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

731–740 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#731

Post by baobabKoodaa »

codegeek wrote: post #409
lki876 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech Maybe this is necessary and good, but of course it's an "encroachment on free speech". That's literally what is is. We can obfuscate this by replacing the words "encroachment on free speech" with "heavy-handedness" to get the sentence above. But really what is says if we remove the obfuscation is: > This encroachment on free speech isn't an encroachment on…

How is a lie "free speech" though ? Water is wet. If someone says they don't believe Water is wet, isn't that outright false and has nothing to do with "opinion or free speech" ? Holocaust is a fact so the deniers are just lying correct ?

Are religious people lying when they claim that [their specific version of] God exists? No, people often believe untrue things for weird reasons. How far do you wanna go in restricting people's freedom of speech? And are you happy that the Ministry of Truth will be run by companies like Facebook and CloudFlare? I mean, sure, you're happy now that you agree with their censorship, but are you going to remain happy when they shadowban your comments on politics because they are deemed "lies"?

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#732

Post by remram »

stale2002 wrote: post #684
remram wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are yelling or distributing pamphlets in my backyard and I don't like the message, and I ask you to move, I'm not sure you would refer to it as "censorship".

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#733

Post by AnimalMuppet »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #729
bjustin wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That isn't what bjustin said. But in practice, I fear you may be right.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#734

Post by throwaway894345 »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #723
throwaway894345 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

That statement isn’t harassment (however awful it may be). If you follow Christian groups around protesting them at their events and so on then perhaps that constitutes harassment, but merely expressing a negative opinion of something is plainly free speech and not harassment.

> You think there's a contradiction somewhere in there.

You asserted the contradiction, not me. I merely confirmed your observation that a free-speech proponent who alleged that harassment was free speech would be contradicting himself because by definition harassment is not free speech.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#735

Post by triceratops »

bjourne wrote: post #712
throwaway2048 wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to reground the rhetoric, we are talking about facebook removing posts by people that try to convince others that one of the largest genocides in human history didn't happen, not about all that other stuff.

The Holocaust was peanuts compared to the looming climate catastrophe. Thus, we absolutely must silence anyone who denies that the earth must become carbon neutral by 2040.

I think you're right, we should.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#736

Post by dragonwriter »

will4274 wrote: post #581
dragonwriter wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. One of the disputes that exist within the group supporting the liberal idea of free speech is it's boundary; there is general agreement that some range of speech that is both false and h…

This may feel like a no true scotsman, but it really isn't - those that oppose free speech are not true liberals. The heart of liberalism is individual freedom, responsibility, and culpability. True liberals believe that speech that does not directly evoke violence (such as Holocaust denial) is not violent . If somebody hears that speech and decides to become violent, that's on them. Believing that we need to restric…

> True liberals believe that speech that does not directly evoke violence (such as Holocaust denial) is not violent.

True liberals still frequently oppose defamation and sometimes other harmful false speech on grounds other than evoking violence.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#737

Post by jl2718 »

evgen wrote: post #517
devthrowawy wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if any of those things are actually scary. I'm more scared of not becoming north Korea.

All of those things are incredibly rare occurrences, and there is still a greater probability that you will be the victim of one of them than that the country becomes North Korea.

So ironic you would say that. Sounds like you’re ‘denying’ the possibility of a totalitarian genocide.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#738

Post by jacquesm »

freen wrote: post #471
mistermann wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. Rather, you (and the cartoon) are confusing the abstract general principle of free speech, for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If one steps back and observes this conversation from a disinterested 3rd party perspective, one might notice that these same arguments, based on falsehoods from both sides, reoccur every single time the topic comes up . And if one exercises this practice over…

You are mistaking the ability to say whatever you want with the ability to escape the social consequences of your expression. Both are fully compatible with any understanding of “free speech” constitutionally, politically and socially. Would you kick nazis out of your dinner party? Yes or No? That’s the fundamental question that is being asked. If your answer is no, you would not kick nazis out of your dinner party,…

Don't feed the troll.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#739

Post by apta »

boccko wrote: post #557
mcfly1985 wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Holocaust indirectly lead to (a the abolishment of centuries old anti-semitic laws (from Magna Carta) (b the establishment of the state of Israel. I'm not implying 'they won', but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.

> but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.

At the cost of the thousands of innocent lives (Palestenians and others) they murdered. Kind of ironic given what they went through.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#740

Post by charliebrownau »

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…

When you cant win a debate or risk exposing the truth

- Censor - Ban - Use Force - Kill

- Shame/blame/use emotion

Never Ever consider actually debating the topic, idea with rational debate, facts, logic and reason and back it up with evidence, science, stats

Nope

SHUT IT DOWN

GOYIM KNOW

Post reply on HN