32 ms·

Removing Holocaust Denial Content

• curiousgal 6y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong, isn't the entire point of remembering the Holocaust is to prevent a similar austracity from happening again? With that in mind, looking at China's Uighur camps and to a much lesser extent the U.S. detention centers, isn't it clear that humanity has not learnt anything?
  • vdfs 6y ago
    History 101: humanity doesn't learn from history
    • disease 6y ago
      It learns something for 40-60 years before forgetting it again.
      • metalliqaz 6y ago
        just about two generations... about what i'd expect
      • vezycash 6y ago
        >It learns something for 40-60 years before forgetting it again More like those who are DIRECTLY affected by the event MIGHT learn. Those who hear about it don't learn because, "Ours is different." It's like humans are hypocritical beings, most who can't tell that they are.
    • dougk16 6y ago
      To summarize the major issue, we're taught in schools the results of something like Nazi Germany, 6 million died in camps, Hitler was a psychopath, etc., all the details of how horrible it was and how we can never let it happen again. What we're not taught are the methodical psychological operations implemented over decades on at least 2 or 3 generations that lead up to a situation where an entire country could be fooled or intimidated into allowing such horrors to occur. If we were taught the causes and not the symptoms then I dare say history would be harder to repeat. Go read Mein Kampf, 1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, it's all there. The methods are extremely simple, it's just the level of psychopathy in our ruling class that is hard for people to accept.
      • TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
        Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, was a master at his craft.
      • rbecker 6y ago
        > we're taught in schools the results of something like Nazi Germany, 6 million died in camps You're taught poorly. 11 million died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#cite_note-USHMMfigures-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#cite_note-USHMMf...
        • dougk16 6y ago
          I'll take that as a compliment. Indeed I was "taught" poorly and so educated myself. If you're trying to prevent repeating history it doesn't matter as much what the number is. It matters how you allow a society to get to those kinds of numbers.
  • mannykannot 6y ago
    Denying what happened is not remembering it.
  • rabidonrails 6y ago
    There are a number of Jewish institutions that are doing just this.
  • gridlockd 6y ago
    It's curious that of the many actual genocides that have been well-documented since WWII, you happen to pick these two examples that aren't genocides. It seems like most genocides just don't get enough publicity.
• stormdennis 6y ago
  If you remove Holocaust denial content all you achieve is to fuel conspiracy theories. It's completely counter-productive.
  • jeromegv 6y ago
    It's been shown that deplatforming and moving those nuts out of the mainstream social media channels reduce their influence. There was holocaust denier before Faceook, but their reach was much more limited. Remember that Facebook promotes groups and suggest you content that you're not following, so when holocaust deniers are part of the platform, some people with no exposure to the concept might start getting recommendations to follow this content. Banning it prevents it. They can scream on their small social network that reach 200 people but that won't convince millions of people of joining the movement.
    • 0xB31B1B 6y ago
      Weird how the true evidence based comment is downvoted here. Regardless of your ideological priors the evidence we have shows deplatforming works to limit dis info spread. I have yet to hear an argument about why we should not deplatform holocaust deniers.
      • matheusmoreira 6y ago
        What evidence? There are no references in your post or the post you're replying to.
    • ComputerGuru 6y ago
      > It's been shown that deplatforming and moving those nuts out of the mainstream social media channels reduce their influence. Would you mind linking to the studies you have in mind? In thinking about the likes of The_Donald and its current, banished form.
      • vajrabum 6y ago
        I got curious about it's current, banished form because I'd missed that bit of the story. It's about what I'd expect except they have a non-CCDA compliant cookie notice with no opt-out. Makes me wonder if that's because they have amateur web devs or if the management didn't want to include it because California and politics.
• noetokyo 6y ago
  Here is Facebook trying to desperately clean up in the hopes of appeasing the antitrust regulators.
  • metalliqaz 6y ago
    Facebook has made a habit of pandering to conservatives. This is more likely a result of increased public scrutiny combined with internal employee revolt.
    • ashtonkem 6y ago
      It’s also the least they could do, quite literally. Holocaust denialism is both extremely fringe ideologically, and extremely visible to rich westerners. It’s the easiest and lowest hanging fruit to show that they’re doing something. But I genuinely doubt that it signals a willingness to tackle either more difficult content like misinformation, nor tamp down on the coordinated behavior in less visible (to Americans) places where FB has been central to enabling genocide and other similarly bad things. In short: it’s a good move, but I suspect it’s more PR than anything else.
      • perardi 6y ago
        Yes. “The Nazis were bad” is, generally, a pretty easy PR statement. Here, let’s spin up a really hard one. “Given the historical discrimination against Catholics, Facebook should delete all posts that discriminate against Amy Coney Barrett on account of her religion.” Not such an easy PR win there, eh?
  • myko 6y ago
    This will do the opposite though I think - most of the "antitrust" arguments targeting Facebook seem to be upset that this type of content is being removed / Facebook (and YouTube, Twitter) have too much power in what we see/read.
    • dotancohen 6y ago
      > have too much power in what we see/read. You choose to type h t t p facebook dot com into your browser. They have absolutely not power in what you see or read, you go there voluntarily. Just stop going there.
• 0goel0 6y ago
  This is very long overdue. Interestingly, the post has no attribution or by-line, and as usual, Facebook takes no responsibility for helping spread hate (the entire post is very passive).
  • snazz 6y ago
    I see a byline ("By Monika Bickert, VP of Content Policy") on the desktop site.
    • 0goel0 6y ago
      They just added it apparently (the original didn't have it)
  • jeromegv 6y ago
    It's also on Zuckerberg's facebook account https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112455086578451 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112455086578451
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• operatorius 6y ago
  Wish this would apply as well to the Armenian genocide denial content and other genocides in general. Cause, you know, there have been many more other genocides throughout the history but apparently there is only one that fits the Western/Eurocentric view
  • eitland 6y ago
    > Wish this would apply as well to the Armenian genocide denial content and other genocides in general. Is this a thing? (Except in Turkey?) If so whoever tries should absolutely not be allowed to get away with it.
  • OneGuy123 6y ago
    Says a lot that this comment got downvoted... If the Armenian genocide would have the same amount of "advertising" as holocaust does it would be on the same level of "notoriety". The media complex creates a very disproportionate cult around certain events: the holomodor claimed 2x lives as the holocaust and yet it's hardly ever mentioned. Everyone knows of holocaust but most will go "huh?" when you ask them about holomodor. Funny how history can spinned to make certain events world famous and others to dissapear.
    • iron0013 6y ago
      “Holodomor” is mentioned all the time by the conservatives and neo-Nazis that made it a meme in the first place
      • jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        As far as I can tell it is a historical event that actually happened (just like the Holocaust), so I'm not sure why you're trying to marginalize it by associating it with neo-Nazis (and conservatives, who I notice you're trying to smear by association).
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  • 6y ago
• ignoramous 6y ago
  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 speech and free society intact, one where the tolerant voices aren't drained out by the relentlessness and irrationality of the intolerant. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Similar discussions (re Cloudflare terminates 8chan): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20616055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20616055 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20610395
  • rednerrus 6y ago
    Where do we draw the line? Is this a Pacifica kind of issue where we'll know it when we see it?
