56 ms·

Admirable move. I think Facebook (and all its properties), Twitter, and other hyper-connected social networks must show a healthy level of intolerance towards g

• 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.
      • hef19898 6y ago
        It kind of is a legal requirement in Germany already, so there is this.
      • duxup 6y ago
        To me a wholesale ban on a religion, whose practitioners vary wildly seems like a completely different thing. Holocaust denial is pretty specific in comparison.
        • free_rms 6y ago
          What % of a religion would need to be, say, anti-gay, before we deem the whole thing problematic and ban it from facebook? The more I investigate "where to draw the line", the more I'm convinced we aren't capable of doing so in a just fashion.
          • duxup 6y ago
            I feel like any given region's propensity to say not like a particular sexual orientation is dramatically different from say holocaust denial that is straight up rooted in antisemitism.
            • free_rms 6y ago
              So you're making a narrow case that holocaust denial is specifically bad and not endorsing more policing by facebook in general? There's certainly precedent for holocaust denial being considered specifically and uniquely harmful, although it feels a little dated in the year 2020.
              • duxup 6y ago
                All hate groups seem dated, sadly hate doesn't seem to just sort of become a thing of the past :( As far as you question goes to some extent yes. I wouldn't want to see some sort of litmus test for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. A specific christian identity group (randomly made up here) that is hateful, no problem with removing them. All Christian groups, no.
    • refurb 6y ago
      Define intolerant. If group A says group B is lying about some historical fact, is that in and of itself intolerance?
      • duxup 6y ago
        As far as holocaust denial goes, I don't think there's a mystery as far as the basis for such claims.
        • refurb 6y ago
          So if someone says "yes, Hilter wanted to kill all the Jews, but he only killed 5M, not 6M" is that intolerant? Because in many circles that's regarded as denialism or revisionism. This is the exact issue - what doesn't "intolerant" mean? It's a subjective label.
          • duxup 6y ago
            I don't think "he only killed 5M, not 6M" is holocaust denial. I don't think of folks trying to do estimates in the range you're talking about involves denying it took place.
  • craftinator 6y ago
    To quote Oscar Wilde: "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." I think that drawing a line between reason and unreasonableness is a reasonable place to draw the line. If our understanding of Holocaust history is correct, which overwhelming evidence supports, it is reasonable to believe that the Holocaust both occured, and was absolutely awful. Given that, denial of those events is unreasonable, and damaging to society as a whole. Much like the slavery of African Americans, it needs to be acknowledged and accepted as fact, and those who try to hide or dispute these facts must be challenged.
  • Spivak 6y ago
    Somewhere. Usually what happens is that it's drawn at the place that makes everyone unhappy. It's far enough in that some will cry censorship make casual dystopian insinuations, but well short of anything that actually makes in impact leading others to say it's ineffective because they can see obvious hate being allowed. And it happens because line-drawers are terrified of type 1 errors thanks to the media shitstorm that happens whenever it happens to someone with an audience. This pattern happens everywhere: It's the same story with Google and obvious-spam/scams, and Amazon with fakes. Until a company has the balls to say that you're gonna have to suck it up and deal with false positives the cycle will continue forever.
• zemptime 6y ago
  I don't see it linked off this article so I'll throw another relevant one here - "The Most Intolerant Wins" See: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.z5ry4bucq https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... Additionally full of all kinds of flavorful anecdotes like: > I once pulled a prank on a friend. Years ago when Big Tobacco were hiding and repressing the evidence of harm from secondary smoking, New York had smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants (even airplanes had, absurdly, a smoking section). I once went to lunch with a friend visiting from Europe: the restaurant only had availability in the smoking sections. I convinced the friend that we needed to buy cigarettes as we had to smoke in the smoking section. He complied. edit: there are a bevy of sibling comments to this one, asking an important question: "When should I be intolerant of intolerance?" The answer explored in the article above is, "...the formation of moral values in society doesn't come from consensus. The most intolerant person (or minority) imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance." On a larger timescale, the most intolerant viewpoint will shift the views of others toward it. Recognizing this, a society can't tolerate a viewpoint which would be damaging to the core values that society purports to hold, or over the inevitable long-term it will destroy itself. This is why a society which values free speech must quash those elements inside it which will only accept censorship. Also, "virtue" as quoted has a more specific meaning which is consistency with internal values. That's to say nothing of what those internal values are. They can be great or horrendous for society. Virtue is the willingness to sacrifice for them. Being intolerant is the mechanism by which civil rights advances, just as it can be used for evil.
