6 ms·

Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row

25 points by parvenu74 8y ago

hart_russell 8y ago
Ethics vs free speech. A company whose bottom line relies on ad dollars should probably lean towards ethics.
- Najda 8y ago
  How do you draw the line of what crosses the boundary too far and needs to be taken down though? Ethics are not absolute and change from country to country while Facebook is a global platform.
lolsal 8y ago
I don't run a huge company or have any influence whatsoever, so I am probably being very naive - but I believe the Holocaust happened and if I were in his position I would not remove Denier rhetoric either.
- staticautomatic 8y ago
  Why not?
  - lolsal 8y ago
    I believe in free speech whether or not I believe with what is being spoken.
    - mullingitover 8y ago
      Would you post other people's hate speech on your own web site? By your reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech. Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense.
      - lolsal 8y ago
        > Would you post other people's hate speech on your own web site? No, but if I was running a social-oriented platform, they could post it themselves. > By your reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech. Not really, since I'm not a government. The user doesn't have a right to free speech on my platform, so I'm not denying them a right. > Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense. Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing to respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to.
        mullingitover 8y ago
        > Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing to respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to. He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's personally endorsing the stuff that stays up. If FB was an uncensored platform it'd be another story, but it's not.
        lolsal 8y ago
        > He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's personally endorsing the stuff that stays up. I have a suspicion that policing a social network with billions of users and keeping on top of trolls, bots and spam make it a little more complicated than 'if it stays up he personally endorses it'. This is a false dichotomy, there is a middle ground.
        mullingitover 8y ago
        You ever notice that Facebook isn't known for hosting child pornography? It's because they police their platform effectively, and things that they don't want on their platform are quickly removed. They are very effective at policing their platform, full stop. The stuff that's on there is the stuff they've decided they want to host and share with the world, including holocaust denialism.
  - 8637973911 8y ago
    Who watches the watchmen?
  - gsich 8y ago
    It's tedious to remove.
jimnotgym 8y ago
Zuckerberg demonstrates an alarming tendency to appear inhuman sometimes.
theseatoms 8y ago
Publisher vs Platform. They're still trying to have it both ways.
brink 8y ago
While I do take a strong stance against flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, etc.. I can sympathize with Zuckerberg here a little bit, because just banning Holocaust deniers is on a big slippery slope, that could lead to larger issues like "Do we ban religious speak against homosexuality due to instruction from an invisible man in the sky?" since we only deal in materialistic fact here and all controversial opinions are unwelcome. Where do we draw the line?
AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
> "I'm Jewish and there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened," he told reporter Kara Swisher. "BARBARA. Sorry, I'm sure. By the way, papa, what is your religion--in case I have to introduce you again? UNDERSHAFT. My religion? Well, my dear, I am a Millionaire. That is my religion." - Major Barbara [0] [0]http://www.fullbooks.com/MAJOR-BARBARA1.html http://www.fullbooks.com/MAJOR-BARBARA1.html
JohnBerea 8y ago
> Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC: "Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager." It's a strange world when the "antifascists" want control of speech.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Used to be, hate speech got disseminated slowly because of the resistance of the crowd to repeating it. But give one guy a machine-gun message-spreading website, that's a whole new world. Free-to-speak is one thing; free to distribute hate speech by electronic means to billions of people in seconds is another. Its a game these days, to pretend one thing is the same as another even though they are massively different.
  - 21 8y ago
    If someone says "I hate ICE, I hate police", should they be censored too, and their message not distributed?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Translation: you can speak freely, as long as you aren't heard. Used to be conspiracy theory, now actual basis for action of an actual political force. Sad times.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Again the conflation of two unrelated things, because they share a trivial detail. Speaking freely in your home, or a public place, or even on a TV station, are so different from spreading fake news via internet bots etc as to be different things. Its about the coefficient of 'being heard' which has an infinite set of values between 0 (aren't heard) and 1 (the whole world sees it in seconds). The coefficient gets too large, and drastic changes in group behavior can occur. Undesirable changes. We can study these things with science, and understand where the coefficients should lie, without shouting 'freedom of speech!' into the wind to shut down conversation.
Kenji 8y ago
Zuckerberg is correct on this very issue. Suppressing holocaust deniers makes them martyrs. Their following grows and it actually makes them stronger because they now have reason to believe that the people in power are suppressing them because they're onto something. Political correctness people are completely clueless about free speech and social dynamics. They are a danger to our freedom. EDIT: It's also interesting how this story was immediately removed from the front page. The political correctness clowns are at work again.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tribune 8y ago
To be clear, he said that the words of Holocaust deniers are allowed on Facebook. I guess what you think shouldn't be allowed on Facebook depends on what your definition of free speech is (if you accept that Facebook should allow free speech). He also added: "I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong. That strikes me as naïve. Some, no doubt, are intentionally getting it wrong. Others have their heads so deep in the conspiracy sand that no polite discourse on Facebook is going to resolve it. Either way, this doesn't seem like a huge deal. Zuck says Facebook allows freedom of speech, even in muddy waters.
headcanon 8y ago
I think the line he is trying to draw is this: Scenario 1: I am a facebook user that wants to say something that people find offensive. I may write or share an article I found online to "support" my views. This is allowed under the idea of Free Speech. Scenario 2: I am some entity that wants to generate controversy and polarization by gaming recommendation algorithms, and thus flood the space of discourse with offensive material. I don't care about the material itself less so than the vitriol and outrage. AKA "Fake News". This is what they want to ban. What trolls have done is essentially "hacked" the idea of Free Speech. The original idea behind Free speech was that people would at the very least earnestly believe what they were saying, or at the very least were engaging in satire. Trolling is satire on a whole new level, and it does seem truly difficult to separate the two without being too draconian.
locopati 8y ago
Holocaust denial is hate speech. To deny a well-planned, thoroughly documented, and specifically-targeted attack on certain ethnic groups that resulted in the murder of over 10 million is hate speech. It is the denial of facts to create a forgetfulness that would allow a repetition against a new group. I thought FB was supposedly changing their platform to not spread hate speech.