    • duxup 6y ago
      "especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves" To me that seems like a pretty clear line. Some groups will invariably try to straddle it, but plenty of groups on Facebook make it quite clear their level of hate for others.
      • nailer 6y ago
        Sure: > 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. Could easily be used to ban Islam on Facebook. Or Scientology. Or far left / far right governments. Or Antifa / Proud Boys / other vigilante groups. Or popularly supported groups with a fringe element (BLM). Or free market capitalists, or communists. As one should already gather from reading above, I am not suggesting that Facebook should ban any of these. Ultimately every group doesn't tolerate something, and this argument could be used to ban them.
• jimbob45 6y ago
  Censoring opposition has not once yielded positive results in the history of the world. My personal conspiracy theory is that policies like these are subversively being used to push HD since no one could possibly be stupid enough to think this would help.
  • runarberg 6y ago
    Hasn’t it? Do you have any examples, or should I just take your word for it?
    • donatj 6y ago
      Are you completely blind to the countercultures that have popped up completely unchecked because of social media bans?
      • CydeWeys 6y ago
        Why do people fight against deplatforming if according to you it's actually beneficial for their cause?
        • jimbob45 6y ago
          Because it’s a huge pain to re-establish their platform elsewhere, not that it can’t be done.
          • CydeWeys 6y ago
            Can it be done? Who's been banned from the major platforms and has then established a similarly sized platform of their own elsewhere? You have to admit that this is at least a huge roadblock for hateful extremists, no?
            • jimbob45 6y ago
              The textbook definition of people not on your side is “hateful extremist”. Everyone who doesn’t agree with someone is the worst person ever. Attempting to claim that your censorship holds the moral imperative can be used to make dubiously ethical decisions under the guise of a divine mission. Also this has recently happened with many Twitch streamers. Destiny, Vaush, Sargon, and others got deplatformed and moved elsewhere. One could argue that Andrew Wakefield, the founder of the anti-vaccine movement, has found/made a stronger platform after losing his license and being publicly denounced than he ever had as a doctor.
• eznat 6y ago
  If Zuckerberg and Sandberg say the Holocaust happened in a certain way, who are we to disagree. Never forget that history is written by the victors.
• samename 6y ago
  The unchecked power Zuck and co have has global implications for every tiny decision they make. Who gave them this power? What makes them the best people to be making these decisions? Can we always trust them to get it right?
  • roseway4 6y ago
    Facebook is a private entity. Facebook’s shareholders have given Mark Zuckerberg and his management team the power to manage the company as they see fit. If users disagree with the terms and conditions of using the site, they don’t have to use it.
    • Uberphallus 6y ago
      That works... for a non monopoly.
    • calvinmorrison 6y ago
      It's a bit hilarious to me, that people advertise unchecked unfettered capitalism for internet companies, while arguing for regulation of every other company, say oil company X, due to externalities. Nobody's forcing you to buy gasoline silly!
      • aww_dang 6y ago
        Perhaps it is a function of groupthink. Regulation of the Internet is a relatively new phenomenon. The suggestion that consumers of petroleum (rather than regulators) are responsible for negative outcomes is nearly a heresy in comparison.
    • Mangalor 6y ago
      In reality it's like Comcast. You could theoretically switch ISPs, but realistically and in practice it's a monopoly.
      • FartyMcFarter 6y ago
• julianozen 6y ago
  As a reminder, in an interview with Kara Swisher in 2018, Mark defended facebooks approach to free speech and light moderation. He said that FB does not wish to moderate certain kinds of content including Holocaust denials as he felt many people denying the Holocaust where not doing so maliciously or intentionally Full interview: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-interview-facebook-recode-kara-swisher https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-inter... I’m glad to hear Facebook has come around on this policy but hearing the interview I was a bit floored and it definitely strengthen my resolve that Facebooks’ executives aren’t equipped to handle the complexity of the machine they have created. If Mark can get it wrong on a topic so obvious how can we trust the rest of their content moderation policies in every geo and world conflict.
• TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > According to a recent survey of adults in the US aged 18-39, almost a quarter said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, that it had been exaggerated or they weren’t sure. Wow!
  • RunawayGalaxy 6y ago
    To me that seems like three very different positions to be bucketed together?
    • hutzlibu 6y ago
      Totally, not very helpful data. But it sounds dramatic.
    • dudul 6y ago
      I tried to point this out on Twitter a few weeks ago when this survey came out, and I basically became an holocaust denier...
      • TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
        Based on the downvote of the post, I can see why that happened to you. I simply copied a section from the article.
    • matheusmoreira 6y ago
      That's exactly what it is. Denying the holocaust is about as dumb as saying the earth is flat. Not being sure about historical details such as how many people were killed is very common though. I don't remember either.
  • lancebeet 6y ago
    Outside the western world it's common that people are unfamiliar with the holocaust, unsure of the details or believe it's a myth. Given that the US has a significant amount of immigration from non-western countries, I would take that into account when looking at those statistics. It might be premature to think it's solely due to a rise in antisemitism.
• rgovostes 6y ago
  For context, here are Zuckerberg's comments, from July 2018, defending Facebook as a platform for spreading misinformation. He specifically uses as an example that he would not censor Holocaust denial. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17575158/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-interview-full-transcript-kara-swisher https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17575158/mark-zuckerberg-faceb...
• charliebrownau 6y ago
  Typical Jewish Zionist operated platform The Holohoax is the only Historial event you NEVER allowed to debunk, debate or disagree with, and the Global Zionists have passed laws in over 17 nations around the planet To make sure no one reveals the truth or debunks it Yet we never see a single movie, tv show or doco that exposes the millions of christians killed by the Hands of Zionist Jews in Russia in the number of 10-20 million THOSE lives clearly dont get protected status
• jakamau 6y ago
  In a semi-related tangent, The Economist recently had an article about the unintentional destruction of evidence when deleting terrorist propaganda. The content should be removed from discourse, but I think there is value in making it a silent ban instead of deletion. Keep the post visible to only the poster, no one else can see or interact with the material once it's been flagged. It's effectively deleted, evidence maintained, and the user loses their behavioral dopamine fix once their content no longer generates any support or any controversy because it's fallen off into the void. I'm not sure what the unintended consequences would be of such a strategyth. https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/26/social-media-platforms-are-destroying-evidence-of-war-crimes https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/26/...
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    I do believe the propaganda should be archived though, for research purposes, fingerprinting, and like you mentioned, evidence. I hope Facebook is handing everything over to the right authorities (internationally). Of course, there are some people who are given the extremist / terrorist label - e.g. Antifa - where the brand may not be warranted. Antifa is not a real organization though, just a name abused by the anti-antifacists (?) to try and make protesters the boogeyman.
    • fouric 6y ago
      Antifa is very much a real organization (with [1] being only one of the cells), made up of very real people committing very real acts of violence[2]. The "terrorist" label is completely warranted - a terrorist is someone who attempts to enact change through the use of fear, which is exactly what these people are doing, by literally killing, injuring, and threatening[3] anyone who doesn't agree with them, and by wantonly destroying property[4]. There's nothing "antifacist" about these people, nor are they "protestors" - they're looters, rioters, and terrorists. Edit: "protestors", by definition, do not threaten or attack people, or destroy property. [1] https://www.rosecityantifa.org/ https://www.rosecityantifa.org/ [2] https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/man-suspected-in-deadly-portland-shooting-is-100-antifa/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/man-suspected-in-deadly-portla... [3] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/04/02/oregon-court-affirms-conviction-of-journalist-who-pulled-gun-to-stop-advancing-antifa-mob-n383093 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2020/04/... [4] https://www.foxnews.com/us/costs-protests-financial-toll-cash-strapped-us-cities https://www.foxnews.com/us/costs-protests-financial-toll-cas...
