4 ms·

Zuckerberg defends right of Holocaust deniers to be heard on Facebook

40 points by maxshmax 8y ago

pm24601 8y ago
"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" Especially, if the fact is real. Facebook wants to be a media company (http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/) except when they don't. A media company has a responsibility to accuracy.
- droidist2 8y ago
  I feel like this is similar to the death penalty debate though, where in response to the concern about executing innocent people, you hear "we'll only use it when it's a clear cut case" but either it ends up being used more than that, or it'd be used so rarely that it's not worth carving out a special case for it. How many things are on the clear cut level of Holocaust denial? And who decides what's clear cut enough to be excluded from free speech?
  - retox 8y ago
    >clear cut level of Holocaust denial 'Denial' isn't clear cut at all. You could deny it by saying it didn't happen at all, or that it happened in a different location, or by different people, or that the number of dead doesn't match the stated total(s). Is it denial to disbelieve a specific person was killed, or was killed in a specific manner? Is it denial to disbelieve some of the particulars of someones story? Free speech means exactly that; you're free to speak or you aren't.
diogenescynic 8y ago
Facebook is disgusting. I really hope they fail somehow. They have truly made society so much worse off.
arcsin 8y ago
It's remarkable to me that people think this is a bad thing. I feel like everyone agreed freedom of speech is a good thing until one day I woke up and they didn't. I don't mean whether or not it would be unconstitutional to censor certain topics on facebook. But facebook is a one of the largest communication platforms today. It's bad enough that Zuckerberg actually has the power to decide what can and can't be communicated on that platform, at least he's deciding not to use that power (at least in this case).
- aeternus 8y ago
  Exactly, I'm surprised there isn't more concern about facebook's proposed use of AI to remove/censor posts. Zuckerberg has championed AI as a more fair way of performing this censoring, however it is easy for AI to pick up biases (Microsoft's Tay bot for example) depending upon the training data. AI also provides scapegoats and plausible deniability: "we're constantly working to improve our algorithms" "the algorithms aren't perfect". Since news feeds are personalized & private, it is difficult for anyone who isn't facebook to audit or even detect biases. It's a tough problem, but I believe 'fake news' is best fought with truth & facts, not censorship. Censorship has a long history of abuse.
- crazydoggers 8y ago
  I think the issue that we are all grappling with is the amount, speed of dissemination, reach, and substance of all the speech that Facebook allows is something humanity has never grappled with. We generally agree that speech should be free, but obviously we put limits on it. For instance we do not allow yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The reason is that people are directly harmed by that speech, and it has no upside. It’s perfectly reasonable to consider much of what goes on, on Facebook in the same vein. If holocaust denial, or other types of hate speech or misinformation are spread rapidly, and cause moral panic, possibly harm to others, should we not consider limiting it? It’s not a black and white issue of “speech should be free at all times”. Facebook and social media is fundamentally changing (has changed) how humanity communicates. Thinking though and questioning the ethics and moral obligations of those services is quite important.
  - 8y ago
exabrial 8y ago
Some people will say stupid things with their freedom of expression. They're still entitled to their freedoms, lest we become like them. This breaks my heart that we have to have these conversations.
- ljw1001 8y ago
  What makes you think that freedom of expression means more than you can say what you want without going to jail? It doesn't mean people have to give you a platform to spread propaganda, and it never has. Want to start a social network for holocaust deniers? Go right ahead.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    Because... that's literally what it means. The internet is not a crowded theater. It's just text on a screen.
    - ljw1001 8y ago
      No. That's not what it means. Facebook is a private enterprise. It's not the Internet. You want to spout hate on the internet, fine. Get a server and host your pages. Does Facebook have to let you do it on their site? No. You may have to shout fire in a crowded theater to get arrested, but you can and probably will get kicked out for standing up and screaming about niggers and kikes. That's how civilization works.
      - exabrial 8y ago
        Literally a straw man attack. Facebook is a private platform and they can do whatever they want with their business. I was speaking specifically about freedom of expression.
phobosdeimos 8y ago
Not his call, Facebook has to follow the law. If I were him I would stop this freedom of expression stuff: nobody cares. Users don't actually want the crazies, religious nutjobs and political fighting. It almost killed Reddit and Twitter.
- ljw1001 8y ago
  The extremists are what keep Reddit and Twitter in business. People find all the fighting entertaining. This has much more to do with money than with human rights.