25 points by parvenu74 8y ago

hart_russell 8y ago

Ethics vs free speech. A company whose bottom line relies on ad dollars should probably lean towards ethics.

Najda 8y ago
How do you draw the line of what crosses the boundary too far and needs to be taken down though? Ethics are not absolute and change from country to country while Facebook is a global platform.

lolsal 8y ago

I don't run a huge company or have any influence whatsoever, so I am probably being very naive - but I believe the Holocaust happened and if I were in his position I would not remove Denier rhetoric either.

staticautomatic 8y ago
Why not?
- lolsal 8y ago
  I believe in free speech whether or not I believe with what is being spoken.
  - mullingitover 8y ago
    Would you post other people's hate speech on your own web site? By your reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech. Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense.
    - lolsal 8y ago
      > Would you post other people's hate speech on your own web site? No, but if I was running a social-oriented platform, they could post it themselves. > By your reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech. Not really, since I'm not a government. The user doesn't have a right to free speech on my platform, so I'm not denying them a right. > Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense. Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing to respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to.
      - mullingitover 8y ago
        > Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing to respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to. He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's personally endorsing the stuff that stays up. If FB was an uncensored platform it'd be another story, but it's not.
        lolsal 8y ago
        > He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's personally endorsing the stuff that stays up. I have a suspicion that policing a social network with billions of users and keeping on top of trolls, bots and spam make it a little more complicated than 'if it stays up he personally endorses it'. This is a false dichotomy, there is a middle ground.
        mullingitover 8y ago
        You ever notice that Facebook isn't known for hosting child pornography? It's because they police their platform effectively, and things that they don't want on their platform are quickly removed. They are very effective at policing their platform, full stop. The stuff that's on there is the stuff they've decided they want to host and share with the world, including holocaust denialism.
- 8637973911 8y ago
  Who watches the watchmen?
- gsich 8y ago
  It's tedious to remove.

jimnotgym 8y ago

Zuckerberg demonstrates an alarming tendency to appear inhuman sometimes.

theseatoms 8y ago

Publisher vs Platform. They're still trying to have it both ways.

brink 8y ago

While I do take a strong stance against flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, etc.. I can sympathize with Zuckerberg here a little bit, because just banning Holocaust deniers is on a big slippery slope, that could lead to larger issues like "Do we ban religious speak against homosexuality due to instruction from an invisible man in the sky?" since we only deal in materialistic fact here and all controversial opinions are unwelcome. Where do we draw the line?