• tonyvince7 6y ago
  “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 French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.
  • NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    ... and Goebbels and Stalin were both part of the government. Why is so hard to understand that government limitations on free speech are fundamentally different from private ones? Freedom of the press means being able to print what you want, not being able to compel the printer. Facebook doesn't have to be complicit in publishing speech it finds repugnant, and why should it?
    • gridlockd 6y ago
      If Facebook becomes a publisher and not merely a conduit of speech, it must simultaneously be legally liable for what it publishes.
      • NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        Let's not hide behind the technicalities. Facebook makes your content available to a much larger audience than you might otherwise have access to, which is to say publishes it in the common English meaning of the word even if, under US law, it's not regarded as a publisher w.r.t user-generated content. In your terms, Facebook might be a mere conduit of speech, but there is nothing that says it has to a perfect/unfiltered conduit.
        • gridlockd 6y ago
          > In your terms, Facebook might be a mere conduit of speech, but there is nothing that says it has to a perfect/unfiltered conduit. There is the provision that a common carrier must not discriminate[1]. In return, the common carrier is absolved of certain liabilities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier I'm not saying Facebook is (or should be) considered a common carrier, I'm saying Facebook shouldn't get to have it both ways, as it currently does. The law hasn't quite caught up here yet.
• lalos 6y ago
  Around a week ago the congress released the tech antitrust report and Facebook has been singing a different tune (first qanon, now this). Amazing what regulatory oversight achieves, once profits and power are on the line to be lost.
• shrubble 6y ago
  It's how it starts though, with an easy target... when say 3 years from now, you can't criticize FB for their known co-operation with the surveillance programs of the government without having your content automatically detected and removed, you might have a different view. This is only because of FB's refusal to let you more easily control what is seen on your feed. You controlling the feed settings would remove FBs power over eyeballs.
  • Mvandenbergh 6y ago
    Come on. First they came for the Nazis?
    • shrubble 6y ago
      My point is, this is only an issue because FB wants you to continue to cede the power over your feed ( your attention) to them. No one on my feed, of any group or any friends, are holocaust deniers. So I would never see any such content, if my feed was fully under my control, correct?
      • Mvandenbergh 6y ago
        That's fair enough. If FB was purely what it originally was - showing updates from your own connections exclusively - then of course a measure like this would be nonsensical. Only people who were directly connected to people posting it would ever see it (and many such people would be beyond hope anyway) and there would be no need to stop any kind of content "propagating" since no content ever would.
    • gridlockd 6y ago
      Considering how casually the word "Nazi" is thrown around these days, perhaps that should indeed be a matter of concern.
  • mtberatwork 6y ago
    > when say 3 years from now, you can't criticize FB for their known co-operation with the surveillance programs of the government without having your content automatically detected and removed, you might have a different view. If that were to happen, then you would take your criticism to a different platform or your own domain. Facebook isn't the Web let alone the Internet.
• quotha 6y ago
  IN FACEBOOK WE TRUST
• rkachowski 6y ago
  Is this an international policy change? In Germany holocaust denial is straight up illegal, so I imagine posts are have been required to be removed since the inception of Facebook. It's kinda weird to see that this is only now a thing.
  • coffeefirst 6y ago
    It looks like it is, given they mention the UK. I don’t know how they handled Germany, but a few years ago he used this as an example of something FB would allow despite it being awful. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/18/zuckerberg-facebook-holocaust-deniers-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/18/zuckerber...
• charliebrownau 6y ago
  Youtuber Kyle Myers (FPSRussia) debunks the holohoax https://www.bitchute.com/video/N3wwBY3SSfnZ/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/N3wwBY3SSfnZ/ #history #holohoax #jews #finalsolution #protected ===================== AUSTRALIAN MAN JAILED FOR CALLING ZIONIST PROTESTOR A "RACIST JEW" 2011 - https://www.bitchute.com/video/AeI3amQlYTxx/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/AeI3amQlYTxx/ #Australia #jews #hate-speech #racism #corrupt-state ============================================== The great replacement is a racist sexist antisemitic conspiracy theory - https://www.bitchute.com/video/3NIkn3qNq60z/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/3NIkn3qNq60z/ #Zoinism #Jews #ISRAEL #Great-replacment #Multiculturalism WE WERE NEVER ASKED It was a JEW in USA and AU that un did white only immergration
• fit2rule 6y ago
  This is an admirable move. I sure hope that it means its going to be harder for people to deny current era war crimes and crimes against humanity, too. That is way, way overdue.
• malikNF 6y ago
  About time fb started taking this kind of misinformation serious. From the article I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact >>According to a recent survey of adults in the US aged 18-39, almost a quarter said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, that it had been exaggerated or they weren’t sure. Like how does something like this even happen in a first world country, as someone from outside the US someone who grew up thinking the US had an excellent education system and kids there had more access to data the world and almost everything, I honestly am having a very hard time processing the fact that this many people believe the holocaust didn't happen or was exaggerated. Is this a failure in the education system? Like, what the hell is this?
  • ShamelessC 6y ago
    That survey question seems psychologically primed to get people to doubt themselves enough to agree with the third option (weren't sure). A better statistic would be just the number of people who believe it to be a hoax. I hope that number is much lower than 25% but the past four years have showed me there's a much larger threat of bigotry and fascism in America than I could have ever imagined.
• The_rationalist 6y ago
  Such content should not be removed/censored but officially annotated (a red text aside of the original content would be a generic disclaimer and link to a full dissertation on why such kind of content is both erroneous and harmful to humanity). And of course such content should be ranked down in the recommendation system.
• Mvandenbergh 6y ago
  Long overdue. It's worth going into why this is something that is worth doing and also why FB has historically not done it. FB's position for a long time was that they would not remove material just because it was factually inaccurate, in other words they treated Holocaust denial as being essentially ignorance. There is a truly cringeworthy clip of Facebook spokesdrone and former UK deputy PM Nick Clegg in a documentary on Holocaust denial, unfortunately I cannot find it online, where he lays this out. The problem, as David Baddiel shows in that documentary is that this is not actually a disagreement on a matter of fact where one party is mistaken. There is no mistake and the people who push this stuff know it. I've often noticed that the people who most vehemently believe that the Holocaust did not happen are the people who really want it to happen again. You're not going to find people who deny that it happened and are not also raging anti-Semites. Here's why: they know that it happened. They know that you know that it happened too. They enjoy the agitation and the pain they are inflicting. When they say that they are just "asking questions" and trying to "educate themselves" they are using the language of academic inquiry which they know we are culturally inclined to treasure and protect above almost all else as a sort of cloak. The reason, for instance why Deborah Lipstadt, probably the world's foremost scholar on Holocaust denial has always refused to engage in any kind of debate is for precisely that reason. Now, at first, one might say: "aha, but surely we should never foreclose academic debate? What is she hiding that she won't even debate them?". However this is to mistake their games for genuine inquiry. It should be noted that there actually are debates among historians about the Holocaust but these are not over whether it happened but over where it should be placed in terms of historical context - is part of genocide studies, a sui generis event, part of a long arc of European anti-Semitism? and over whether it was always part of a Nazi master plan or effectively emerged as a consequence of bureaucratic manoeuvring and favour-gaming by Nazi officials who wanted to rise through the party. These are often quite intense as well, with people having some very strong views. There is no such thing as a historical debate about whether the events themselves happened. Sartre is still very relevant here: Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
• s9w 6y ago
  I live in a country where even giving slightly wrong numbers on this event or making jokes about it did punish people with life-destroying convictions. So I can't speak my mind. But I can't recommend following the route of Europe on this. Nothing good comes from this... my country still covers up other genocides (armenian) so it's not about being right or wrong. Protect the little freedom of speech the US still has.