  • dcolkitt 6y ago
    > "The Most Intolerant Wins" Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever. The past three centuries have had ups and downs, but overall there's been a remarkable and consistent global trend towards tolerance, liberalism, and democracy. This didn't happen because intolerant groups decided to let up on their zealotry. It didn't even happen because intolerant ideas were violently suppressed. (In almost every conflict, it almost always was the anti-liberal faction that initiated hostilities.) It happened because starting with the Enlightenment, we built a culture around an open marketplace of ideas. In places with liberal cultures and democratic governments, totalitarian ideologies like fascism and Marxism consistently failed to gain traction. They don't need to be forcibly suppressed. Scratch their surface, and virtually everybody realizes that these ideologies are obviously stupid and inconsistent. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
• vorpalhex 6y ago
  How would you have them weigh in on the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, or Tianenman? Each of those conflicts has deniers of various levels, some of whom are states. And, if Facebook gets it wrong (and perhaps decides the Tianenman square massacre was a hoax by the West to discredit the CCP) - how should we respond then? This is a company that was censoring pictures of mothers feeding their babies, but still has content promoting the use of bleach to cure Down's and autism. Do you really trust them to engage in censoring at all?
  • 082349872349872 6y ago
    Getting it wrong implies they need to make a choice. Does Facebook need to show the same feed to everyone? I had had the impression they tailored it.
  • nailer 6y ago
    I'm not sure why this is downvoted. There are many people, particularly in Tukey, who deny the Armenian genocide (hell there's a even a podcast named after the people that did it). Tiananmen is also downplayed by CCP officials outside China and denied within China.
    • eitland 6y ago
      Probably because the comment is taken to mean that we shouldn't do anything about this case because we aren't doing enough on the other ones.
      • nailer 6y ago
        I don't think that's what it's arguing for, but rather than Facebook should have a consistent policy.
        • eitland 6y ago
          If so I'd encourage them to rewrite the post to make that clearer.
• NewOrderNow 6y ago
  That is slipperiest of slopes if I ever heard one.
  • duxup 6y ago
    Can you explain how that is a slippery slope?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • tolbish 6y ago
      I think they are referring to Zuckerberg using "Facebook should not be the arbiter of truth" as justification for not taking action in the past.
    • pfortuny 6y ago
      Who defines unreasonable? Should Newton stop being explained beacause he is flawed? Or do we need a disclaimer in every single video about mechanics? What about photons as small pieces of matter? Ehat about the existence of God?
      • klyrs 6y ago
        Sorry, but Newtonian physics, the particle nature of photons, and the simple existence of god are not examples of intolerance. If censorship on the basis of intolerance is, in fact, a slippery slope that is connected to these benign topics, you'll need to show how they're actually connected Edit: oh, I see. You're one of several responders who have latched onto OC's use of the word "reasonable" and are disengenuously attacking that word outside of the actual context. Excellent example of attacking the weakest form of somebody's argument and applying the slippery-slope fallacy from there. We can do better than this, folks.
      • latch 6y ago
        Well, if you believe in the First Amendment, then Facebook itself gets the freedom to decide what does and doesn't go on its platform. If you want something more generic, you could start with hate speech laws in Australia, Belgium, Canada...Spain, Switzerland, the UK, etc. Or even more generally, the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. So, there's plenty of established frameworks to base your work off of and they've been around long enough that we can measure what the impact is.
• leftyted 6y ago
  > 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. What is tolerance? You can't tolerate something if you agree with it. Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree. This is an encroachment on free speech (and it's intolerant). You may believe that it's necessary -- and perhaps you're right: maybe the country will fall apart unless we censor voices outside the mainstream. But to frame this issue as you have done is nonsensical, as if, through sheer power of righteous will, you can transmute censorship into something else.
  • tr352 6y ago
    This seems to be one of those things where the arguments pro and con have already been so endlessly hashed out that it’s simply become a matter of choice which camp you’re in.
    • throwaway894345 6y ago
      Have they? Because I still regularly encounter educated people who can't tell the difference between free speech and threats, harassment, etc. If you can't distinguish between free speech and coercive speech, then you don't understand the free-speech position that you purport to oppose ("He who knows only his own argument knows little of that"). I recall a thread on cancel culture a few months ago where virtually everyone on the pro-cancel-culture position were arguing that free speech ideals were meaningless because threats and harassment are also free speech ergo you can't oppose cancel culture without also opposing free speech--of course, threats and harassment aren't free speech, and this is precisely why free-speech proponents oppose cancel culture. It seems like this is one area where more debate can be genuinely enlightening.
