6 ms·

Glad to hear it. This is a silly debate. Let them have their Facebook group, their twitter hashtag, their IRC channel, whatever. If you think they're idiots the

Glad to hear it. This is a silly debate. Let them have their Facebook group, their twitter hashtag, their IRC channel, whatever. If you think they're idiots then simply don't click links that take you to their content.

ErrantX 17y ago
Agreed! The way I always viewed it is removing any of the groups is all but vindicating them: it is tantamount to saying their views might actually have some traction in the world... Leave them to it: especially as it means wer can see who holds such opinions and ignore them :)
Confusion 17y ago
And allow them the opportunity to play on the fears and prejudices of a great many uninformed souls, winning them for their cause? No, thank you. I'd rather have someone with a conscience step in and say: "We won't allow this here. I have the moral right at my side and I will make it as hard as possible for them to spread their lies." If you are affraid to do the right thing, then you are enabling the wrong thing, which makes you just as guilty of the consequences.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Restricting the spread of information is not the act of those who think that truth is on their side. Those against such restrictions aren't "afraid to do the right thing", they're for doing the right thing, which is allowing those who disagree to speak.
  - ekanes 17y ago
    Hate speech is not "information".
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Careful. There is an inherent difference between "hate speech" and "holocaust denial". Suggesting all holocaust deniers are anti-semitic and want jews dead is as bad if not worse stereotyping..... (indeed I would classify it as worse: many Holocaust deniers are simply delusional and historically uneducated, or brainwashed. Branding them anti-semitic and hateful is a considered opinion in the face of reasonable evidence. And, well, hateful.....)
      - ekanes 17y ago
        Agreed. I should have explained more, what I was referring to wasn't holocaust denial per se but the hate speech threads/posts within the category (which seem to go hand-in-hand).
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Everything is information. Holocaust denial is only extremely weak information about the Holocaust, but it's much better information about the speaker. :)
  - Confusion 17y ago
    Those against such restrictions are naive in believing that the truth will triumph, simply because it is the truth. History and psychology both prove otherwise. The truth is often hard to accept or to understand. For instance, we like to believe the general German populace in WO II was innocent, because they were powerless or in the dark. The fact is that they were taken in by Hitler and are guilty of that, but the painful truth of the way this happened is that it could happen to most of us. In 'most of us', I include myself: I can perfectly dream up scenario's in which I become Eichmann, despite what I am saying now. I'm no stranger to fear or prejudice and given a convincingly presented threat from the outside, who knows how you react to protected your loved ones? Finally, their are two types of 'the right thing'. There is the morally right thing, based on principles and there is the morally right thing, based on the goal to be achieved. These often do not overlap, especially not when we have to acknowledge our oh-so-human shortcomings.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      The tools of information/speech suppression are worse, as a rule, than the information or speech being suppressed. Even if you don't agree in this case, you should hope that suppression doesn't become the accepted tool, because those without scruples are far more likely to be able to use it effectively. Don't support the building of the tools of your own destruction, to reduce it to a soundbite.
      - Confusion 17y ago
        From a moral point of view as well as from Facebook's business point of view I fully agree one should be as reluctant as possible with banning contents. But considering that Facebook already bans a range of contents, I don't think it would have been noted if they just banned holocause denial. I wonder what they will do when a group of radical Muslims start an anti American group. Would the tone of the responses here be different then? BTW, I think those without scruples are always a step ahead of us: the tools already exist and are used as effectively as they can get away with.
        randallsquared 17y ago
- thenduks 17y ago
  Protected impressionable people from dangerous or unpopular opinions is about as far from Facebook's business as it gets.
Mintz 17y ago
Because everyone on the internet is capable of making a rational judgment about the lies these groups are spreading. Young, impressionable minds (kids) can't form their own opinions and deduct logical conclusions based upon presented facts; they will simply believe what they read, and they shouldn't be reading that.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  At what point did you hear about Holocaust denial? Did you immediately agree with it?
  - Mintz 17y ago
    It's not about me and people like me. People with fewer advantages are less likely to grasp the scope of such a conspiracy as a denial of the holocaust and are more likely to entertain the idea.
    - maarek 17y ago
      It's about the poor, stupid people? We can't let the proletariat know of these ideas, since they are too weakminded to hold against them? No, you can't ban opinions just because they are stupid and wrong. Calls for violence are one thing, but someone expressing an opinion is the definition of free speech. Facebook may have the right to take them down, but I am glad they are holding firm.
- chez17 17y ago
  Think of the children! Sorry, but when his excuse comes out the debate is over. The children will be fine, just like they have been fine for all of human history. They survived as slaves, through depression and wars, and every other thing history has thrown at them. A random group on facebook posting about a revisionist stance that almost 99.99% of people know to be insane isn't going to hurt "kids". I'm glad facebook is allowing free speech on their platform. As many have stated, this is a private entity and it is within its rights to pull the content. I'm glad they are not. I would prefer my child to see this and see how horrible these people are then pretend they don't exist.
jacobian 17y ago
I'm sorry, but this isn't about free speech. These people are calling for violence and murder against an entire class of people. You're okay with a " Facebook group ... twitter hashtag ... IRC channel" dedicated to promoting murder and genocide? Or look at this another way: if someone started a "Kill thenduks" Facebook group dedicated to justifying why killing you would be a good idea, and good for the world... how'd you feel about that?
- thenduks 17y ago
  There's a difference between removing hate-speech from comment threads and such and removing the group entirely because we don't agree with it. You're right, though, that the issue is deeper than free speech. What I gather from Facebook's position is that it wont shut down a group just because of the beliefs of it's members... that doesn't prevent them from moderating the content itself according to their terms of use.
  - wlievens 17y ago
    It doesn't prevent them, but it's still quite hypocritical. I mean, come on, it's only tits!