• Uberphallus 6y ago
  That would be amazing if I hadn't been blocked for posting obvious jokes and satire, and for using expressions like "white trash" (I'm white btw). Then on my free time I report tons of people and groups sharing CP, and they're rarely banned, the groups seldom removed... simply because the pedophiles paint strokes over the snapshots of the stuff they share. You can't see the genitals and face of the kid? It's no longer CP for FB. That kind of stuff is what later fuels conspiracy theories like pizzagate.
• CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Censorship will only, rightly or wrongly, give legitimacy to censored views, and galvanize the censored.
• amadeuspagel 6y ago
  "Unfortunately, even while the protests about the cartoons were still underway, a new problem about convincing Muslims of the genuineness of our respect for freedom of expression has arisen because of Austria's conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the existence of the Holocaust. We cannot consistently hold that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust and that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures. David Irving should be freed. Before you accuse me of failing to understand the sensitivities of victims of the Holocaust or the nature of Austrian anti-Semitism, I should tell you that I am the son of Austrian Jews. My parents escaped Austria in time, but my grandparents did not. All four of my grandparents were deported to ghettos in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Two of them were sent to Lodz, in Poland, and then probably murdered with carbon monoxide at the extermination camp at Chelmno. Another one fell ill and died in the overcrowded and underfed ghetto at Theresienstadt. My maternal grandmother was the only survivor. So, I have no sympathy for David Irving's absurd denial of the Holocaust-which, in his trial, he said was a mistake. I support efforts to prevent any return to Nazism in Austria or anywhere else. But how is the cause of truth served by prohibiting Holocaust denial? If there are still people crazy enough to deny that the Holocaust occurred, will they be persuaded by imprisoning some who express that view? On the contrary, they will be more likely to think that views people are being imprisoned for expressing cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone." Peter Singer. Source: http://www.humanizm.net.pl/singerftr.html http://www.humanizm.net.pl/singerftr.html
  • hef19898 6y ago
    It is avery strong way to publicly, and legally, counter that specific case of propanda and falsehoods. Extending that to social media can only be a good thing. It also makes it very clear, that everyone agreeing with people like Irving, and following them, is aslo most likely a Nazi. And these claims have been refuted so often already, that not everyone making these claims has to be refuted on an individual basis.
    • amadeuspagel 6y ago
      Yeah, clearly freedom of speech doesn't apply to things that have already been refuted.
• valenterry 6y ago
  I don't think that's the best approach. I like it better how it can be done at e.g. reddit: make other groups able to link to the content/discussion and show this link to the reader of the original content. Then the reader gets to notice that the topic is controversial and discussed in other places and can make up their own idea based on different views. It shouldn't be difficult to convince a naive reader of conspiracy theories. This has many advantages: 1. It does not force groups into underground forums 2. It raises visibility to everyone that there are people with strange ideas and how many of them there are (which I personally think is a problem if it grows too big) 3. It removes the potential argument of such a group that they are suppressed or that online content is moderated by people that "try to hide the truth" 4. It removes the ability to easily censor valid criticism/movements (Hongkong?) because the censorship infrastructure is already in place 5. It leaves some really strange and sometimes funny content that I can dive into if I get really bored, such as believers in flat earth. It can be good entertainment I believe that if such content really has to be banned, we have already lost the war
  • lki876 6y ago
    > I like it better how it can be done at e.g. reddit Reddit is heavily censored. Content is removed, subreddits are removed and people are banned and shadow-banned.
  • Zigurd 6y ago
    Gab and Parler are not "underground forums." But they are places I do not go.
• lumberjack 6y ago
  They (and Google, Youtube ...etc) should reprogram their recommendation engine to ignore political content altogether (not just the hateful content). If a person clicks on video by whatever party they shouldn't be immediately bombarded with propaganda content from that side of the political spectrum.
• jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  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.
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Citation needed? Which scholars, what are their claims / papers, and who reviewed their work? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers used now are not entirely correct, but if there's unscientific work being done to downplay it, they're in their right to brand it as holocaust denial.
    • jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hoffmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Hoffmann Edit: Note that he doesn't deny the holocaust at all, and his estimate is around 4 million. Which is still quite large. I'm not arguing that he is correct, but it seems absurd to call someone saying 4 million Jews were killed a "denialist".
      • hef19898 6y ago
        In that case, it wasn't just the total numbers, but also his views on: - Hitler's preeemtive strike against Russia (total Nazi-revesionist BS) - Russia overstating the numbers in their reports on Auschwitz (which goes into the HD direction, as this is a common first step in getting people to believe HD theories).
        • jeffreyrogers 6y ago
          I don't think your second claim is correct. As far as I understand he believed the Soviet numbers are the most accurate, not that they were overstated.
          • 6y ago
• ohno1111 6y ago
  Great. What should we do with content that glorifies or lies about the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas (e.g. anything that glorifies Columbus and the history implied by Thanks Giving Day) Same goes for content that aligns with current day denial that racism is a huge problem in this country and across the globe? In the end, it's the same net result: people die of hate crimes because of lack of awareness and the perpetuation of content that implicitly upholds white supremacist thinking.
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Well, there's Columbus statues being torn down (https://www.google.com/search?q=columbus+statue+removed https://www.google.com/search?q=columbus+statue+removed) and movements to change the curriculum wrt Columbus and the early invaders/colonists, so there's that. It took a while, but it's moving in the right direction. I'm sure that if it becomes a bigger thing, Facebook will add fact checking and additional information with regards to that as well. I hope so anyway.
  • YetAnotherNick 6y ago
    I don't know about you but I have got posts in fb and youtube feed about each of the issue that you mentioned more than once, specially anti Columbus posts, and I am not even a leftist but on the centre.
• jon37 6y ago
  This whacks one mole, but there are many others. As long as Facebook continues to recommend and target user-generated content based on engagement metrics, it will reward the sort of engagement generated by vicious deceptions such as holocaust denial. It is engineered to handle any post, including expressions of hate, by finding the most receptive audience possible for that post. Rather than targeting a narrow swathe of Definitely Terrible content to censor, Facebook should target a wide swathe and rather than removing it, exempt it from the algorithmic feed, group recommendation input, etc. If my friend posts something hateful and I see it, I can respond and push back; if they post something hateful and only their friends who agree see it, and they also get a dozen different similarly hateful echo chambers in their group recommendations, that's far more destructive.
