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

681–690 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#681

Post by vharuck »

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #590
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.

>Holocaust denial is banned in Germany (same as swastikas by the way). It works really well In what way does it "work"? What do you actually gain by silencing those people? It seems like you're lending them credibility. As in "these things that I'm saying are so dangerous that the government wants to shut me up!" You can't control what people actually believe, you can only control whether or not you hear about it. Us…

>The simple expression of an idea w/o the intent to cause harm to another party, and the sole intention of discourse should be protected no matter what.

The point is Holocaust denial is often used as a foot in the door to spread racial animosity, which has caused harm. It can be hard to determine what's legitimate research and debate versus racist dog whistling. But people recognize it's having a real effect in the world, and the marketplace of ideas hasn't quashed it over the past 70 years.

I'm all for Facebook removing anything like Holocaust denial or debate over it's existence. That's a good trade-off: prevent a gradual acceptance of racism at the cost of not being a good venue for Holocaust history researchers.

But I'm not for the government taking action. Just my anti-establishment American streak.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#682

Post by nailer »

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.

Why not? Nearly every interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah is anti gay (I personally interpret the story as about not raping, but that's off topic).

Why wouldn't it be OK to ban a belief system that specifically discriminates against an innate feature?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#683

Post by nostromo »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #574
nostromo wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is how people work, as evidenced over and over again by a widening view of compassion for others. Just look at the past 20 years and the success of the gay rights movement. Views changed because of millions of one-on-one conversations between people who disagreed on gay marriage. No censorship was required for progress. In fact, censorship would have been counterproductive, as I believe it is here. It's no coincid…

>It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority. Feels like this is an attempt to simplify something complex. Most Western European countries have more restrictions on speech than the US, but many of them do a better job of upholding civil rights. Just today someone posted a thread about the br…

It's not a perfect correlation, but even if you just look in Europe, the countries with more freedom of speech have more civil liberties.

It's also worth noting that only half of the EU member states have legal gay marriage -- something that all Americans have access to.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#684

Post by stale2002 »

remram wrote: post #445
jdpedrie wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. Of course Facebook's censorship is censorship. It is true that they are not bound by the first amendment in the same way in which Congress (and via incorporation the states) are bound, but freedom of speech is a concept which exists independent of the first amendment guarantee to its enjoyment.

Wouldn't forcing Facebook, a private company, to promote and convey any and all content equally, even content that they fundamentally disagree with, be restricting their own freedom of speech? Why should they be forced to distribute such messages?

> Wouldn't forcing Facebook

Feel free to argue that Facebook should be allowed to censor others. But it is still censorship.

It is perfectly possible for someone to both think that Facebooks actions should be allowed, and are also censorship at the same time.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#685

Post by UnpossibleJim »

asimpletune wrote: post #620
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that refugees flew through space on 747's, a la Scientology (I may have gotten the specifics wrong). But, if you can show me how a 747 can fly through space, I am more than happy to be shown the error of my ways. Many religions have falsifiable ideas in them. Some of their "core tenets" may not be falsifiable but, again, you can't pick and choose through these books to get the pieces parts to fit your c…

Yeah, I see the point you’re making, and I don’t necessarily disagree with it. I didn’t mean to say that no religion has obviously falsifiable claims in them, and the example you gave is a perfectly fine demonstration. I’d even say obviously Jesus didn’t literally rise from the dead, because that’s clearly not possible (and probably besides the point if you are simultaneously a serious, critical believe - I should po…

And I don't mean to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many wonderful things to learn from the scaffolding of religion and parable. To apply it to our legal system, tax system and to cherry pick bits from it for our military conflicts seem less than fruitful and more than a little hypocritical in a modern age (no accusation on you). As an American, I would much rather we go towards a scientific, historical, philosophic and arts educational model and leave religion at home, with tax loop holes removed. Charity tax breaks should be more than enough for those churches that stick to their mission statement.

But I digress. It doesn't matter until the likes of Facebook are turned into public spaces and regarded as havens for free speech or they are not. That's really the question that has to be answered.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#686

Post by pedroma »

nyghtly wrote: post #499
jarbus wrote: post #338

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

Facebook is winning. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/FB:NASDAQ https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-net...

I believe he's talking about topic at hand, not the stock price.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#687

Post by Zak »

everdrive wrote: post #625
Zak wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a free speech absolutist in that I think governments should not be able to punish speech outside of direct and imminent attempts to induce others to commit crimes, false reports of dangerous situations that imminently cause real dangerous situations, and the like. I don't extend that to private platforms. Facebook should be free to host or not host whatever it likes, arbitrarily. What's becoming problematic is th…

>That does not, however mean that I want Facebook to have the power to decide what ideas get traction. I know this is part of the point you're making, but that ship has sailed long ago.

I'm aware that's the status quo, but it is most certainly not immutable. Many have been advocating for legislative solutions such as removing platform immutity for editorial algorithms or even regulating algorithmic feeds.

I'd rather see something more decentralized become popular organically, but I rarely get what I want.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#688

Post by strawberrypuree »

hef19898 wrote: post #531
strawberrypuree wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there a crowdsourced, fact-focused social network that doesn’t depend on ad revenue? WT.social? We need moderation with popular support, and a values system that isn’t influenced by capitalist concerns.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#689

Post by throwaway894345 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #525
throwaway894345 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they? Because I still regularly encounter educated people who can't tell the difference between free speech and threats, harassment, etc. If you can't distinguish between free speech and coercive speech, then you don't understand the free-speech position that you purport to oppose ("He who knows only his own argument knows little of that"). I recall a thread on cancel culture a few months ago where virtually eve…

> I still regularly encounter educated people who can't tell the difference between free speech and threats, harassment, etc. That's not what is happening. What is happening is that you and that person disagree on what a threat is.

If cancel culture doesn’t depend on implicit threats of career repercussions, then no one should object when we pass laws to protect employees from this kind of mob-based termination. Of course, in this substantial thread, I don’t think anyone has disputed that CC is about threats and harassment and at least one CC proponent has advocated against employment protections. This is consistent with my observations in other HN and Twitter threads, but I’d be happy to be wrongness provided we protect employees from this kind of mobbing.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#690

Post by raverbashing »

dcolkitt wrote: post #679
raverbashing wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Do you think the major religions got to be the size they are because people though their story was cute? Considering that the world's largest religion's central tenet is "turn the other cheek", I don't know if this is exactly a compelling argument for the primacy of intolerance. It's almost certainly the case that the major world religions, as they're practiced in 2000 AD, are certainly much more liberal and tolera…

> largest religion's central tenet is "turn the other cheek"

True but that doesn't bode well with organizations that took upon themselves to enforce their alleged rules.

Or, in other words: Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition

> as they're practiced in 2000 AD, are certainly much more liberal and tolerant than their Bronze Age counterparts.

Yes, I can agree with this statement

Post reply on HN