7 ms·

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 concentr

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.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        There you go: "He criticised the evidence for the accepted number of about 6 million victims, claiming that it was a propaganda figure of the Soviet leadership for which there were no evidence.[7]" from the above wikipedia article. Again, the whole line of argumentation matters, in which case he is misusing numbers from some sources to discredit other to come to a different total number. If you are going to challenge a global research concesnus in any field, you better have a stringent, logical reason for doing so. If, on the other hand, you are bascially pulling numbers out of nowhere, misquote other out of context, all while writting the other stuff he did, you are on shacky ground.
        jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        It also says a few sentences later "He came to the conclusion that the Soviet commission examining the concentration camp Auschwitz (which did not find any of the German paperwork) had made the best estimate the number of victims." Edit: I also want to clarify (again) that I'm not arguing that he is correct. I am arguing that he is labeled a denialist for his claim about the number of Jews killed, despite his believing that a large number of Jews were killed in concentration camps.
        hef19898 6y ago
        Which he then used to put the overall number in doubt as Soviet propaganda. Which is dishonest. Also, the holocaust started much earlier than Auschwitz, and it included much more than just exterminatation and concentration camps.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  David Irving to give one example.
  - kitbrennan 6y ago
    I'm not sure David Irving can be called a scholar or a valid source considering he has been firmly debunked, and lost his libel suit because he lied and made up sources. To quote one of the expert witnesses at his trial: > Irving (...) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (...) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all.
asah 6y ago
Is this a real issue? If so, it's trivial to start with the blatant stuff and move onto the subtle stuff if/when that's insufficient. https://www.adl.org/hate-symbols?keys=holocaust https://www.adl.org/hate-symbols?keys=holocaust
root_axis 6y ago
Human judgement is how they'll determine it. They're deciding what's "acceptable debate" only within the confines of their own website, there are plenty of other venues friendly to Holocaust skeptics and deniers.
beervirus 6y ago
Anything other than the party line is verboten thoughtcrime.
ephimetheus 6y ago
Holocaust denial is banned in Germany (same as swastikas by the way). It works really well. The only people complaining are literally people trying to twist perception of the arguably worst crime in the history of humanity, to make Germany look like a victim. FB is clearly doing the right thing here. Free speech has limits.
- nostromo 6y ago
  > It works really well. Because it's banned, it's impossible to know how well it works. I'm reminded of Iran's leader claiming they have no gay people. Of course he would think that, because if they were openly gay they would be jailed.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    The point of the ban is to prevent supporting HD, not to ban believing it. Ban works.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    It take "It works really well" as a response to the parents claim: > Some scholars get labeled denialists because they have different estimates for the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. I am not aware of any case where a legitimate scholar was convicted as a holocaust denier, so there is a proven track record that renders that point mostly moot. > I'm reminded of Iran's leader claiming they have no gay people. Of course he would think that, because if they were openly gay they would be jailed. Sure, it forces the people that deny holocausts into hiding instead of eliminating their belief, but that's also not the intention of those measures. The goal is that they can not openly spread those beliefs and create more holocaust deniers in an uncontrollable fashion. Iran's leader has the same idea regarding gay people, just that it's a stupid idea, because contrary to holocaust denial, being gay is not a chosen belief (though in their mind they might think it is).
  - ephimetheus 6y ago
    Right, I would think you can measure success by number of years without widespread support for fascism. So far, we seem to be on track.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Perhaps people should go elsewhere (such as historical sources) to get information on the history of the holocaust.
geekster777 6y ago
I always assumed you didn't need to be very good at moderating to make a certain type of content meaningfully unwelcome. For example, you can't put pornography on Youtube, but it's still reasonably easy to find a video with nudity. It's easy to lose a lot of time trying to craft the perfect definition, but you can get 80% of the benefit with a rigid and conservative definition. So I don't think you need to remove content that "arguably" breaks a policy, you just content that "explicitly" breaks it. This hopefully causes folks to the extremes will take their content elsewhere (to a hopefully much smaller audience).