• dustingetz 6y ago
  The arrow of progress points in a specific direction. The underlying problem here seems to be that progress isn't happening fast enough?
  • lki876 6y ago
    > The arrow of progress points in a specific direction. Pretty much everyone agrees with this. What people don't agree about is the direction.
    • dustingetz 6y ago
      nobody needs to agree about anything, progress is a measurement of historical average direction over timespan of decades
      • lki876 6y ago
        ...and it's headed in all sorts of directions simultaneously. Then add a few more decades and everything changes in ways you could not imagine.
• HashingtheCode 6y ago
  Exactly how is someone not believing in the holocaust "hate speech"? Aren't people allowed to have their own opinions anymore, no matter if they are contrary to recorded history? Are Flat Earther's next to be classified as "hate speech" because they also believe something different? Where does this ban on our freedom to think end? I understand this on Facebook, a private company platform and they can enact any rules they want, but, classifying people's opinions because they differ as hate speech is just wrong and an over reach of their power. FB is a company but their reach and influence stretches far and wide, so they yield immense power, and a decision like this just seems Orwellian. The message Facebook is sending is this; if you have a different opinion to the mainstream you are inciting hate speech. Why can't people believe whatever they want to? I thought we were free to think, to feel, to believe what we wanted. I guess not.
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    People are entitled to their own opinions, but Facebook is not required to provide a platform for them if they want to voice them. Same with flat earthers; they are entitled to their opinion, but nobody owes it to them to provide them a platform. I'm not sure if it's classified as hate speech, but it will be classified as fake news and false/misinformation. Keep in mind that the forces behind these "post-fact" trends aren't average joes that happen to have an opinion, they're likely foreign government agents trying to influence people's relations with each other (infighting) and political directions. Examples: Trump is friends with Putin and $400 million in debt; I wouldn't trust him as leader of a country with those influences. A constant campaign of "immigrants are here to take your jobs" in the UK has led to Brexit, removing an important economic and military force from the European Union whilst crashing the UK economy. This weakens the EU whilst allowing rich people to get richer.
    • ok123456 6y ago
      If they're actively going to curate what is and isn't allowed, as far as perfectly legal speech goes, then they're no longer a common carrier and no longer subject to the protections afforded to such entities.
    • 6y ago
• jcadam 6y ago
  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.
  • pm90 6y ago
    Almost certainly but it probably will read different from what you seem to think.
    • jcadam 6y ago
      History is written by the victors, eh? I guess we'll just have to wait and see (or, rather our descendants will).
      • mcfly1985 6y ago
        Yes - and the Holocaust is a perfect example of history being written by the victors.
        • boccko 6y ago
          The Holocaust indirectly lead to (a the abolishment of centuries old anti-semitic laws (from Magna Carta) (b the establishment of the state of Israel. I'm not implying 'they won', but they are in a better place now than they were at the beginning of the century.
          • mcfly1985 6y ago
            Almost like certain aspects may have been exaggerated or have been outright lies.
            • shadowgovt 6y ago
              I know it's not what they're going for, but sometimes I wish HN would follow FB's example.
• logicalmonster 6y ago
  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 primary communication channel in say the early 1990s, the people who would have called BS on tearful made up testimony about Saddam unplugging babies from respirators that was used to sell the war to the public wouldn’t have even had an opportunity to challenge the official story. Facebook would have blocked their opinions as hateful content and if they persisted just conspired with the rest of Silicon Valley to completely remove them from the Internet. A chain of events that have cost arguably millions of lives and trillions of dollars can be tied to some of that testimonial propaganda and would have been unable to be talked about critically with Facebook’s current rule set. Now we want Facebook in charge of determining truth? Be careful about what you wish for. You applaud today, but now the precedent is set. What’s next on the chopping block might not be something you’ll like.
  • colinmhayes 6y ago
    Unfortunately I trust Facebook far more than most Americans to properly discern truth.
  • aww_dang 6y ago
    Not a FB user myself, but do they not put fact check warnings on links deemed "untrustworthy"? That ship has already sailed IMHO.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • spacemanmatt 6y ago
    This is the comedic response I have come to expect from Holocaust deniers. Carry on with your hyperbole, as we all know that you will.
    • 6y ago
• yalogin 6y ago
  Facebook is hedging hard these past couple weeks. Looks like they have decided that Trump is going to lose and so suddenly decided licking his boots is not worth it, just like Theil did. I don't trust FB is trying to do the right thing, I will only believe that they are doing this to make it seem like they are not targeting trump when they blocked qanon.
  • hggythhdtr 6y ago
    Agreed. This sudden flurry of long-called for action is surely in their own self-interest. They're expecting a blue wave and regulations.
• oxygenmolds 6y ago
  Good, I like being told what to think so that I don't have to have any opinions of my own. This frees up my mind to focus on consuming new products.
  • hggythhdtr 6y ago
    You think there's some kind of debate or question around the existence of the Holocaust?
    • anm89 6y ago
      He didn't say that. This is dishonest bullying.
      • hggythhdtr 6y ago
        Please, do clarify what they meant then. As I see it, they suggested that removing content denying the Holocaust was telling someone what opinions to have on the matter. The Holocaust is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact.
        • anm89 6y ago
          Care to quote where he made any quote regarding the history of anything at all? He was criticizing facebook for their views on censoring content. All the bullying in the world does not make criticizing facebook holocaust denial. Also I'm Jewish, no need to convince me the Holocaust happened.
          • hggythhdtr 6y ago
            Goodness. No need to quote them. They're responding to an article _on that very topic_ and framing it as a matter of opinion. If it was meant to be some general snark about censorship then so be it, but the execution was poor and you're being quite disingenuous in claiming not see any connection. Have a good one.
        • 6y ago
• whoknew1122 6y ago
  The slowest of slow claps imaginable. It's better to do it 5 years too late than never, I guess. But Facebook doesn't get any pats on the back. Facebook's modus operandi is: 1.) Allow algorithms to grow and foster toxic ideas and communities, because these create the most user engagement 2.) Extract as much ad revenue as possible from the user engagement 3.) Say 'Oooops, our bad. We're doing something about this now' when Facebook's role in proliferating toxic content gets politically untenable 4.) Keep the bags of money they generated from this content and get positive press 5.) Wait until people start paying attention to the next abhorrent thing Facebook helps propagate --- It's really getting old.
• Vaslo 6y ago
  If we ban this speech then how can we argue against these ideas? The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. BUT we know that there are people that say the world is flat, moon landing was faked, etc. If anything I’d like to engage these people and verbally smash them. If anything, Facebook should make posts like this unblockable, so people can’t defriend or block people with whom they don’t agree with. It’s the wrong move for the right reason.
  • realmod 6y ago
    But that is not what is happening instead they feaster inside their bubbles and grow even more convinced and dangerous. It should simply not be tolerated. "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
    • fareesh 6y ago
      Sounds like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and every other religion If people want to believe something in their bubble, they should be allowed to. Most, if not all of those belief systems have fringes which advocate harm. By your argument, there would be no atheists, yet you see some people who were extremely religious becoming atheists. It's factually incorrect and dishonest to push with certainty this idea that you cannot reason with people who have passionately held views. They are our neighbours, friends, family members, countrymen and fellow humans. To throw them out of our shared spaces is weak and pathetic. We are better than this. A superior solution is to make these posts opt-in, hidden by default and mostly everyone on the platform will never see them or be disturbed by them, or become accidentally brainwashed by them. Those who remain there can be engaged with by the rest of us, who have the patience and superior mental discipline to convince them otherwise.