      • drivingmenuts 6y ago
        Distinguishing between free speech and harassment requires discernment, which is what a lot of modern people are either not trained to do, don’t have time to do, are too lazy to do, or have been brainwashed against. More and more, we demand bright lines in a society increasingly filled with gray areas because we charge ahead without consideration. It’s never been easy and current social pressures make it even harder to do.
• gridlockd 6y ago
  > 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. Where is the evidence that this is true? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is literally a crime, yet de-facto Neonazi parties are more popular than in the US, where no law stops you from brandishing a swastika flag.
  • hef19898 6y ago
    Just by comparing the position of the GOP with some positions of, say the AfD and the former FN (Germany and France respectivley), I could make the case that right wing parties have a much smaller voter base in these two countries then the US.
    • gridlockd 6y ago
      I don't think it's useful to conflate anything right of center with fascism. I was thinking of parties like NPD or Golden Dawn, which aren't just "right wing", but thinly-veiled Neo-Nazi parties, attracting hundreds of thousands of votes.
      • hef19898 6y ago
        The NPD all but ceased to exist in the last couple of years. The AfD had one internal group dissolve itself because it was classified as an unconstitutional radical group (Der Flügel). High ranking party members want to shoot migrants and are borderline denying, yes, the Holocaust. Right of center would be parties like the CSU and the right leaning part of the CDU.
• globular-toast 6y ago
  > a healthy level of intolerance towards groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall How can you tell if they are beyond reason if you are not allowed to read their arguments?
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    I draw the line at hate. If one side wants to destroy me do I have to listen to their arguments?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • HashingtheCode 6y ago
      No you don't have to listen, you can walk away.
      • hef19898 6y ago
        Not always. As soon as hate becomes widespread enough walking away besomes impossible. That's why things like Holocaust denial are so dangerous is being left unchecked.
      • tpush 6y ago
        Being driven away is exactly why rules and legislations like these exist, so that no one has to "walk away" because of hateful people spattering their bullshit.
      • anigbrowl 6y ago
        The first time I ever encountered a neo-nazi, I was walking along minding my business during my lunch hour and a complete stranger walked up and punched me in the face. There's an analogy between real and virtual spaces that often seems to be overlooked. If someone is holding a sign on a street corner saying 'the holocaust didn't happen' then I may find that quite objectionable but I can choose to go and remonstrate with the person or conserve my psychic energy and ignore them. On the other hand, if I'm having a discussion about history and a person comes up tries to force their way into the conversation, my walking away is ceding them the space that I formerly occupied. In the physical world there's a cost to moving around and and physical constraints on people, so if I hear someone on the other side of town is holding an objectionable sign I have to decide whether I care enough to physically go there. that calculus might change if the objectionable message were on a billboard or an objectionable speaker were holding a rally with amplified sound, in which case I might consider it more worth my while to refute their prominent or loudly-staged opinion. In the virtual world distance isn't a practical factor so it becomes trivially easy for people in different communities to raid each other and engage in semantic provocations, often with few consequences. Interestingly, there is some evidence that responding to provocation with aggression is more effective in deterring raiding behavior than politely ignoring it: https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/ https://snap.stanford.edu/conflict/ It should be borne in mind that the object of raiding (whether for sport as in MMORPGs or for deadly serious reasons as in military conflicts) is to drive people out of territory that they occupy. Getting them to walk away by being sufficiently obnoxious is not directly violent, but is often predicated on an implicit threat of violence.
• clairity 6y ago
  > "..isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society..." a necessary impediment? no reasonable person denies the holocaust, but it's also not reasonable to try to suppress denial, no matter the desire, because that has its own paradoxical consequences. it's the same overbearing fear-driven irrationality that gets us into lockdowns that destroy lives and livelihoods rather than accepting that heightened risks are not going away no matter what we do, providing accurate (not politicized) information widely, and then trusting people to act appropriately (and diversely). the drive to the same application of force and authoritarianism you're trying to deny is astonishing.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• amadeuspagel 6y ago
  Almost any kind of censorship could be justified with the argument that some voices are "drained out" by others, so to protect the former, the latter most be censored, which is not actually "an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact". WTF does this mean? The internet is not a room where some people have to be silent so that you can hear the others. You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc.
  • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > You can simply ignore people you don't like, or you deem "intolerant", etc. No, that's not how the Internet - or people in general - work.
    • whoisburbansky 6y ago
      The "ignore voices you don't like" argument completely fails to account for the effect of those voices on the millions of people around you, and the effect of their changed actions as a result, on you in turn. It's like saying "pretend you're the only person in the world."
      • nostromo 6y ago
        Censorship still isn't the answer. If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Censorship may even protect people with views you find objectionable -- because that person is shielded from having disagreements with others.
        • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
          > If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way. Again, that’s not how people work. “The marketplace of ideas” is an idealism, a mini-utopia. It does not account for known and unpatched vulnerabilities in human psychology - and a fix from the vendor is not expected any time soon.
• qsort 6y ago
  Popper never said anything of the sort. Quoting from the same link you posted: "The term "paradox of tolerance" does not appear anywhere in the main text of The Open Society and Its Enemies. Rather, Popper lists the above as a note to chapter 7, among the mentioned paradoxes proposed by Plato in his apologia for "benevolent despotism"—i.e., true tolerance would inevitably lead to intolerance, so autocratic rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" would be preferable to leaving the question of tolerance up to majority rule. In the context of chapter 7 of Popper's work, specifically, section II, the note on the paradox of tolerance is intended as further explanation of Popper's rebuttal specific to the paradox as a rationale for autocracy: why political institutions within liberal democracies are preferable to Plato's vision of benevolent tyranny, and through such institutions, the paradox can be avoided." "The chapter in question explicitly defines the context to that of political institutions and the democratic process, and rejects the notion of "the will of the people" having valid meaning outside of those institutions. Thus, in context, Popper's acquiescence to suppression when all else has failed applies only to the state in a liberal democracy with a constitutional rule of law that must be just in its foundations, but will necessarily be imperfect". Don't get me wrong, I make no excuses for those people. They are garbage human beings that I would rather see dead than alive, but we must be sufficiently lucid to keep separate our personal preferences and our public policy proposals. Facebook certainly has 100% the right to make that move, and I'm personally happy to see it. But the floor is extra-slippery. Let's be careful.
  • blub 6y ago
    Why would you want the death of somebody for merely holding an opinion, no matter what that opinion is? That was a pretty WTF moment while reading your comment.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • anigbrowl 6y ago
      It's OK not to like people who want to kill you for what you are rather than anything you did. You do not, in fact, owe anything to people who dispute your right to exist.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• lki876 6y ago
  > This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech Maybe this is necessary and good, but of course it's an "encroachment on free speech". That's literally what is is. We can obfuscate this by replacing the words "encroachment on free speech" with "heavy-handedness" to get the sentence above. But really what is says if we remove the obfuscation is: > This encroachment on free speech isn't an encroachment on free speech That makes no sense. Again, it may be a good idea, but censorship with a good reason remains censorship, or as you put it, an encroachment on free speech.
  • Spivak 6y ago
    You have to be careful because you risk taking all the meaning out of the terms when you say that anything other than a completely unfiltered firehose is encroachment on free speech because you catch spam, bots, threats of violence, abuse, scams, etc. in the crossfire which (at least to me) are not types of speech that should be protected.
    • lki876 6y ago
      Spam, bots and scams aren't speech in any meaningful way. They don't attempt to say anything. Threats of violence and abuse may be speech in some sense but is in no way part of a dialogue.
      • realmod 6y ago
        How is spam and scams not speech? Hate speech, scams and spam are all speech and they should all be removed and not tolerated.
      • tyrust 6y ago
        I wasn't expecting this reply given your original comment. To clarify, are you saying that when threats are censored it's not an encroachment of free speech because they aren't "part of a dialogue"? If so, then how is holocaust denial any different?
    • TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
• vbezhenar 6y ago
  You either have free speech or not. When Facebook censors something, it means that there's no free speech on this platform. Whether you're censoring holocaust denial, global warmth denial, Stalin is evil denial, BLM denial, spherical earth denial, it matters not. You can't define what is beyond reason.
• whoisburbansky 6y ago
  It might interest you to know that Popper only advocated for the right to censorship in the context of democratically established political institutions, as a last resort function of a liberal democracy with a constitutionally established rule of law, which Facebook most definitely is not. Whether or not the current US government is a better steward of censorship power is a separate question, but Popper would straightforwardly disagree with this exercise of power by private parties, imo.
