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

651–660 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#651

Post by watwut »

dcolkitt wrote: post #500
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. The Weimar Republic did have hate speech laws, that were vigorously enforced and similar in spirit to modern-day Germany's laws.[1] Not only did that fail to stop the rise of the Nazi party, but the legal machinery was actively co-opted post-1933 to censor anti-Nazi groups. In contrast, in the 1930s the most ardent pro-free-speech countries were the America and Britain. (Contemporary British h…

They did not censored racial hate speech, only religious one. Lucky for nazi, their ideology was based on race. The few censored nazi journals issues crossed the line to religious hate. Overwhelming majority of them was hateful against race and thus allowed.

So no, their censorship did not even attempted any meaningful limitation of nazi. Also, in 1933 Hitler gained complete power, was also supported by veterans who worked in civil service and talking about "co-opting" censorship is almost absurd. At that point, first concentration camp was created and political opponents were put in. The censorship machine was not that much important at that point, violence was.

Also, German censorship was quicker against communists then right wing groups, because right wing groups were seen as patriotic.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#652

Post by shadowgovt »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #638
shadowgovt wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm guessing you would argue that this is immoral and harmful behavior I do not. I argue that the public putting pressure on individuals who spread bad ideas to stop doing that---up to and including looping their employer in, up to and including the employer terminating that employment relationship---is part of the healthy public immune system to bad ideas and antisocial behavior. "We live in a society" and all tha…

> I do not. I argue that the public putting pressure on individuals who spread bad ideas to stop doing that The whole point is that there's not a good way to determine what ideas are "bad ideas" apart from ongoing public debate. > up to and including the employer terminating that employment relationship---is part of the healthy public immune system to bad ideas and antisocial behavior The obvious problem is that "emp…

> it does at least as much harm to "good ideas" as to "bad ideas"

If that's the case, then one is assuming that the public is incapable of discerning good ideas from bad ideas.

Calling that into question calls all of American democracy into question. At that point, why even leave leadership up to the voters? A dictatorship, oligarchy, or plutocracy would be wiser if the public really can't determine for themselves what will secure or endanger their freedom.

One of the cornerstones of American government is self-governance: the ability of the people to discern, in aggregate, good from bad. If we accept the public's ability to vote, we ought to also accept their right to inform a company of someone they perceive to be a bad actor in their midst and boycott said company based on their perception.

The public isn't always right. We assume, as a matter of American self-governance, that they often are.

(We probably shouldn't fork the conversation on the topic of white supremacist rape culture, because I'm guessing from your statement that you don't believe that describes America ;) ).

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#653

Post by whoisburbansky »

nostromo wrote: post #637
heylook wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political change of this magnitude happens because different people are voting, not because the same person changed their mind. Literally it’s because the old people died before they could pass 100% of their bigotry to the next generation.

This isn't true. Approval for gay marriage has gone up for all generations. It's now at 45% approval among people born before 1945 , up from just 17% in 2003. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

Thanks for linking to the poll, I had no idea that that was what the distribution of support for same sex marriage across ages looked like. Fascinating that almost two thirds of Catholics and Protestants support same sex marriage, would never have guessed that. Even more surprising to me was that the trend line basically goes up over time no matter which way you slice and dice by demographic or religious affiliation or church attendance.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#654

Post by hef19898 »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #647
hef19898 wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free speech is tricky, and every nation has to find its own balance, its own limits to what is acceptable and what isn't. Being German, I am pretty sensitive with regards to the Holocaust, anti-semitism, Nazi propaganda and, as a logical extension, anti-muslim and anti-lgbtq propaganda.

Personally, I draw the line where other people's freedoms are limited and other people are actively discriminated against. Basically at hate speech.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#655

Post by approxim8ion »

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.

At the risk of being presumptuous, they're likely not scary to people who don't belong to the groups these events target.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#656

Post by myko »

dotancohen wrote: post #121
myko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will do the opposite though I think - most of the "antitrust" arguments targeting Facebook seem to be upset that this type of content is being removed / Facebook (and YouTube, Twitter) have too much power in what we see/read.

> have too much power in what we see/read. You choose to type h t t p facebook dot com into your browser. They have absolutely not power in what you see or read, you go there voluntarily. Just stop going there.

I have stopped going there, I was just explaining what I think the argument is.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#657

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

anm89 wrote: post #292

It's amazing to me that people don't see the irony that a major tactic of the nazis was quelling free speech. We are so scared of the nazis that we act like them. This is of course how they framed it too. They would have claimed they needed to protect themselves from the dangerous ideas, literature, art of the Jews.

This is not a ban of these ideas at a societal level. You are free to post on your blog as much as you want, you are free to make a newsletter, you are free to speak as much as you want about the holocaust.

You just can't use facebook to do so.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#658

Post by will4274 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #648
will4274 wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 deroga…

Are India's high court precedents not binding? It's certainly how law works in the United States that when the high court rules that a law violates the constitution, that law is struck.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#659

Post by mam2 »

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.

Or people should stop thinking private social medias have any duty in respecting "free speech". Make your own platform if you are unhappy.

Plus it's worked in many country: less hate speech, less hate. Everyone saying "people are going to get more angry" are just wrong.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#660

Post by netsharc »

hef19898 wrote: post #251
fennecfoxen wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll make a principled stab at it. If you ban Holocaust deniers, then you're in the business of drawing lines, proclaiming what is truth. This is a powerful position and many will wish to use it for more than just the Holocaust. They will initially do so by presenting a variety of outrageous content which maybe should be banned, applying public pressure, and their initial targets will be reasonable. But the outrage i…

There is such a thing as factual truth. That we, as a society, have reached a point where we lost the basic concensus of that is very troubling. Denying the Holocaust is like denying gravity. Both things, the Holocaust and gravity, are factually true. We have to be able to call people out for denying that. And while denying gravity is just stupid, denying the holocaust is outright dangerous. Taking steps against that…

The fact that this post is grey depresses me that HN is full of Holocaust-denying, or more likely, libertrarian Ayn Rand-fetishizing jerk-offs...

Might as well vehemently argue that the earth is flat, if you think the Holocaust was faked.

Post reply on HN