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

771–780 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#771

Post by betwixthewires »

whoisjuan wrote: post #249
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…

Not really. Freedom of speech as defined in the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platfor…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Also reference the 14th amendment. Prior to it's ratification the bill of rights was construed only to apply to the federal government. It's ratification brought application of the bill of rights to the states, and then to private entities.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#772

Post by lki876 »

whoisjuan wrote: post #249
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…

Not really. Freedom of speech as defined in the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platfor…

You're confounding "freedom of speech" with "freedom of speech as defined in the [US] constitution".

> Facebook can ban whatever they want. They are not censoring anything.

That's literally exactly what censorship is...........

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#773

Post by raverbashing »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #764
nabla9 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil law systems have "The abuse of rights principle". It means that legal right can't be used in the purpose of _only_ causing annoyance, harm, or injury to another or violating or invalidating the rights. In the EU the principle is codified in the article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They both prohibit the use of rights in a way that…

>(3) the exercise of the right is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness Galilei was almost burned for this.

Yes, he was almost burned and a lot of other things we think as absurd were legal then. (though there seems to be some debate about the circumstances - not endorsing the link https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-a... )

It's a good think the current "defenders of free-speech" don't align themselves to a klepto-theocracy otherwise we'd think they'd be up to something...

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#774

Post by read_if_gay_ »

tremon wrote: post #594
adinisom wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship in the form of moderation often makes sense for businesses seeking to maintain their properties. If I run a forum for car enthusiasts, I should be able to curate the community and limit discussions on locomotives. But what of the platforms that make my forum possible? The Cloudflares the protect from DDoS, the DigitalOceans that provide the servers, the ISPs that provide transit, the Facebooks that provide…

Should they have the freedom to decide they don't like my forum and kick me off? Yes. Their infrastructure is still private property, and you're using it to provide your own service. Similarly, if you rent a shop space in a food plaza and start a car mechanic's garage there, the owner of the food plaza will kick you out. That the government has a hard-on for monopolies doesn't change the fact that you're still buildi…

> Similarly, if you rent a shop space in a food plaza and start a car mechanic's garage there, the owner of the food plaza will kick you out.

I think a better analogy would be getting kicked out for serving food that the plaza owner doesn't approve of.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#775

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

No tolerance for the intolerant is actually a wrong approach. That realization was even true for the giver of the idea. It is something that has justifiably been derided and ridiculed.

Holocaust denial is illegal in my country. I personally prefer people state their opinion. Tells you who you are talking to, although they tend not to be the smartest people around, so it might not be helpful to orient yourself towards their ideas.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#776

Post by raxxorrax »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #190
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'm fine with censoring holocaust denial content, but I dislike this "Paradox of Tolerance" reasoning. It's too easy for someone to convince themselves that another group is "intolerant" and therefore give themselves moral license to deplatform, harass, or even assault their "intolerant" target. This isn't just a theoretical concern; in practice this is virtually the only context in which I've seen the Paradox applie…

> I dislike this "Paradox of Tolerance" reasoning.

You are correct on that an I think Popper would agree. Need to know his backstory to know why he stated it like that.

But how it became established is not a win for tolerance or intellectual thought. It is actually quite benign and stupid.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#777

Post by raxxorrax »

pjc50 wrote: post #207
amadeuspagel wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any kind of censorship could be justified with the argument that some voices are "drained out" by others, so to protect the former, the latter most be censored, which is not actually "an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact". WTF does this mean? The internet is not a room where some people have to be silent so that you can hear the oth…

> 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.

If you change yourself and the internet because of these mass shooters, what did you achieve?

People protest for different reasons and I don't like all of them.

Homicide is actually something very rare in humans apart from formal war. A tiny subset is perhaps radicalized by internet content, but I would guess there are actually underlying issues for everyone.

Your reaction seems to indicate panic, not rational thought.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#778

Post by raxxorrax »

whoisjuan wrote: post #249
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…

Not really. Freedom of speech as defined in the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Internet speech is not the same as freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platfor…

This argument is brought forward often. I just post the Wikipedia article that is actually (still) quite good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

... in the vain hope someone reads the first one or two sentences.

> They are not censoring anything.

Technically untrue. It isn't that much fun to defend holocaust denial. Maybe even illegal in my country, I don't know the details. But you do what you have to do. Ignorance is still the most potent weapon of facists.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#779

Post by raxxorrax »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #387
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…

> This is an encroachment on free speech As a strong-form First Amendment supporter and free speech advocate, this sort of fundamentalism is the greatest threat to free speech across the world. Nobody is arresting the groups fomenting outright violence against their fellow Americans. We aren’t even saying they can’t use the banking system to collect resources or our public spaces to share their ideas. We’re literally…

I strongly disagree, I don't mind some people shooting beyond reason on that topic. Misattributing issues of free speech is common. It is even more dangerous to say it would just concern the government.

But even that pales in comparison with peer pressure and fears about missing something, the main driver of virality on platforms like facebook. Restriction on free speech can be subtle. You just don't speak about it or are compelled to say something specific or face retaliation.

That there is some retaliation if there is someone openly denying the holocaust is a dishonest argument.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#780

Post by raxxorrax »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #513
amadeuspagel wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the effects of speech on the real world has always been the reason for censorship. "Ignore voices you don't like" isn't a refutation of that old and honest argument in favor of censorship, it's a refutation of the new and dishonest argument that censorship actually protects freedom of speech.

> censorship actually protects freedom of speech I believe it does. And I don’t believe it’s a dishonest argument. But I sincerely respect your position (to use the cliché: I understand where you’re coming from...). And I agree to disagree. Will you agree to disagree with me, though?

Yes.
Post reply on HN