40 points by maxshmax 8y ago

"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" Especially, if the fact is real. Facebook wants to be a media company (http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/ http://fortune.com/2016/12/23/zuckerberg-media-company/) except when they don't. A media company has a responsibility to accuracy.

droidist2 8y ago
I feel like this is similar to the death penalty debate though, where in response to the concern about executing innocent people, you hear "we'll only use it when it's a clear cut case" but either it ends up being used more than that, or it'd be used so rarely that it's not worth carving out a special case for it. How many things are on the clear cut level of Holocaust denial? And who decides what's clear cut enough to be excluded from free speech?
- retox 8y ago
  >clear cut level of Holocaust denial 'Denial' isn't clear cut at all. You could deny it by saying it didn't happen at all, or that it happened in a different location, or by different people, or that the number of dead doesn't match the stated total(s). Is it denial to disbelieve a specific person was killed, or was killed in a specific manner? Is it denial to disbelieve some of the particulars of someones story? Free speech means exactly that; you're free to speak or you aren't.

diogenescynic 8y ago

Facebook is disgusting. I really hope they fail somehow. They have truly made society so much worse off.

arcsin 8y ago

It's remarkable to me that people think this is a bad thing. I feel like everyone agreed freedom of speech is a good thing until one day I woke up and they didn't. I don't mean whether or not it would be unconstitutional to censor certain topics on facebook. But facebook is a one of the largest communication platforms today. It's bad enough that Zuckerberg actually has the power to decide what can and can't be communicated on that platform, at least he's deciding not to use that power (at least in this case).

aeternus 8y ago
Exactly, I'm surprised there isn't more concern about facebook's proposed use of AI to remove/censor posts. Zuckerberg has championed AI as a more fair way of performing this censoring, however it is easy for AI to pick up biases (Microsoft's Tay bot for example) depending upon the training data. AI also provides scapegoats and plausible deniability: "we're constantly working to improve our algorithms" "the algorithms aren't perfect". Since news feeds are personalized & private, it is difficult for anyone who isn't facebook to audit or even detect biases. It's a tough problem, but I believe 'fake news' is best fought with truth & facts, not censorship. Censorship has a long history of abuse.
crazydoggers 8y ago
I think the issue that we are all grappling with is the amount, speed of dissemination, reach, and substance of all the speech that Facebook allows is something humanity has never grappled with. We generally agree that speech should be free, but obviously we put limits on it. For instance we do not allow yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. The reason is that people are directly harmed by that speech, and it has no upside. It’s perfectly reasonable to consider much of what goes on, on Facebook in the same vein. If holocaust denial, or other types of hate speech or misinformation are spread rapidly, and cause moral panic, possibly harm to others, should we not consider limiting it? It’s not a black and white issue of “speech should be free at all times”. Facebook and social media is fundamentally changing (has changed) how humanity communicates. Thinking though and questioning the ethics and moral obligations of those services is quite important.
- 8y ago

exabrial 8y ago

Some people will say stupid things with their freedom of expression. They're still entitled to their freedoms, lest we become like them. This breaks my heart that we have to have these conversations.

ljw1001 8y ago
What makes you think that freedom of expression means more than you can say what you want without going to jail? It doesn't mean people have to give you a platform to spread propaganda, and it never has. Want to start a social network for holocaust deniers? Go right ahead.
- exabrial 8y ago
  Because... that's literally what it means. The internet is not a crowded theater. It's just text on a screen.
  - ljw1001 8y ago
    No. That's not what it means. Facebook is a private enterprise. It's not the Internet. You want to spout hate on the internet, fine. Get a server and host your pages. Does Facebook have to let you do it on their site? No. You may have to shout fire in a crowded theater to get arrested, but you can and probably will get kicked out for standing up and screaming about niggers and kikes. That's how civilization works.
    - exabrial 8y ago
      Literally a straw man attack. Facebook is a private platform and they can do whatever they want with their business. I was speaking specifically about freedom of expression.

phobosdeimos 8y ago

Not his call, Facebook has to follow the law. If I were him I would stop this freedom of expression stuff: nobody cares. Users don't actually want the crazies, religious nutjobs and political fighting. It almost killed Reddit and Twitter.

ljw1001 8y ago
The extremists are what keep Reddit and Twitter in business. People find all the fighting entertaining. This has much more to do with money than with human rights.