• throwaway894345 6y ago
  I'm fine with censoring holocaust denial content, but I dislike this "Paradox of Tolerance" reasoning. It's too easy for someone to convince themselves that another group is "intolerant" and therefore give themselves moral license to deplatform, harass, or even assault their "intolerant" target. This isn't just a theoretical concern; in practice this is virtually the only context in which I've seen the Paradox applied. Views that are pretty commonplace and understandable are flimsily branded "intolerant" by authoritarians as an excuse to commit their own intolerance. I could get on board with this Paradox of Tolerance reasoning if we had any sort of reasonable if not objective standard for what constitutes 'intolerance', but it seems like >90% of the time it's "someone who disagrees with me". Not only is it too easily abused, but by resorting too quickly to censorship the compelling, valid arguments against abhorrent points of view are suppressed. If someone is wondering why racial profiling is bad, we should talk about how American society aspires to treat people as individuals and not fungible tokens of their race--any given individual doesn't deserve heightened scrutiny simply because people with similar skin tone are more likely to commit crimes. By not addressing these questions rationally first, a lot of people miss the opportunity to be persuaded--especially when we are outright hateful toward people who ask these kinds of questions--we risk sending them into the welcoming arms of people with unsavory, pseudo-scientific explanations that vindicate profiling (censoring isn't going to stop these people from finding each other). Of course, not everyone is going to be persuaded by rational explanations, but most will be and we shouldn't deprive society of the opportunity to have fewer racists. Lastly, this quick-to-censor precedent is only good for as long as the "right" people are in charge of determining who is intolerant, and already the people who are the quickest to cite the Paradox of Tolerance are often the people who espouse racist points of view--ideas that society should be segregated (each race should stay in its own lane, no cultural mixing ["appropriation"], no interracial marriage, no-$race-allowed spaces, etc), that some entire races are guilty of crimes against other races, that race tells us all we need to know about a person ("ugh, the teacher is a $race man. What am I going to learn from another $race male?"), etc. So yeah, I don't have any sympathy for holocaust deniers, but I worry we're gifting these kinds of unsavory groups a weapon to be used against us in these Paradox of Tolerance precedents.
  • raxxorrax 6y ago
• donatj 6y ago
  Somehow you completely missed the point of the paradox of tolerance. You cite it as if it wasn't completely contrary to what you are saying. Facebook's acts are being intolerant to beliefs they disagree with. The paradox of tolerance states that "society must be intolerant of intolerance" thus society must be intolerant to Facebook's intolerant actions here.
  • anigbrowl 6y ago
    You're just using abstraction to move the subject from the first incidence of 'intolerance' to the second, ie suggesting that FB's choice to target content is the epitome of intolerance, rather than considering the nature of the content they are attempting to socially sanction. Eliding context to reframe a specific action as a general behavior is misleading, although you may not have realize this.
    • donatj 6y ago
      I'm not using abstraction, I'm using the literal meaning of the word. Intolerance is not allowing something, usually that you disagree with. Censorship = Intolerance. Further, I don't think not believing in something, nor expressing that disbelief thereof qualifies as "intolerance" by any definition. What specifically is not being tolerated?
      • nkoren 6y ago
        Holocaust denial is inseparably bound up with being intolerant of the right for Jews (and Roma, and Homosexuals, and so forth.) to exist. If you are a holocaust denialist, then you are by definition absolutely intolerant, and I am perfectly fine with you being expunged from any community of the civilised.
        • donatj 6y ago
          I disagree with your premise. Just because a belief can be associated with another belief by a venn diagram of people who believe them, doesn't make the two intrinsically linked. I am a person of jewish descent, and I find the action of silencing people far more disturbing and closer to that of the reich, than those of the people being silenced.
• refurb 6y ago
  The paradox of tolerance completely falls apart when you get into the details. Who decides what shouldn't be tolerated? There is no objective measure of that. The USSR didn't tolerate certain speech either because it was a threat to their system. They used the exact same rationale that they needed to be intolerant to prevent the system from falling apart.
