Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#721

Post by freen » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

geodel wrote: post #548

freen wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the mods decide to ban me, yes, it is wholly their right to do so, and in no way violates my freedom of speech.

I would remain free to speak, just not on hacker news. Forcing hacker news to host content (spam, nazis, Holocaust deniers, assholes, etc.) is a much much more invasive position.

Would the mods banning spam violate free speech?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#722

Post by globular-toast » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #568

Dobbs wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the same arguments from hundreds of people. The same misquoted, manipulated statistics, the same concern trolling, the same dog whistles. There isn't any point in listening. Some people hate me for what I am. They want to take my rights away from me, they want to restrict my ability to access medicine, they want to stop me from being in the military (not that I wish to join). Why should I listen to one mor…

Then you have the choice to ignore them. Why do you think you have a right to stop others hearing the same arguments?

Predictably downvoted instead of answering the simple question.

Fine, I'll tell you why you think you have the right: you think that you're more intelligent than most people and while you can see that the arguments are bogus, others are too feeble and might be more easily persuaded. So you think it's best for them (and you) that they don't see it.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#723

Post by baobabKoodaa » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #567

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they are doing this, then they are contradicting themselves Not sure I follow anymore. Who is contradicting themselves, and how?

If as you claim, free-speech proponents are arguing that coercive behavior (harassment, threats, etc) are "free speech", then they are contradicting themselves. However, I dispute that this is a general phenomenon, even if there are a few individual free-speech proponents here or there who do contradict themselves in this way. For the most part, free speech proponents are consistent in arguing that threats and harass…

> If as you claim, free-speech proponents are arguing that coercive behavior (harassment, threats, etc) are "free speech", then they are contradicting themselves.

Once again: where is the contradiction? For example, I might say "Christianity is causing a lot of suffering and death". I think that statements like that are "free speech" and not "harassment", but a fundamental Christian person who hears this statement may think that expressing this opinion constitutes harassment. So you have a statement, and two people disagree whether it is free speech. You think there's a contradiction somewhere in there. Well, where is it?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#724

Post by fouric » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #116

jakamau wrote: post #50

In a semi-related tangent, The Economist recently had an article about the unintentional destruction of evidence when deleting terrorist propaganda. The content should be removed from discourse, but I think there is value in making it a silent ban instead of deletion. Keep the post visible to only the poster, no one else can see or interact with the material once it's been flagged. It's effectively deleted, evidence…

I do believe the propaganda should be archived though, for research purposes, fingerprinting, and like you mentioned, evidence. I hope Facebook is handing everything over to the right authorities (internationally). Of course, there are some people who are given the extremist / terrorist label - e.g. Antifa - where the brand may not be warranted. Antifa is not a real organization though, just a name abused by the anti…

Antifa is very much a real organization (with [1] being only one of the cells), made up of very real people committing very real acts of violence[2]. The "terrorist" label is completely warranted - a terrorist is someone who attempts to enact change through the use of fear, which is exactly what these people are doing, by literally killing, injuring, and threatening[3] anyone who doesn't agree with them, and by wantonly destroying property[4]. There's nothing "antifacist" about these people, nor are they "protestors" - they're looters, rioters, and terrorists.

Edit: "protestors", by definition, do not threaten or attack people, or destroy property.

[1] https://www.rosecityantifa.org/

[2] https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/man-suspected-in-deadly-portla...

[3] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/04/...

[4] https://www.foxnews.com/us/costs-protests-financial-toll-cas...

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#725

Post by jjones2 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

Censoring speech is _never_ the answer. Instead, try other tactics like an information campaign. I'm honestly worked up over this travesty.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#726

Post by webmaven » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #452

konjin wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a typical slight of hand in these discussions. We are talking about deeply intolerant, bad faith actors, and you substitute this with "censoring opinions outside the mainstream". NO U. That aught to be enough for the argument to be closed, but since we like to pretend we're better than that: how can you tell that someone holds bad faith views? I do not have a machine to peer into the soul of man, neither do…

Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no: >> from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews_in_literat... Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.

> Let's get specific. Should this be allowed, yes or no:

> >>

> Edit: point of this is to get to the reality of what's said. If you think this is too unpleasant, 5 downvotes and I'll delete it.

That may depend on whether you are asking whether it is okay to say, literally, "$GROUP is described as $X", or if you are actually asking if it is permitted to say "$GROUP is $X".

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#727

Post by UnpossibleJim » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

asimpletune wrote: post #719

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, histor…

> with tax loop holes removed Yeah, I agree completely. The fact that there is a material difference between one kind of institution and another gives legitimacy to complaining about religion, IMO. > 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 I totally agree and it saddens me to see…

Of course you don't have all the answers. No one can. It's an impossible task and that's where civil conversations like these come in. I quit Facebook quite a while ago because civil conversations were becoming rare and spiteful rhetoric was becoming the norm. I obviously don't have the answers.

I think a very good first step, especially since schools have been forced online, is to see internet access become a public utility before we ever worry about the likes of Facebook. A public space to voice one's concerns can be made at a .gov space or hosted at one's own website once internet access is a utility. The only barrier to entry then is learning to set up your own server (I always thought it was fun when I was younger). Though security certificates are a harder hurdle to clear, these days.

As for data collection, well, I trust neither corporations nor government. They've both proven to be dishonest when it comes to that particular topic, laws be damned =[

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#728

Post by spacemanmatt » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

glasss wrote: post #523

free_rms wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you remember the 90s, but a lot of people wanted to ban Marilyn Manson because school shooters. Food for thought.

"A lot of people" want to ban their political opponents today because of violence from extremists.

Fomenting violence will always be a bad look for a leader. That is on them.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#729

Post by baobabKoodaa » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

bjustin wrote: post #286

leftyted wrote: post #104

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. What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. This is an encroachment on free…

>What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. That's an easy one. Tolerance is putting up with things other people do, except when those other people are being intolerant. You can make a comfortable place for intolerant groups, or for the people they target, but not both. Better to remove the intolerance. Removing holocaust denia…

Translation: tolerance means tolerating opinions that are agreeable to you personally. Opinions which are offensive to you can be labelled "intolerant", and under that guise they should be silenced.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#730

Post by Mvandenbergh » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #650

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 s…

I think you're right about many casual sharers and comments from these backgrounds. It is still the case though that an awful lot of this material that gets shared is being produced by someone with a greater level of sophistication than casual sharers.