  • twright 6y ago
    > The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. Yet it is still fervently denied. They cannot be "verbally smashed" because they are so much more invested in these ideas and because of this they are beyond the reaches of rational argument (i.e. you will be the one getting smashed). There are nearly 100 claims they will throw out such that no single person can know them all, here is a helpful academic source of these claims: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ Removing an accessible location of discourse is the best solution for this instance.
• wbronitsky 6y ago
  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 strength in the “Facebook controlling the content of the platform it owns destroys our constitutional rights” argument.
  • rriepe 6y ago
    The Nazi would claim to be oppressed by the Jew. Would you deny the purchase to anyone making such a claim?
  • read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Define Nazi, define “in order to convince others to be Nazis”. Your analogy is dealing in extremes only. In practice it’s not a clear cut. That is missing in your analogy.
  • shortstuffsushi 6y ago
    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
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• michaelmrose 6y ago
  Where was this at the inception of Facebook?
• nickpp 6y ago
  OK, but when are they gonna remove communist-propaganda content? Communism is not even mentioned in their Hate Speech Policy and believe it killed a lot more people than even fascism (90 million vs 10 million). Today this hateful ideology is spreading completely unchecked in Social Media. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech As a Communism-survivor I feel very strongly about it.
  • whateveracct 6y ago
    Uh I think the difference is all that killing done by communists were done by despots but not core to the ideology. Here someone goes again, doing the fascists' propaganda work for them. All-powerful and ever the victim.
    • nickpp 6y ago
      The killing was done by our friends and neighbors who joined the state apparatus, you know. It is core to the ideology which promotes class "struggle". Oh, and I abhor fascism too.
• iambateman 6y ago
  Some comments are calling this move intolerant censorship, when it is not. Tolerance is accepting that another person has a different view. But the people who are pushing lies about the Holocaust or a flat earth don’t have a different opinion, they are lying about well-known, verifiable facts. Now, some may say that censors often hide behind “facts” to suppress ideas they don’t like. The difference is that the Holocaust was a global tragedy and the earth is round and other “points of view” are both harmful and nonsense. Censorship is a dangerous tool but not a tool which ought never be used. The essential problem is _how_ these curation decisions get made. At present, Facebook is making free speech decisions much like a government, despite not having representation from “the people.” While Zuck may be a benevolent ruler, his successor may not be. We need government-like separation of powers and popular representation in order to maintain social platforms for many generations. Otherwise, we risk digital despotism.
  • bjourne 6y ago
    The slope is incredibly slippery. It starts with Holocaust denial, then pedophilia advocacy, then saying blacks are racially inferior to whites, then to plain old anti-Semitism, then to saying men have higher iq than women, then to militant vegans ("meat is murder you say, incitement!"), then to people wishing that Trump will die in Covid, then to people arguing that U.S. soldiers should be drone-striked. Two weeks ago Facebook banned a seminar arranged by a U.S. university because one of the speakers was Leila Khaled. A 76-year-old lady who hijacked two planes 50 years ago. How can what she had to say be so "dangerous" that Facebook had to ban her? Sooner or later, this censorship will encroach on what you have to say too.
    • one2know 6y ago
      We are already well down the slope moving at warp speed. Facebook is obviously selectively choosing what is hate speech according to their leftist political stance. They don't remove hate speech that is anti-police and inciting violence against police (BLM) despite dozens of police having been attacked and maybe half a dozen killings.
      • 6y ago
• maxehmookau 6y ago
  No Facebook, you don't get to use this as a PR win. This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago. This isn't a free speech issue. Anybody can deny the holocaust, but Facebook should not be profiting from the propagation of fringe and deeply offensive views. There is no justification for doing so. Facebook is not a library and it is not a repository of well-written, peer-reviewed ideas and thoughts. It's a machine designed to profit from outrage and polarisation.
  • whateveracct 6y ago
    > This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago. Agreed. Video games forums in the '00s could do this - why did it take FB so long? To be fair, Holocaust denial & related ideology was more universally hated back then. It's managed to rebrand as of late into mere contrarianism.
    • maxehmookau 6y ago
      The fact that HN is a community where my comment has been downvoted is utterly terrifying. I’m not sure I belong in this community.
• roguesupport 6y ago
  I never took "Holocaust Denial" seriously until I was told I could be fined/jailed for questioning the narrative. What other historic facts will you be fined/jailed for questioning? When I went looking at things deemed "Holocaust Denial", I found that they DIDN'T DENY IT AT ALL (except one). They deny 6 million Jews died, and say it's around ONE million. In fact it's VERY hard to find ANYTHING "denying the holocaust". All of the "Nazis" that the book burners make famous (Droge/Zundel, etc.) don't deny mass exterminations happened..again, they deny the NUMBERS. Calling it "Holocaust Denial" os lying about what is being said. They also ask VALID QUESTIONS that the Jews don't seem to want to have asked! For example: Stalin, Churchill and Eisenhower all wrote memoirs and kept diaries. All are public record. NONE of them mention "Holocaust" or even "Mass extermination of jews". Why does the word itself not show up in the public lexicon until the 1970's? Didn't know this? How will you find out these things if all the sources are burned. These are VALID QUESTIONS and book burning is NEVER the answer!
  • whateveracct 6y ago
    oh jfc - mods, get in here! at least do as good a job as Facebook.
    • roguesupport 6y ago
      You find something I wrote here offensive? Perhaps you think something I wrote here is untrue? It's a serious request; Explain why you think I should be censored.
      • whateveracct 6y ago
        your post is literal holocaust denial dang now I've replied in good faith to an obvious bad faith actor :/
• new_guy 6y ago
  > Following a year of consultation with external experts, we recently banned anti-Semitic stereotypes about the collective power of Jews that often depicts them running the world or its major institutions. Given that Zuckerberg is Jewish and by extension 'Facebook is run by Jews', you can see how White Nationalists will frame this.
• anm89 6y ago
  It's amazing to me that people don't see the irony that a major tactic of the nazis was quelling free speech. We are so scared of the nazis that we act like them. This is of course how they framed it too. They would have claimed they needed to protect themselves from the dangerous ideas, literature, art of the Jews.
  • beervirus 6y ago
    It's like "antifascists" assaulting people because of who they vote for.
    • emerged 6y ago
      We've been full 1984 for long enough now it feels cliche to even bother pointing it out.
  • shadowgovt 6y ago
    When the US government considers banning Holocaust denial, I'll be concerned.
  • X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
    This is not a ban of these ideas at a societal level. You are free to post on your blog as much as you want, you are free to make a newsletter, you are free to speak as much as you want about the holocaust. You just can't use facebook to do so.
  • dimator 6y ago
    This is a company doing this, not the government. By the way, companies _can_ take the easy road and allow absolutely everything. _Nobody_ wants to use such a service though. Visit reddit clone Voat, and see if you want to revisit it again.