• nabla9 6y ago
  Civil law systems have "The abuse of rights principle". It means that legal right can't be used in the purpose of _only_ causing annoyance, harm, or injury to another or violating or invalidating the rights. In the EU the principle is codified in the article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. They both prohibit the use of rights in a way that they nullify or weaken the rights provided by the agreements. The principle also exists in the European contract law and property law. You can't use the property rights for the sole purpose of causing annoyance or violating other rights. --- https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/abuse-of-rights/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/abuse-of-rights/ At least one of four conditions is required to invoke the doctrine: (1) the predominant motive for exercising the right is to cause harm; (2) no serious or legitimate motive exists for exercising the right; (3) the exercise of the right is against moral rules, good faith, or elementary fairness; or (4) the right is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was granted. --- edit: In the common law systems it can exist under names like "nuisance, duress, good faith, economic waste, public policy, misuse of copyright and patent rights, lack of business purpose in tax law, extortion, and others" see: Abuse of Rights: A Pervasive Legal Concept https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1783&context=faculty_scholarship https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=17...
  • throwaway894345 6y ago
    This seems like it would be very difficult to litigate. How do you ascertain the "predominant motive"? How do you define "serious or legitimate"? To whom? If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head-covering (or a Christian wearing a cross necklace) in a French school, it's probably very serious and legitimate to her, but perhaps not to a tribunal of secularists. There aren't any silver bullets for the issue of speech freedoms.
    • nabla9 6y ago
      In many important cases it's not too difficult. You look at the evidence and make the ruling. Finnish Supreme Court made precedent about banning fascist organization. Here is summary in English https://korkeinoikeus.fi/en/index/ennakkopaatokset/shortsummariesofselectedprecedentsinenglish/2020/kko.html https://korkeinoikeus.fi/en/index/ennakkopaatokset/shortsumm... >Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that to invoke the freedom of association or the freedom of speech in order to disrupt parliamentary democracy, to promote national socialism as an ideology, or to justify the defamation or demeaning of an ethnic group was an abuse of these rights, as the objective was to cancel democratic government or to materially undermine other fundamental rights and human rights. Accordingly, the objectives and the activities of the association were not to be afforded the protection of the freedoms of association or of speech.
• KodoCoder 6y ago
  Free speech isn't the issue here. It's not censorship, it's moderation, and companies have every right to moderate what content is allowed on their platforms. I think it's important to distinguish between the two. Censorship, that is the government proscribing or restricting what people say and thinks in general/public/day-to-day life, is an egregious attack on people's liberty. I think we shouldn't tolerate any limitations on free speech. Moderation, or companies determining a code-of-conduct for the properties and platforms they control, is the same as someone telling you to shut up or get out of their house if you say something that offends them. I think what's important there is that the code of conduct is clearly stated, objective, and enforced even-handedly, which hasn't always been the case as of late.
  • BlueTemplar 6y ago
    It becomes an issue when a company gets so big that it can control a significant fraction of the above-mentioned "what people say and thinks in general/public/day-to-day life". https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59 https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capit...
  • adinisom 6y ago
    Censorship in the form of moderation often makes sense for businesses seeking to maintain their properties. If I run a forum for car enthusiasts, I should be able to curate the community and limit discussions on locomotives. But what of the platforms that make my forum possible? The Cloudflares the protect from DDoS, the DigitalOceans that provide the servers, the ISPs that provide transit, the Facebooks that provide social media support? Should they have the freedom to decide they don't like my forum and kick me off? I've come to believe that the more general purpose a service is and the more communication it controls, the more harmful the business's freedom to censor is for a free society.
    • tremon 6y ago
      Should they have the freedom to decide they don't like my forum and kick me off? Yes. Their infrastructure is still private property, and you're using it to provide your own service. Similarly, if you rent a shop space in a food plaza and start a car mechanic's garage there, the owner of the food plaza will kick you out. That the government has a hard-on for monopolies doesn't change the fact that you're still building your service on private infrastructure.
• lmilcin 6y ago
  The issue is, who is deciding where the freedom of speech ends and necessary actions to restore balance in the force start. I think the real issue is education. In a better educated society people would understand that II WW did happened and would more or less know what it was about and what Holocaust was. In case the society did not know, it could turn to experts for advice. In any case, deniers would be shunned, belittled and generally not heard seriously. I still think freedom of speech should accommodate people who want to embarass themselves by claiming obvious falsehoods and this move is just a part of slippery slope to complete loss of what should be universal right. The response should not be administrative action by private company but ostracism by general public. Now, this is of course impossible in a society where almost half of it declares would want to reelect a person that lies about everything even when he doesn't need to and who doesn't care about anything other than his own interests.
