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

811–820 of 823 posts

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#811

Post by one2know »

one2know wrote: post #752
bjourne wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has already shutdown numerous left-wing groups. https://theintercept.com/2020/08/20/facebook-bans-antifascis...

They have shut down BLM pages? BLM irrefutably spreads hate, especially towards cops, even black cops, and their actions have gotten lots of cops killed. Many of them openly spread racial hate directed towards whites including the Dallas BLM shooter who killed 5 cops and said he wanted to kill white people and white cops in particular. If they shut down a vague classification of people like holocaust deniers, which i…

See... you've downvoted this because you've decided BLM is "your team" because of politics and that is a problem. You can't think objectively about what political actors are actually doing in the real world, and that is very dangerous.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#812

Post by geekster777 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #114

How are they going to determine what is HD? Some scholars get labeled denialists because they have different estimates for the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. Seems worrying to have FB moderators determining what's acceptable historical debate and what is wrongthink.

I always assumed you didn't need to be very good at moderating to make a certain type of content meaningfully unwelcome. For example, you can't put pornography on Youtube, but it's still reasonably easy to find a video with nudity. It's easy to lose a lot of time trying to craft the perfect definition, but you can get 80% of the benefit with a rigid and conservative definition. So I don't think you need to remove content that "arguably" breaks a policy, you just content that "explicitly" breaks it. This hopefully causes folks to the extremes will take their content elsewhere (to a hopefully much smaller audience).

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#813

Post by young_unixer »

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…

> groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves.

I think all leftists and most conservatives are intolerant, and some of them probably think my libertarian ideology is intolerant.

If we didn't think our political opponents were intolerant, we wouldn't be their opponents in the first place.

You may say "not all leftists and conservatives are intolerant" but the only difference is that your definition of intolerance is more lax. In the end it all boils down to "those that disagree too much with me are intolerant", where "too much" is defined by your subjective perception.

I could propose a ban on all speech that calls for tax increases, because high taxes are unfair and harmful, just like holocaust denial, but that would be extremely arrogant (besides being against my principles).

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#814

Post by davorak »

saas_sam wrote: post #618
davorak wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure enough, plenty of well-reasoned critiques exist from Jewish groups, Noam Chomsky (hardly an anti-Semite), Christopher Hitchens, and others. Are these armchair critiques? Or are these people/groups putting in serious effort to change things? That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them.

Your comment is strange... 1. ephimetheus: The only people who have a problem with these laws are bad people with evil intent 2. me: I just looked and there are a lot of people voicing problems with these laws who are good and have noble intent 3. you: But are they prioritizing the issue enough or are they just saying stuff? ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here? That if people aren't making enough o…

> ...Uh, what is the argument you're trying to make here?

That if they are not putting in some serious effort then "That indirectly indicates their priority for the issue for them."

Seeing how I am uninformed on what they have said as of yet I was interested in getting insight into their position and priorities.

> That if people aren't making enough of an "effort" in some way, that their critiques should not be taken seriously?

They have to prioritize, there is nothing wrong with that. I have to prioritize too. Knowing their priorities is useful information while evaluating their critiques.

> If you don't think sticking your neck out as a prominent intellectual like Chomsky or Hitchens to defend neo-nazi's right to lie in the public square.

There is definitely a difference between writing a critique and working consistently towards changing a law. It has no bearing on the seriousness of their crtique, but it does on the seriousness of their commitment and priorities.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#816

Post by f1refly »

shadowgovt wrote: post #610
jaywalk wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech simply does not exist in a number of (perhaps any?) European countries.

I believe the citizens of those countries might respectfully disagree. The US is somewhat absolutist relative to the global average on this topic (and even the US isn't complete freedom of speech---pornography law exists, as do various extremely tight constraints on pedophilia imagery).

As a citizen of a European state I can guarantee you that close to everyone here is very aware that we don't live in a legislation that permits free speech. If america decides that they're limiting their speech as well I wouldn't know where to go to discuss. The darknet, presumably, or maybe some shell company on an island nation that rents servers.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#818

Post by bjourne »

one2know wrote: post #811
one2know wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have shut down BLM pages? BLM irrefutably spreads hate, especially towards cops, even black cops, and their actions have gotten lots of cops killed. Many of them openly spread racial hate directed towards whites including the Dallas BLM shooter who killed 5 cops and said he wanted to kill white people and white cops in particular. If they shut down a vague classification of people like holocaust deniers, which i…

See... you've downvoted this because you've decided BLM is "your team" because of politics and that is a problem. You can't think objectively about what political actors are actually doing in the real world, and that is very dangerous.

HN doesn't allow you to down vote replies to your own comments so that was someone else. Rather than accusing me of hypocrisy, you could read my other comments on this article to know my position on free speech.

Re: Removing Holocaust Denial Content

#820

Post by pyuser583 »

nabla9 wrote: post #222
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…

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…

Europe has a much longer and more recent history of censorship than does the United States.

Currently it’s against the law in Germany to insult the leader of a foreign country. Some (many?) have laws against flag burning. Religious restrictions were common in some countries within the lifetimes of the current generation.

I’m not even talking about the ex-Communist countries.

Europeans simply don’t place the same emphasis on freedom of speech as Americans.

Post reply on HN