ErrantX 17y ago

Agreed! The way I always viewed it is removing any of the groups is all but vindicating them: it is tantamount to saying their views might actually have some traction in the world... Leave them to it: especially as it means wer can see who holds such opinions and ignore them :)

Confusion 17y ago

And allow them the opportunity to play on the fears and prejudices of a great many uninformed souls, winning them for their cause? No, thank you. I'd rather have someone with a conscience step in and say: "We won't allow this here. I have the moral right at my side and I will make it as hard as possible for them to spread their lies." If you are affraid to do the right thing, then you are enabling the wrong thing, which makes you just as guilty of the consequences.

randallsquared 17y ago
Restricting the spread of information is not the act of those who think that truth is on their side. Those against such restrictions aren't "afraid to do the right thing", they're for doing the right thing, which is allowing those who disagree to speak.
- ekanes 17y ago
  Hate speech is not "information".
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Careful. There is an inherent difference between "hate speech" and "holocaust denial". Suggesting all holocaust deniers are anti-semitic and want jews dead is as bad if not worse stereotyping..... (indeed I would classify it as worse: many Holocaust deniers are simply delusional and historically uneducated, or brainwashed. Branding them anti-semitic and hateful is a considered opinion in the face of reasonable evidence. And, well, hateful.....)
    - ekanes 17y ago
      Agreed. I should have explained more, what I was referring to wasn't holocaust denial per se but the hate speech threads/posts within the category (which seem to go hand-in-hand).
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Everything is information. Holocaust denial is only extremely weak information about the Holocaust, but it's much better information about the speaker. :)
- Confusion 17y ago
  Those against such restrictions are naive in believing that the truth will triumph, simply because it is the truth. History and psychology both prove otherwise. The truth is often hard to accept or to understand. For instance, we like to believe the general German populace in WO II was innocent, because they were powerless or in the dark. The fact is that they were taken in by Hitler and are guilty of that, but the painful truth of the way this happened is that it could happen to most of us. In 'most of us', I include myself: I can perfectly dream up scenario's in which I become Eichmann, despite what I am saying now. I'm no stranger to fear or prejudice and given a convincingly presented threat from the outside, who knows how you react to protected your loved ones? Finally, their are two types of 'the right thing'. There is the morally right thing, based on principles and there is the morally right thing, based on the goal to be achieved. These often do not overlap, especially not when we have to acknowledge our oh-so-human shortcomings.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    The tools of information/speech suppression are worse, as a rule, than the information or speech being suppressed. Even if you don't agree in this case, you should hope that suppression doesn't become the accepted tool, because those without scruples are far more likely to be able to use it effectively. Don't support the building of the tools of your own destruction, to reduce it to a soundbite.
    - Confusion 17y ago
      From a moral point of view as well as from Facebook's business point of view I fully agree one should be as reluctant as possible with banning contents. But considering that Facebook already bans a range of contents, I don't think it would have been noted if they just banned holocause denial. I wonder what they will do when a group of radical Muslims start an anti American group. Would the tone of the responses here be different then? BTW, I think those without scruples are always a step ahead of us: the tools already exist and are used as effectively as they can get away with.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
thenduks 17y ago
Protected impressionable people from dangerous or unpopular opinions is about as far from Facebook's business as it gets.

Mintz 17y ago

Because everyone on the internet is capable of making a rational judgment about the lies these groups are spreading. Young, impressionable minds (kids) can't form their own opinions and deduct logical conclusions based upon presented facts; they will simply believe what they read, and they shouldn't be reading that.

byrneseyeview 17y ago
At what point did you hear about Holocaust denial? Did you immediately agree with it?
- Mintz 17y ago
  It's not about me and people like me. People with fewer advantages are less likely to grasp the scope of such a conspiracy as a denial of the holocaust and are more likely to entertain the idea.
  - maarek 17y ago
    It's about the poor, stupid people? We can't let the proletariat know of these ideas, since they are too weakminded to hold against them? No, you can't ban opinions just because they are stupid and wrong. Calls for violence are one thing, but someone expressing an opinion is the definition of free speech. Facebook may have the right to take them down, but I am glad they are holding firm.
chez17 17y ago
Think of the children! Sorry, but when his excuse comes out the debate is over. The children will be fine, just like they have been fine for all of human history. They survived as slaves, through depression and wars, and every other thing history has thrown at them. A random group on facebook posting about a revisionist stance that almost 99.99% of people know to be insane isn't going to hurt "kids". I'm glad facebook is allowing free speech on their platform. As many have stated, this is a private entity and it is within its rights to pull the content. I'm glad they are not. I would prefer my child to see this and see how horrible these people are then pretend they don't exist.

jacobian 17y ago

I'm sorry, but this isn't about free speech. These people are calling for violence and murder against an entire class of people. You're okay with a " Facebook group ... twitter hashtag ... IRC channel" dedicated to promoting murder and genocide? Or look at this another way: if someone started a "Kill thenduks" Facebook group dedicated to justifying why killing you would be a good idea, and good for the world... how'd you feel about that?

thenduks 17y ago
There's a difference between removing hate-speech from comment threads and such and removing the group entirely because we don't agree with it. You're right, though, that the issue is deeper than free speech. What I gather from Facebook's position is that it wont shut down a group just because of the beliefs of it's members... that doesn't prevent them from moderating the content itself according to their terms of use.
- wlievens 17y ago
  It doesn't prevent them, but it's still quite hypocritical. I mean, come on, it's only tits!