• seph-reed 6y ago
  The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And how can anyone call themselves an adult if they need some third party to come in and censor things for them? You can block, you can mute. You can stick to trusted groups. You can also learn self control and not feed the trolls. If we want to control intolerance effort should be put into making the systems by which we personally and purposely block it from our lives more robust. And if they're going to try to create a universal bubble, it should at least be possible to leave it.
  • GordonS 6y ago
    > And how can anyone call themselves an adult if they need some third party to come in and censor things for them? You can block, you can mute. You can stick to trusted groups. You can also learn self control and not feed the trolls. I'm sure many HN readers are perfectly capable of reading, researching and filtering. But let's face facts: many people are gullible at best, and at worst put themselves in an echo chamber where they take everything at face value. I don't want to make this about politics, but a prime example is Trump. The POTUS makes several verifiable lies on a daily basis, and a large segment of people just lap it up.
    • seph-reed 6y ago
      He's a great example of someone who isn't a true adult. Ofc children should be blocked from certain content.
• fag_tits 6y ago
  (((Schlomo Detected)))
• free_rms 6y ago
  The premise of the paradox of tolerance is that if you tolerate the wrong people, they'll take over and end all tolerance. You have to make that case every time you invoke it to call for censoring things you don't like. Are they a realistic threat? How much of a threat should we tolerate? If you don't make the case, you're just calling for total conformity with all non-conforming thought assumed hostile.
• gadders 6y ago
  “The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
  • Steltek 6y ago
    Unless I'm mistaken, Facebook is not a government and ignorant, uncivilized people getting whats coming to them features heavily in his works. While he certainly frowns on censorship, people intolerant and incapable of behaving themselves are usually thrown out an airlock or otherwise completely ejected from society to roam the surface Mars alone. If you're going to argue the Heinlein route, perhaps Holocaust Deniers need some frontier justice instead?
  • watwut 6y ago
    The issue is not that people can't listen to holocaust denialism or general nazi apologia. Issue is they do and then take action based on that and other people then suffer consequences. Including violent action. Also, given that Heinlein fiction can be also quoted literally in defense of military dictatorship, it is not like random quote of him was any argument on this topic. Or any other old big name. The whole "I cut good sounding quote of someone famous or of context" thing is not an argument.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• devthrowawy 6y ago
  How, in any way, is censorship in the spirit of free speech. I get that fb is private and can do what they want. But you are saying that removing speech that you disagree with is 'in the spirit' of free speech. That couldn't be further from the the spirit of free speech. The truth is that measure like this can and will be abused. Free speech is all or nothing. It's as simple as that.
• tayo42 6y ago
  I think people arguing against the fallacy clearly didn't read it or aren't arguing in good faith. There is an important line, where it only applies to ideas or arguments that can't be addressed logically. If you have an intolerant idea that can't be addressed logically then it should be censored. If you ignore facts, you can't be argued with based on logic. Your intolerant opinion should be censored. This idea isn't that sinister.
• fastball 6y ago
  Oh god, please not this parodox of intolerance stuff again. It is a wholly untested and unproven idea. Stop parroting it as if it is something more than that. Regardless, it is generally agreed that Popper was not talking about intolerant ideas but intolerant behavior i.e. violence and forced suppression. Popper's actual words were "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols", that last bit being pretty important. Denying the Holocaust, detestable though it may be, does not forcibly violate the freedoms of anyone else.
• beervirus 6y ago
  > This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech No, that's exactly what it is. Free speech means nothing at all if it doesn't mean freedom of unpopular speech.
  • remram 6y ago
    Does free speech really apply to proprietary platforms in the first place? You are not prevented from saying whatever you want to whomever you want, you just can't broadcast it throughout their platform. You will not face legal sanction, only have your content be removed from the proprietary platform by the platform's owner. I'm seeing people complaining that they should be able to run their platform however they want and promote/ban whatever they want because of their freedom of speech. And then later I see people arguing that you shouldn't ban anything from your platform because freedom of speech. Hopefully those are distinct groups, but I can't shake the feeling that "freedom of speech" is mostly use dishonestly to try to justify one's actions no matter which direction they go.
• monksy 6y ago
  I'm not in agreement that they must show a healthy level of intolerence towards groups [...] Where they've gone wrong is that they haven't segmeneted and created a concept of different groups. They've managed to make a platform for where they want to put every group up front. (Unlike reddit, where it's specialized into individual sections) The more extreme groups now seek to get public acknowledgement and their platform is putting it in front. (It's a winner take all scenario). Reddit isn't perfect, but at least there is dedicated groups and there is some interference detection that is being fought against.(To prevent the extreme groups from trying to take over other groups)
• disown 6y ago
  > 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. That's hilarious. The intolerant are justifying their acts by labeling the others as intolerant. It's the basis of all tyrannies.
