5 ms·

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.
        legolas2412 6y ago
        > for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. As an atheist, I do find them a hate group. Are you going to declare militant atheism intolerant, or religion?
        duxup 6y ago
        I'm not at all sure why simply being an atheist would be a hate group. I don't know what "militant atheism" is though.
    - nailer 6y ago
      Why is religion different from other views?
- 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.

"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.
        legolas2412 6y ago
        > for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. As an atheist, I do find them a hate group. Are you going to declare militant atheism intolerant, or religion?
        duxup 6y ago
        I'm not at all sure why simply being an atheist would be a hate group. I don't know what "militant atheism" is though.
  - nailer 6y ago
    Why is religion different from other views?
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.