ways, as it currently does. The law hasn't quite caught up here yet.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#644

Post by names_are_hard »

rbanffy wrote: post #601
FpUser wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"...and tries to discredit reality itself..." So you are saying they will remove the Earth is Flat, The God had created world in 7 days and other similar things?

You can't prove God didn't create the world in 7 days any more than you can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster did that 15 minutes ago. That the Earth is not flat is easily and conclusively provable.

What is the standard of proof here? I'd that the standard seven day creation story is about as outlandish as the narrative that the holocaust is a big hoax.

Is it technically possible to explain away all the evidence with sufficient effort? I suppose. But occams razor tells us that yes, the holocaust happened, and no, three days did not pass before the sun was created.

My point is that we generally don't expect mathematics-like incontrovertible proof to establish historical fact, and it's unfair to demand it to disprove religion. More broadly, Facebook now has to figure out what the standard of proof is for their platform.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#645

Post by watwut »

gadders wrote: post #315
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…

“The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

The issue is not that people can't listen to holocaust denialism or general nazi apologia. Issue is they do and then take action based on that and other people then suffer consequences. Including violent action.

Also, given that Heinlein fiction can be also quoted literally in defense of military dictatorship, it is not like random quote of him was any argument on this topic.

Or any other old big name. The whole "I cut good sounding quote of someone famous or of context" thing is not an argument.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#646

Post by holoduke »

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…

It's Facebook who serves the content because of their money driven algorithms. If you would just serve content coming from your friends and some random ads, then all this bullshit content won't be a problem at all. Facebook is the only problem here. Not the people behind these fake stories.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#647

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

hef19898 wrote: post #622
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are free speech, right? Also, I asked a very clear question and requested a clear yes/no. What is your answer?

Stating what others historically thought about, in your example jews, has to be ok. How would educate people about anti-semitism if it wasn't? Promoting these views as truths should be treated as the hate speech it is. Which should not be covered by free speech, IMHO.

"stating..." - agreed. "promoting..." - agreed.

Upthread the guy said "Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree". He's arguing for no restrictions AFAICT. Hence my post, to which no answer was forthcoming from him.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#648

Post by Barrin92 »

will4274 wrote: post #629
Barrin92 wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than one dissenting view in 2014, that page indeed does document decades of enforcement of the Indian penal code, which is very clear, and cited on that page. "Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,…

It wasn't a dissenting view, it was the court opinion. And citing events from before that precedent isn't so relevant to today's laws.

In that case, the wikipedia article also gives examples follwing that opinion

>On 20 September 2016, a blogger named Tarak Biswas was arrested for criticising Islam under Section 295A and 298, besides 66, 67 and 67A of the IT Act after a complaint about hurting religious sentiments was lodged by Sanaullah Khan, a Trinamool Congress leader.[39]

On 25 February 2018, two people were arrested for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath, and Hindu gods. Four people were booked under section 295-A.[40]

Contrary to what you seem to believe a single decision in 2014 has shockingly enough not upended India's entire framework on legislating hate speech, that is not how the law works.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#649

Post by mcfly1985 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #636
mcfly1985 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another HN commenter who's never wrong and knows everything!

N'ah, there's plenty I don't know. I'm just using my free speech to make my preferences known regarding this service I use and support via my attention.

"Using my free speech to make my preferences known to limit other's free speech". Got it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#650

Post by luckylion »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #90

Long overdue. It's worth going into why this is something that is worth doing and also why FB has historically not done it. FB's position for a long time was that they would not remove material just because it was factually inaccurate, in other words they treated Holocaust denial as being essentially ignorance. There is a truly cringeworthy clip of Facebook spokesdrone and former UK deputy PM Nick Clegg in a document…

> There is no mistake and the people who push this stuff know it.

From my experience, this is not universally true. For Westerners, possibly. But already for immigrants from Islamic countries in Western nations, it falls apart. Many of them aren't like "yeah it happened, and it was great, I will now deny it to remove guilt from Germany and make Germany the victim", because they don't care about Germany's past. They simply don't believe it because that's what they learn from friends and family.

The same applies to most conspiracy people btw. They don't secretly believe that chemtrails aren't a thing and just pretend otherwise to get under your skin, they really believe what they say.

Post reply on HN