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.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      There you go: "He criticised the evidence for the accepted number of about 6 million victims, claiming that it was a propaganda figure of the Soviet leadership for which there were no evidence.[7]" from the above wikipedia article. Again, the whole line of argumentation matters, in which case he is misusing numbers from some sources to discredit other to come to a different total number. If you are going to challenge a global research concesnus in any field, you better have a stringent, logical reason for doing so. If, on the other hand, you are bascially pulling numbers out of nowhere, misquote other out of context, all while writting the other stuff he did, you are on shacky ground.
      - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        It also says a few sentences later "He came to the conclusion that the Soviet commission examining the concentration camp Auschwitz (which did not find any of the German paperwork) had made the best estimate the number of victims." Edit: I also want to clarify (again) that I'm not arguing that he is correct. I am arguing that he is labeled a denialist for his claim about the number of Jews killed, despite his believing that a large number of Jews were killed in concentration camps.
        hef19898 6y ago
        Which he then used to put the overall number in doubt as Soviet propaganda. Which is dishonest. Also, the holocaust started much earlier than Auschwitz, and it included much more than just exterminatation and concentration camps.
globular-toast 6y ago
David Irving to give one example.
- kitbrennan 6y ago
  I'm not sure David Irving can be called a scholar or a valid source considering he has been firmly debunked, and lost his libel suit because he lied and made up sources. To quote one of the expert witnesses at his trial: > Irving (...) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (...) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all.

asah 6y ago

Is this a real issue? If so, it's trivial to start with the blatant stuff and move onto the subtle stuff if/when that's insufficient. https://www.adl.org/hate-symbols?keys=holocaust https://www.adl.org/hate-symbols?keys=holocaust

root_axis 6y ago

Human judgement is how they'll determine it. They're deciding what's "acceptable debate" only within the confines of their own website, there are plenty of other venues friendly to Holocaust skeptics and deniers.

beervirus 6y ago

Anything other than the party line is verboten thoughtcrime.

ephimetheus 6y ago

Holocaust denial is banned in Germany (same as swastikas by the way). It works really well. The only people complaining are literally people trying to twist perception of the arguably worst crime in the history of humanity, to make Germany look like a victim. FB is clearly doing the right thing here. Free speech has limits.

nostromo 6y ago
> It works really well. Because it's banned, it's impossible to know how well it works. I'm reminded of Iran's leader claiming they have no gay people. Of course he would think that, because if they were openly gay they would be jailed.
- jkinudsjknds 6y ago
  The point of the ban is to prevent supporting HD, not to ban believing it. Ban works.
- hobofan 6y ago
  It take "It works really well" as a response to the parents claim: > Some scholars get labeled denialists because they have different estimates for the number of Jews killed in concentration camps. I am not aware of any case where a legitimate scholar was convicted as a holocaust denier, so there is a proven track record that renders that point mostly moot. > I'm reminded of Iran's leader claiming they have no gay people. Of course he would think that, because if they were openly gay they would be jailed. Sure, it forces the people that deny holocausts into hiding instead of eliminating their belief, but that's also not the intention of those measures. The goal is that they can not openly spread those beliefs and create more holocaust deniers in an uncontrollable fashion. Iran's leader has the same idea regarding gay people, just that it's a stupid idea, because contrary to holocaust denial, being gay is not a chosen belief (though in their mind they might think it is).
- ephimetheus 6y ago
  Right, I would think you can measure success by number of years without widespread support for fascism. So far, we seem to be on track.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Perhaps people should go elsewhere (such as historical sources) to get information on the history of the holocaust.

geekster777 6y ago

I always assumed you didn't need to be very good at moderating to make a certain type of content meaningfully unwelcome. For example, you can't put pornography on Youtube, but it's still reasonably easy to find a video with nudity. It's easy to lose a lot of time trying to craft the perfect definition, but you can get 80% of the benefit with a rigid and conservative definition. So I don't think you need to remove content that "arguably" breaks a policy, you just content that "explicitly" breaks it. This hopefully causes folks to the extremes will take their content elsewhere (to a hopefully much smaller audience).