• kazinator 6y ago
  Of course, some people who are "unmistakably intolerant" make references to, and promote holocaust-denying material. Holocaust deniers as such aren't "unmistakably intolerant" though; disputing the facts surrounding the holocaust doesn't ipso facto make someone intolerant, let alone unmistakably. Is everyone who disputes facts intolerant? Is someone who believes that the world was formed 7000 years ago intolerant? Are flat-earthers intolerant?
• holoduke 6y ago
  I don't agree. Facebook should stop applying these ridiculous algorithms which are promoting content to you which makes no sense at all and serve the only single business Facebook has: Advertising. If facebook would solely serve you with content originated from your friends and maybe some random ads then all this conspiracy bullcrap stories won't have a chance at all and will remain in their small user circles. Also besides the usual fake content (deny of holocaust, environment etc), there is also a lot in the gray area. Think of articles about health. Articles about how to get rich. Articles about a new revolutionary cleaning device. Probably all fake. But in some cases maybe not. Its not up to Facebook to decide these matters. Facebook should change into what it should be. A social network for friends. Not a crappy advertising agent. In the latter case it's best to forbid the entire business called Facebook.
• markdown 6y ago
  While I agree that this is a good move, I still think it's a great pity when certain topics are ruled unquestionable. An elderly relative recently went down the youtube rabbithole and came out on informationclearinghouse. A few months later and he's now a full-blown conspiracy theorist.. I mean everything from 9/11 "truthism" to antisemitism-lite. I mean this person's entire personality changed. Lifelong relationships with friends and family have been lost because of this change. It's extremely sad to see. In trying to debunk these theories, I tried to gather answers to the questions he raised. But every single one I posted on reddit was removed. These were real questions that I couldn't find the answers for anywhere, and I wasn't allowed to ask them.
• chmod600 6y ago
  "where the tolerant voices aren't drained out by the relentlessness and irrationality of the intolerant" It's ridiculous to say that abhorrent Holocaust deniers are drowning out tolerant voices. They have no place in mainstream media, so they are forced into some weird corner of FB. I have never personally encountered a Holocaust-denier opinion anywhere (including the internet), probably because I've never looked for one. I only know they exist because they are brought up as weirdos, like an evil version of a flat-earther. That would be like saying some transcontinental ham radio morse code is drowning out your music on FM radio. It just doesn't interfere; you have to have a crazy antenna to even get the signal. Let's not pretend that this somehow fits into the spirit of free speech. This is about making it hard for people to find these crazy messages even if they are looking for them. You can debate that. Maybe some messages are too dangerous -- like DIY H-bombs or something. But arguing that is clearly in contradiction with the spirit of free speech. (Note: I am not claiming that it's illegal censorship. FB is a private company and can do what it wants.)
• charliebrownau 6y ago
  When you cant win a debate or risk exposing the truth - Censor - Ban - Use Force - Kill - Shame/blame/use emotion Never Ever consider actually debating the topic, idea with rational debate, facts, logic and reason and back it up with evidence, science, stats Nope SHUT IT DOWN GOYIM KNOW
• raxxorrax 6y ago
  No tolerance for the intolerant is actually a wrong approach. That realization was even true for the giver of the idea. It is something that has justifiably been derided and ridiculed. Holocaust denial is illegal in my country. I personally prefer people state their opinion. Tells you who you are talking to, although they tend not to be the smartest people around, so it might not be helpful to orient yourself towards their ideas.
• young_unixer 6y ago
  > groups and ideologies that are beyond reason and recall, especially when those said groups are overtly and unmistakably intolerant themselves. I think all leftists and most conservatives are intolerant, and some of them probably think my libertarian ideology is intolerant. If we didn't think our political opponents were intolerant, we wouldn't be their opponents in the first place. You may say "not all leftists and conservatives are intolerant" but the only difference is that your definition of intolerance is more lax. In the end it all boils down to "those that disagree too much with me are intolerant", where "too much" is defined by your subjective perception. I could propose a ban on all speech that calls for tax increases, because high taxes are unfair and harmful, just like holocaust denial, but that would be extremely arrogant (besides being against my principles).