• kypro 6y ago
  Regardless of my opinion on holocaust denialism, I'll never be comfortable with such a large communications platform having the power to decide what ideas are acceptable and unacceptable to discuss. Like all of us, I hold a number of opinions that many believe are incorrect or harmful so I feel the need to defend the principles of freedom of speech regardless of the issue at hand. As for this policy change, I wonder what the limits will be here? Holocaust denialism isn't something I know much about, but my understanding is that there are different categories of holocaust denialism. A lot of holocaust "denialism" isn't strictly denial of the holocaust, but more the extent to which it happened. Many will argue that there were far less than 6 million deaths – which as I understand it isn't supported by the majority of academics. However I do believe some denialism is academic in the same way a small handful of scientists disagree about climate change, there is also some academic disagreement about the treatment of Jews during holocaust and the total number of Jews killed. Are these kinds of discussions also off limits? Would I be allowed to share academic research which suggest 8 million Jews died, but not 4 million? Or is only discussion that centres on the 6 million number acceptable? I suspect as usual any legitimate discussion that happens to fall outside the bounds of what's socially acceptable to those enforcing this policy will be removed and the bounds of what's acceptable will continue to shrink. I know Twitter and Reddit ban people for having the wrong academic views on race and gender these days so I assume this policy will be enforced similarly. It does seem going forward only those with the correct views on race, gender, global warming, COVID-19, history, and social issues will be permitted access to digital communication platforms. I'm just thankful Facebook and Twitter weren't around to police wrong think during the gay and civil rights movements tbh.
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > I'm just thankful Facebook and Twitter weren't around to police wrong think during the gay and civil rights movements tbh. But during that time, there were mass media. They didn't allow the now-considered-right-thinking viewpoint (in the case of gays) or were not consistent in support of it (civil rights). Those who were pro-gay and pro-civil-rights needed alternate means of communication. The same may be true today. Fortunately, we have such means - email, phone, text, snail mail. You don't have to talk to people who think like you on Facebook or Twitter. If the mainstream media becomes too censorious, talk somewhere else. Note well: This does not mean that I am in favor of Facebook censoring, especially if it goes several steps further than just holocaust denial. But if they do, it's not the end of dissent. Dissent just grows underground.
• jarbus 6y ago
  Facebook really can't win, it seems. Damned if they ban, damned if they don't.
  • nyghtly 6y ago
    Facebook is winning. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/FB:NASDAQ https://www.google.com/finance/quote/FB:NASDAQ https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-net-worth-priscilla-chan-2017-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-net...
    • pedroma 6y ago
      I believe he's talking about topic at hand, not the stock price.
  • BlueTemplar 6y ago
    I've seen people predicting this would happen when the platforms decided to start to police content years ago.
• azar1 6y ago
  Whole lot of people defending literal Nazis in here.
• jawarner 6y ago
  This thread is very Hacker News.
• shadowgovt 6y ago
  It's always fascinating to me to see who will step up to carry water for Holocaust deniers being able to spread their nonsense on someone else's computer servers as if nobody can figure out how to make a new website. Holocaust deniers can---and do!---make their own fora all the time. Their freedom of speech is not abridged. Nor their freedom of the press. On the other hand, forcing Facebook to host content against the owner's wishes is abridgment of their freedom of the press. People seem to forget the public responsibility to support media you trust. If you don't like that Facebook blocked holocaust denial, then stop using it. Use media you support. The whole point of the First Amendment is to support a marketplace of ideas, free from government interference. And if there is a slippery slope and Facebook bans, I dunno, trans support groups tomorrow, then we can talk about not using Facebook because banning that content is anti-trans and that's bad by itself, not because they have no right to shape the communications ecosystem they pay for hosting on their servers. It's the Internet. If you don't like the rules on someone else's BBS, stop expecting them to solve your problems for you and host your own.
• throwaway568468 6y ago
  Facebook could do better than removing the content, they could burst the Holocaust denial bubble that some people find themselves in. We have video archives of the liberation of the camps and testimonies from survivors. Every Holocaust denial post could have one of the many evidence of the Holocaust just next to it. It probably won't change the mind of everyone, but it would hijack the virality of the denial posts and use their targeting to reach precisely the people that need to be reminded of the real history of the Holocaust.
• btmiller 6y ago
  I finally watched Hamilton the other day and the contrasting narratives of Hamilton and Burr offer a good comparison of how Facebook sets policy. Facebook has the choice to take either take their shot and speak their mind or to talk less and smile more (i.e. leave people guessing as to what their position is). What this position essentially shows us about Facebook is that they are more interested in policy only after watching which way the wind is blowing. White supremacy and hate groups have always been around on their platform, yet only now they decide to ban it? I think it’s really important to think about the timing of this: less than a month from Election Day, and after 4 years of divisiveness, controversy, and conflict invading their platform. I can’t imagine it took 4 years of analysis to make this decision, but now they themselves can/will claim some moral high ground for a new political atmosphere.
• munificent 6y ago
  > Institutions focused on Holocaust research and remembrance, such as Yad Vashem, have noted that Holocaust education is also a key component in combatting anti-Semitism. This is a good, important point. But I also think it is important to understand how this generalizes. The Holocaust is a vivid example of how authoritarianism inevitably leads to human rights abuses, both of a nation's "own" people and often some Other selected by the authority as an enemy to get people to rally around. Learning about the Holocaust is not just a reminder that the Nazis were bad, but that every fascist or authoritarian government has that same potential which is why we must be vigilent against them.
• fortran77 6y ago
  One issue I find is often the people who promote this sort of content don’t sit in their private groups and discuss it among themselves, but go out and actively court confrontations by posting to forums of Jews and others directly victimized by the actions of the Germany in World War II. I see it all the time on Twitter —- and on Hacker News.
  • luckylion 6y ago
    You see literal holocaust denial on Hacker News all the time? Is dang cleaning up that quickly or are you exaggerating a lot?
• Zigurd 6y ago
  Imagine if every bar in town had swastika flags and racist epithets on the walls, and patrons who uttered slurs and intimidated women and gays. And when the bouncer shows up they kvetch about free speech. No amount of good patrons in those bars makes the bad patrons tolerable. There will always be shitholes dominated by meth-cookers and Nazi bikers. But most bars choose to be enjoyable places. Social media are privately run spaces. The lowest level of discourse sets the tone. Clean it up.
• Shish2k 6y ago
  I find it interesting (/ sad) that even on HN, we have a bunch of people saying things like "This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.” as if it’s an obvious fact that this is a good thing with no bad side effects; and people saying things like "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.” as if it’s an equally unquestionable fact that this is a bad thing with no good side effects. I’ve spent 20 minutes scanning the discussion, and didn’t see anybody saying “there are both pros and cons here, but on balance, I think this is mostly-[good/bad]” - only 100% one way or the other :( (Feel free to correct me if there’s a ton of posts like this that I somehow missed) How can we be so sure we know what’s best for a platform of billions, when we can’t even stop our own community of thousands from being so polarised? D:
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • 3np 6y ago
    My (IMO) middle-ground take: Facebook runs a walled garden and has full authority to censor all they want within it. They can make rules and enforcement as arbitrary any forum admin or subreddit mod. I think this is as it should. No company should have authority over personal communication or public debate. Facebook only has the power users hand over to them. IMO it's clear that no company should be in the position that they are in. The answer isn't solidifying Facebook's role as central arbiter of free speech and regulate their role as moderator over public debate and private communication alike, but to transition to a state where the application, protocol, social graph and mode of communication aren't coupled with moderation by a given entity. Decentralize and federate. There's work to be done, but we need to fill the gap.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• sam_lowry_ 6y ago
  How relevant is Holocaust in politics today? Next to environment, police abuse, corruption, healthcare and a multitude of other pressing issues? Let us get over it, or the lady vanishes.
