3 ms·

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.

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 18y 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 18y 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 18y ago
    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. From that standpoint we agree. 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? Well, that will be an interesting day. :)

randallsquared 18y 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 18y 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 18y ago
  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. From that standpoint we agree. 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? Well, that will be an interesting day. :)