Removing Holocaust Denial Content • Hacker News Board

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#311

Post by hef19898 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

gridlockd wrote: post #124

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…

> 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. Where is the evidence that this is true? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is literally a crime, yet de-facto Neonazi…

Just by comparing the position of the GOP with some positions of, say the AfD and the former FN (Germany and France respectivley), I could make the case that right wing parties have a much smaller voter base in these two countries then the US.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#312

Post by gadders » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #301

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…

> Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. True, but it kind of crosses the line when something denies well documented fact and tries to discredit reality itself. This "gamification" of alternative realities is insanely toxic to democracy and society.

But then they just look stupid, no? Like flat earthers, anti-vaxxers etc.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#313

Post by shortstuffsushi » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

wbronitsky wrote: post #210

Let’s say I own a bullhorn shop. In fact, I have purchased every bullhorn shop, distributor, and manufacturer of relevance in the world. Someone, a self proclaimed Nazi, comes to me, the owner of every bullhorn, to buy a bullhorn in order to convince others to be Nazis. I, a Jew, refuse to sell the bullhorn to the Nazi. Am I being overly simplistic? Probably, but I don’t see where my analogy fails. I fail so see the…

There's also the consideration to be made that you knowingly had been selling bullhorns to the nazi in the past, and are continuing to sell bullhorns to other folks of questionable beliefs

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#314

Post by bArray » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

tonyvince7 wrote: post #51

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” - From Noam Chomsky's (Chomsky's grandparents are holocaust survivors) on the foreword for "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression" for the book of Frenc…

I really appreciate what you've written here and I'm sorry you're going to get down-voted into oblivion. The down-vote button is sometimes used as a replacement for proper engagement.

Free speech is not what allows hate to grow, it's lack of it. Look at every awful event in history - it's always surrounded by misinformation, propaganda and a lack of free speech. The only way they can gain control is by oppressing the speech of their opposition.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#315

Post by gadders » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

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…

“The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#316

Post by Barrin92 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

jcadam wrote: post #155

To save free speech, we have to destroy free speech. In the future, some historian is going to write the seminal work on the decline and dissolution of the United States - and there's going to be an entire chapter dedicated to social media.

lol do you think the criminalisation of holocaust denial is a new invention that somehow needs to be studied by future historians? Most democratic countries on this earth, except for the US, not only ban holocaust denial on private platforms, which is insidious historical revisionism, but punishes it by law.

I have absolutely no idea how someone can be so childish as to not see that rights have their limitations to be preserved. Yes, to protect truth and the ability to speak freely we need to put limits on the damage someone can do by abusing free speech, in the same way we have highway speed limits, have a police that can do arrests and sometimes can use violence to stop other violence.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#317

Post by drivingmenuts » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #229

tr352 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be one of those things where the arguments pro and con have already been so endlessly hashed out that it’s simply become a matter of choice which camp you’re in.

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…

Distinguishing between free speech and harassment requires discernment, which is what a lot of modern people are either not trained to do, don’t have time to do, are too lazy to do, or have been brainwashed against. More and more, we demand bright lines in a society increasingly filled with gray areas because we charge ahead without consideration.

It’s never been easy and current social pressures make it even harder to do.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#318

Post by BbzzbB » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #176

Digital book burning 2.0. “But it’s ok, we’re the good guys and doing it for the right reasons”, says every tyrant ever. Never let speech get censored no matter how good it makes you feel in the moment. It’s the worst precedent you can ever set. I’ll try and give an example here that might be safe to give because it rips the Republican Wing of the Military Industrial Complex. If Facebook was one of the world’s primar…

Lest not forget FAAAM started the witch hunt by banning pornographic, violent or gore content, all tyrants.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#319

Post by tarboreus » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

jamamp wrote: post #203

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…

I disagree that this is an encroachment on free speech. Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_. The government is not allowed to silence you on most things you say. However, things like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (the age-old example) are not free speech. Moreover, Facebook is not the government and does not need to allow you to say anything you want. People who would…

Our first amendment rights in the US restrict the government from prohibiting free speech. But that doesn't mean free speech isn't a principle that can, and should, be applied in other areas of life. When people say Facebook is violating free speech, that absolutely makes sense as a violation of a principle that many of us care strongly about, and that our society is to a great extent founded upon. Just because free speech as a right is enshrined in the first amendment doesn't mean the first amendment is where the principle of free speech begins and ends.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#320

Post by raverbashing » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

leftyted wrote: post #104

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…

> 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…

Maybe techbros will only realize how damaging the "unchecked free speech" they defend is when they end up being the target of hate speech (and eventually actions)