• sjreese 6y ago
  The Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights Act - must be respected by corporate interests and their employees. In the USA the powerful wishes to dictate how much advertisement I have access to and from whom. The freedom of speech and freedom of association are not for compromise from anyone. when left on their own FACEBOOK discriminates (title two) and seeks to influence elections (by unchecked data collection) to that end, it now seeks to control your programming for their foreign interests, and in the process remove your bill of rights and access to the Civil Rights Act (under the cover of their absolute truth ) any American who is loyal to the Bill of Rights should end the Tierney of unknown elites and their attempt to deny your constitutional rights once and for all.
• disown 6y ago
  That anything in history is beyond doubt or beyond denial is anti-intellectual and should worry everyone. That's not history, that's religion. It is religion that demands absolute obedience and absolute acceptance. Everything from George Washington to the dropping of nukes to even the native genocides are allowed to be debated and even questioned. Why is the holocaust the sole exception? Especially considering it isn't even part of american history and last I checked facebook is an american company. If russia, china, north korea, saudi arabia, etc all said or forced their social media companies to remove content denying, criticizing or disputing X, we'd call that censorship. And yet, here we are, the top comment is praising this censorship.
• Zenst 6y ago
  I feel this is a good thing, it is a clear line and not something open to free speech excuses IMHO in much the same way that what side of the road you can drive on is not open to free choice, however some will feel it will eventually curtail what destinations they can drive too, when it will not.
• one2know 6y ago
  Yeah, its been very clear to everyone that there is a huge push lately among the left towards censorship and anti-free speech. Their main argument is "people might not believe our side and our truth and might instead believe obvious lies that we say are not true." Dangerous.
• freen 6y ago
  If you replace “Holocaust denial” with “spam”, we would be having a very, very different conversation here on hacker news. Why do some folks think removing spam is ok, but not content the owner of the publishing platform finds abhorrent?
• JacksonGariety 6y ago
  Who gets to decide what counts as a "distortion" of the holocaust?
• AHappyCamper 6y ago
  My grandparent's families were mostly wiped out. We lost over 300 on my Dad's side, and there's no number for how many we lost on my Mom's side - everyone was killed. I grew up listening to my Grandmother screaming when she had panic attacks and night terrors, and the stories we heard were horrific. I'm so so glad that Facebook has done this. Maybe it hurts freedom of speech, and maybe it's overreach - I don't know - those are large and complex subjects. From the subjective point of view, it just makes me happy that they are putting a stop to it.
  • lostgame 6y ago
    >> Maybe it hurts freedom of speech, and maybe it's overreach That you are even willing to say that is both admirable and shows just how far out of control the concept of 'freedom of speech' has gotten; and how unfair it is - when you, whose family actually died from the Holocaust - allow room for these perspectives, while they would look you in the eye and tell you, point-blank; your family didn't die / you're making it up? I think freedom of speech needs to have some sort of intentional hate speech clause. Theoretically within the space of such a clause diplomatic discussion should be able to take place. People are equating freedom of speech with freedom for hate speech, and since there are laws against hate speech, we have seriously conflicting laws.
    • will4274 6y ago
      Free speech includes hate speech. > since there are laws against hate speech Not in the United States. See e.g. this unanimous high court decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > I understand not everybody is fully supportive of liberal ideas like free speech. But there shouldn't be any confusion about what it means. Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. One of the disputes that exist within the group supporting the liberal idea of free speech is it's boundary; there is general agreement that some range of speech that is both false and harmful is excluded, but the boundary of the kind and mechanism of harm that qualifies is disputed. > Telling somebody that the Holocaust didn't happen is indubitably an example of free speech. It's both false and in many contexts quite arguably harmful; whether it (in any particular context) involves the kind of harm that take it out of the realm of free speech is very much a dispute within the liberal, pro-free-speech community.
• boccko 6y ago
  So factual observations pointing out the percentage of Jewish members in the boards of certain organizations will now get censored?
  • X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
    Why do you believe that? Nothing in the post suggests that.
• 02020202 6y ago
  jews be jewin'
  • dang 6y ago
    Obviously you can't do this here. We've banned the account.
    • 02020202 6y ago
      "Obviously"... yeah, exactly.
• malloreon 6y ago
  Zero credit for doing the right thing after years of profiting off doing the wrong thing. questions for Facebook employees: 1. how much revenue did Facebook make off holocaust denying content/users, and what're your plans to donate at least that much, or otherwise fix the damage you've done? 2. how do you feel about your day job's role from whenever you started at Facebook till October 12, 2020 in promoting and proliferating holocaust denial and other morally bankrupt positions? do you feel you have any responsibility for the bad things your work is used for?
• Oricle 6y ago
  Ermmm, but it's true! http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/ij_ch1.htm http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/ij_ch1.htm There is 20 chapters, just change the 1 to 1-20 2020 years this war as been going on and after 20 centuries and 100 times failing, they are going return us to the dark ages of judasium of 2000bc to 0ad. They killed their king, jesus, because he wanted all gentiles to have better lives and not just the Jews. 'even in a minority of 1,the truth is still the truth'
• jjones2 6y ago
  Censoring speech is _never_ the answer. Instead, try other tactics like an information campaign. I'm honestly worked up over this travesty.
• bromonkey 6y ago
  Only 15 years too late, good job fb.
• Executor 6y ago
  Not an "admirable" move as the previous commenter "ignoramous" states. All historic events can be debates. Nobody ought to have the power of political censorship. It's about time White people realize that the holocaust is used as a mind fuck to demoralize us and beat us down into submission. The last thing to do is to compromise on letting a crappy Silicon Valley company dictate what is/isn't legitimate free speech and/or thought crime (a la 1984).
• bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
  I love that nowhere in this announcement do they specify what exactly constitutes "denial" in this context.
• dailygrind___ 6y ago
  Facebook is a private entity and there should not be any concern about such rule. The idea that this practice can be "normalised" and extended to public institutions worries me though: holocaust denial does not have a place in history however expressing opinions should be part of speech freedom and should not be censorable.
• grb423 6y ago
  Somebody’s got some nice privilege. I wish fb would delete stuff that offends me.
• hi41 6y ago
  How do you square this with Noam Chomsky’s idea that it’s not freedom of speech if you don’t let others disagree?
• known 6y ago
  On 4th August 1932 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award British regime offered separate electorates/countries to Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Parsi/Buddhist/Jain/SC/ST communities where Upper caste/Brahmin/Bania/Kshatriya should live on a Visa https://archive.vn/BFZlJ https://archive.vn/BFZlJ https://archive.vn/1iser https://archive.vn/1iser https://archive.vn/imIlk https://archive.vn/imIlk