AdmiralAsshat 8y ago

> "I'm Jewish and there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened," he told reporter Kara Swisher. "BARBARA. Sorry, I'm sure. By the way, papa, what is your religion--in case I have to introduce you again? UNDERSHAFT. My religion? Well, my dear, I am a Millionaire. That is my religion." - Major Barbara [0] [0]http://www.fullbooks.com/MAJOR-BARBARA1.html http://www.fullbooks.com/MAJOR-BARBARA1.html

JohnBerea 8y ago

> Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC: "Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager." It's a strange world when the "antifascists" want control of speech.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Used to be, hate speech got disseminated slowly because of the resistance of the crowd to repeating it. But give one guy a machine-gun message-spreading website, that's a whole new world. Free-to-speak is one thing; free to distribute hate speech by electronic means to billions of people in seconds is another. Its a game these days, to pretend one thing is the same as another even though they are massively different.
- 21 8y ago
  If someone says "I hate ICE, I hate police", should they be censored too, and their message not distributed?
- candiodari 8y ago
  Translation: you can speak freely, as long as you aren't heard. Used to be conspiracy theory, now actual basis for action of an actual political force. Sad times.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Again the conflation of two unrelated things, because they share a trivial detail. Speaking freely in your home, or a public place, or even on a TV station, are so different from spreading fake news via internet bots etc as to be different things. Its about the coefficient of 'being heard' which has an infinite set of values between 0 (aren't heard) and 1 (the whole world sees it in seconds). The coefficient gets too large, and drastic changes in group behavior can occur. Undesirable changes. We can study these things with science, and understand where the coefficients should lie, without shouting 'freedom of speech!' into the wind to shut down conversation.

Kenji 8y ago

Zuckerberg is correct on this very issue. Suppressing holocaust deniers makes them martyrs. Their following grows and it actually makes them stronger because they now have reason to believe that the people in power are suppressing them because they're onto something. Political correctness people are completely clueless about free speech and social dynamics. They are a danger to our freedom. EDIT: It's also interesting how this story was immediately removed from the front page. The political correctness clowns are at work again.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tribune 8y ago

To be clear, he said that the words of Holocaust deniers are allowed on Facebook. I guess what you think shouldn't be allowed on Facebook depends on what your definition of free speech is (if you accept that Facebook should allow free speech). He also added: "I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong. That strikes me as naïve. Some, no doubt, are intentionally getting it wrong. Others have their heads so deep in the conspiracy sand that no polite discourse on Facebook is going to resolve it. Either way, this doesn't seem like a huge deal. Zuck says Facebook allows freedom of speech, even in muddy waters.

headcanon 8y ago

I think the line he is trying to draw is this: Scenario 1: I am a facebook user that wants to say something that people find offensive. I may write or share an article I found online to "support" my views. This is allowed under the idea of Free Speech. Scenario 2: I am some entity that wants to generate controversy and polarization by gaming recommendation algorithms, and thus flood the space of discourse with offensive material. I don't care about the material itself less so than the vitriol and outrage. AKA "Fake News". This is what they want to ban. What trolls have done is essentially "hacked" the idea of Free Speech. The original idea behind Free speech was that people would at the very least earnestly believe what they were saying, or at the very least were engaging in satire. Trolling is satire on a whole new level, and it does seem truly difficult to separate the two without being too draconian.

locopati 8y ago

Holocaust denial is hate speech. To deny a well-planned, thoroughly documented, and specifically-targeted attack on certain ethnic groups that resulted in the murder of over 10 million is hate speech. It is the denial of facts to create a forgetfulness that would allow a repetition against a new group. I thought FB was supposedly changing their platform to not spread hate speech.