31–40 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
banning holocaust denial == “total control of information” ?
Banning the spreading of ideas requires control of information, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total control of information is the best way to differentiate ourselves from the Nazis?
banning holocaust denial == “total control of information” ?
It's the "let's burn books" mindset, which is just a bad tactic. Misinformation in the modern(or any) age can't be fought that way. The internet is good at amplifying that which people seek to censor. I hope we can agree this is good for positive ideas, but the mechanism employed doesn't care how "good" you find the idea.
And to be entirely clear: I think the subject matter at hand is abhorrent. Fascism feeds on censorship. It doesn't hurt that side, it helps them control the narrative.
[flagged]
Nobody wanted the Nazis to return. That goal was more important than any other. The Soviets accomplished it through pogroms. The west was more subtle.
The West European bans on holocaust denial must be seen in their historical context. After WWII, there was a massive backlash against german collaborators. Everyone even slightly suspect of being pro german was at risk of being looted, tortured or killed by their furious neighbours. Mob rule had to be replaced by lawfull governement, and this required appeasing the mob. Part of it were dishonest trials, a blind eye a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning the spreading of ideas requires control of information, yes.
Sure, but is it a binary thing? Either zero control of information or total control of information and nothing in between? That seems wrong.
Where I live, I'm vastly outnumbered by people who have vastly different values than me. Their party is in control now. Pretty scary to think they could shut off my voice at whim, or worse.
How will the media and society deal with these sorts of situations if decentralised alternatives to these social media sites take off? There won’t be any one place or person or company to blame, no? Did the media write about email being used negatively when it was taking off? (That’s an honest question, I’m too young and a cursory search didn’t turn up anything interesting).
That's a good question. Relatedly, assuming it's wrong for Facebook to host this content, where should the line be drawn when it comes to systems that are already decentralized? Is it wrong for email systems to transport emails with such content? Is it wrong for a browser to render such web pages? For a feed reader to allow subscriptions to such a feed? Does the answer change if a "centralized" component is involved…
- are you exercising administrative control over the system?
- have you been made aware of the content?
That makes it clearer; there isn't a general obligation for every email sysadmin to check every message for terrorism, but that doesn't mean that hosting their email after you've been informed about them is a totally innocent act. Providing software that is installed on the customer's systems (no administrative control) is generally fine (the browser/feed reader examples), but the web based ones re-assert the administrative control element.
The West European bans on holocaust denial must be seen in their historical context. After WWII, there was a massive backlash against german collaborators. Everyone even slightly suspect of being pro german was at risk of being looted, tortured or killed by their furious neighbours. Mob rule had to be replaced by lawfull governement, and this required appeasing the mob. Part of it were dishonest trials, a blind eye a…
The holocaust deniers certainly aren't dead. The denial is the one of the early steps of facist subversion and should remain banned. It's time to review the rule when nobody is denying it anymore.
I hope that we can get federated facebook alternatives off the ground, FB is clearly not capable of solving these problems on their own without displeasing everyone. Want to see these comments? Go to an instance that permits them. Don't want to see them? Go to an instance that deletes them. Problem solved.
The West European bans on holocaust denial must be seen in their historical context. After WWII, there was a massive backlash against german collaborators. Everyone even slightly suspect of being pro german was at risk of being looted, tortured or killed by their furious neighbours. Mob rule had to be replaced by lawfull governement, and this required appeasing the mob. Part of it were dishonest trials, a blind eye a…
In Belgium I can write a thesis about whatever lie I want. Our king is dead and an imposter took his place, the Belgium genocide in the Congo never happened, etc, etc..
But If I write that the holocaust never happened I face jail time.
Of course it happened! And anybody who writes a book denying that should be ridiculed, and openly countered (verbally).
We effectively have free speech (... except for this one very specific thing)
The West European bans on holocaust denial must be seen in their historical context. After WWII, there was a massive backlash against german collaborators. Everyone even slightly suspect of being pro german was at risk of being looted, tortured or killed by their furious neighbours. Mob rule had to be replaced by lawfull governement, and this required appeasing the mob. Part of it were dishonest trials, a blind eye a…
The holocaust deniers certainly aren't dead. The denial is the one of the early steps of facist subversion and should remain banned. It's time to review the rule when nobody is denying it anymore.
Far better that idiocy should be on public display where it can be mocked and destroyed.