4 ms·

I am not the author of the parent comment that you're replying to, but I appreciate your civil reply in a flamebait-y thread. That said, his point seems to be

I am not the author of the parent comment that you're replying to, but I appreciate your civil reply in a flamebait-y thread. That said, his point seems to be that FB is banning e.g. Farrakhan without making any effort at disproving Farrakhan's claims, and furthermore that many of the commenters in this thread are similarly dismissive of Farrakhan's claims without offering anything resembling a good-faith disproof of those claims. (Note that the parent and I are not making any statement about Farrakhan's correctness or incorrectness, but are instead merely noting the widespread absence of proofs about this correctness). Personally I know essentially nothing about Farrakhan and his claims, but I like to believe that I can think critically enough to evaluate his claims on their merits, and do not need to be "protected" from hearing them by Facebook or anyone else. I (and perhaps the parent poster) would like to participate in an agora of ideas where everyone is welcome to promulgate his claims, no matter how allegedly outlandish, and the strongest ideas will win on their merits. Contrast this to a situation wherein the winning ideas win because their rivals are excluded from the agora. Of course I don't mean this just about Farrakhan. Similarly, I have never read the Protocols of Zion, which are mentioned several times elsewhere in this thread, and I have no clue whether they are related to a Jewish conspiracy for world domination etc. But many commenters here are asserting claims about the Protocols, without offering any attempt at a proof beyond a link to Wikipedia, which personally I find very unconvincing as a matter of principle, on this and any other topic. In general I am not convinced by assertions/bannings, and prefer evidence.

objectivetruth 7y ago
People on HN insert Wiki links so that readers can get a quick overview of a subject they may be unfamiliar with. None of us here owe you a curated list of academic journals explaining the history of specific instances of hate speech. If you really feel that conventional wisdom is wrong about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being hate-filled trash, by all means, do the research and make a decision. And that relates to the bigger picture about whether Facebook owes Farrakhan any sort of explanation or reason for kicking him: to be blunt, we don't HAVE TO offer a reasoned, good-faith proof that every wackjob is a wackjob or that's all us non-wackjobs would be doing all day: countering wackjobs. I've never read Farrakhan but I don't have to read his writings to know that I disagree with him because enough people already have -- journalists, commentators, other people, the literati, the accumulated conventional wisdom of our society, whatever you want to call it. Same with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- it's propaganda filth that should have been left behind in the last century. I've never read it, don't need to. You can if you want. It's not outlawed and shouldn't be. But FB has decided they don't want that filth on their servers. Because sometimes, the people who post that filth also egg each other on and post things like "get a high score!" when one of their buddies starts livestreaming themselves shooting up a synagogue. So if you do want to read it, go for it -- you can find it in numerous academic studies of hate speech and propaganda, and I'm sure it's still available on plenty of websites haunted by the types of guys who collect Nazi memorabilia with a gleam in their eye. But don't be shocked that lots of us have heard of it and can instantly label it as crap without having to research it.

objectivetruth 7y ago

People on HN insert Wiki links so that readers can get a quick overview of a subject they may be unfamiliar with. None of us here owe you a curated list of academic journals explaining the history of specific instances of hate speech. If you really feel that conventional wisdom is wrong about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion being hate-filled trash, by all means, do the research and make a decision. And that relates to the bigger picture about whether Facebook owes Farrakhan any sort of explanation or reason for kicking him: to be blunt, we don't HAVE TO offer a reasoned, good-faith proof that every wackjob is a wackjob or that's all us non-wackjobs would be doing all day: countering wackjobs. I've never read Farrakhan but I don't have to read his writings to know that I disagree with him because enough people already have -- journalists, commentators, other people, the literati, the accumulated conventional wisdom of our society, whatever you want to call it. Same with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- it's propaganda filth that should have been left behind in the last century. I've never read it, don't need to. You can if you want. It's not outlawed and shouldn't be. But FB has decided they don't want that filth on their servers. Because sometimes, the people who post that filth also egg each other on and post things like "get a high score!" when one of their buddies starts livestreaming themselves shooting up a synagogue. So if you do want to read it, go for it -- you can find it in numerous academic studies of hate speech and propaganda, and I'm sure it's still available on plenty of websites haunted by the types of guys who collect Nazi memorabilia with a gleam in their eye. But don't be shocked that lots of us have heard of it and can instantly label it as crap without having to research it.