
Facebook Remains Stubbornly Proud Of Position On Holocaust Denial - vaksel
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/12/facebook-remains-stubbornly-proud-of-position-on-holocaust-denial/
======
thenduks
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.

~~~
Mintz
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.

~~~
chez17
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.

~~~
Mintz
I commend you for how you'd handle the situation with your child, however
every situation will not unfold with a caring parents explaining to their kids
how wrong these "bad men" are.

It's not just kids who shouldn't be reading this material, it's all kinds of
impressionable people who don't compare facts before forming opinions. It's
hard to argue that this kind of hate speech will benefit more people than it
will hurt.

~~~
ErrantX
I fear there is just no reasonable way you can protect such people from,
eventually, being brainwashed or deluded by someone in some way (mostly it's
religions that do it).

Im not saying that is an excuse not to ban the groups: but as a reason FOR
banning the groups it is ignoring the elephant in the room :)

------
absconditus
If you do not support a person's right to express an opinion that you abhor
you do not support free speech at all.

While I disagree with their decision to prohibit photographs of nipples, doing
so is unfortunately quite prudent lest US politicians decide to meddle.

~~~
byrneseyeview
There is a difference between supporting free speech and supporting it on a
particular platform. The First Amendment doesn't give me the right to force
the _NYT_ to say what I want. Similarly, it doesn't require FB to post stuff
it disagrees with; they're completely within their rights to censor this
stuff.

~~~
pookleblinky
"censor"

A private citizen or company may choose not to broadcast whatever it likes,
for whatever reason. This is not "censorship" except in the broadest and most
meaningless possible sense.

I agree with you, but to call it "censorship" is to cede part of the argument.

~~~
philwelch
There's an important difference you're glossing over. If I post a photgraph to
Facebook and Facebook takes it down, that's censorship. If I don't post the
photograph in the first place, that's not censorship. That doesn't mean it's a
violation of free speech or the first amendment, but we shouldn't redefine
words like "censorship" just to gloss over all these issues.

------
Tritis
"No, the problem is that Holocaust deniers make their arguments for one simple
purpose - they want to finish what was started and wipe Jews off the planet."

This is far from true. "Holocaust deniers" very often turn out to be "The
holocaust was more than just killing Jews, so stop making it just about them.
A lot of the figures about those killed are inflated. The Holocaust needs to
be stop being used a trump card for getting everything from Hate Speech Laws
codified to a free pass for Israel to wall in the Palestinians and bomb
densely populated areas."

Now I tacitly accept the figures for those killed in the Holocaust (6 million
Jews, 5 million gypsies, gays and others) because it isn't an important issue
for me.

But trying to call holocaust deniers closeted genocidal maniacs is pretty
absurd.

~~~
agrinshtein
With all due respect that is quite delusional. (I couldn't figure out a more
respectful way to say that, sorry)

President of Iran is my case in point. Need I say more?

~~~
cousin_it
Sorry, what's delusional? The abuse of the Holocaust to negotiate preferential
treatment for Jews is real. My case in point is this:

[http://www.claimscon.org/index.asp?url=hardship/leningrad_si...](http://www.claimscon.org/index.asp?url=hardship/leningrad_siege)

"In an historic breakthrough, the Claims Conference has negotiated one-time
payments from Germany for certain Jewish victims of the Nazi siege of
Leningrad."

------
byrneseyeview
This is a post about why Facebook should remove anti-semitic groups. He
doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny the
Holocaust. Since his argument is "Holocaust denial correlates strongly with
anti-semitism, thus Holocaust denial must be banned," can be simplified to
"Anti-semitism must be banned" with, in the worst case, no loss of accuracy,
and, in the best case, a reduced rate of false positives.

~~~
edw519
I sure hope you finish your mental masturbation before the elephant in the
room sits on you.

~~~
byrneseyeview
Can you clarify?

~~~
edw519
"He doesn't cover the case of a group that is not anti-semitic, but does deny
the Holocaust."

Mental masturbation: Applying logic in a theoretical realm without regard to
the real world or the human condition.

Elephant in the room: By definition, the outlier you cite _cannot exist_ ,
since the sole purpose of "Holocaust denial" is to rub salt into Jewish
wounds.

I have been on this forum forever, have discussed many issues with many of
you, and _never_ comment on these types of threads, which frankly do not
belong on hn. But since you turned this into a logic play, I took the bait
(for which I'm already sorry.)

I also see that the ho-hums have arrived and have started to vote me down
without providing comments, a perfectly expected outcome.

You are churning logic which, based upon my axioms, is illogical. I understand
that you may not agree with my axioms, rendering your treatment of the logic
as plasible.

Please understand that, either way, it doesn't matter. Saying that "Holocaust
denial" != "anti-semitism" is not a speed bump; it's a show stopper. For many
sensible people, you have effectively disqualified yourself from further
logical discussion.

I look forward to discussing business & programming with you and all the
others in future threads. This is my last posting in this thread (and
hopefully all others like it).

~~~
byrneseyeview
Thank you for explaining. Now, what I don't understand is how you'd cover such
a case -- a historian who honestly says "Looking at the record, I think the
conventional story of the Holocaust overestimates the death toll, and
misunderstands the motivations." At least one former denier (can't recall his
name right now) is Jewish; the guy who blogs at
<http://hooverhog.typepad.com/> is a Holocaust denier (among other unusual
beliefs) and has also made references to having a Jewish girlfriend, which I
think goes beyond even the usual "some of my best friends are..." argument.

Exploring edge cases is generally not mental masturbation. In this situation,
there's a genuinely weird argument: "Holocaust denial is synonymous with anti-
semitism, and anti-semitism is bad, thus Holocaust denial is bad." If all
Holocaust deniers are anti-semites, then this makes as much sense as saying
"Anti-semites are more likely to dislike people who celebrate Passover, thus
groups opposed to celebrating Passover must be banned." Why the extra mental
gymnastics? Why is Holocaust denial even a factor?

------
pookleblinky
Ah, the inevitable descent into a flamewar.

I would expect such indulgence for our primal trollish instincts from reddit.
But HN?

Let us debate emacs vs vi, or the failure of the Boost library, or rakudo vs
parrot!

Hell, let us fight to the death over Star Wars vs. Star Trek.

~~~
ilitirit
> I would expect such indulgence for our primal trollish instincts from
> reddit. But HN?

I resisted the reddit comparison but I'm glad someone else mentioned it.
Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that this is the type of submission that should
be appearing on HN's front page.

~~~
randallsquared
Then flag it. That's what that's for.

I don't happen to agree, though.

~~~
ilitirit
I didn't say I'm convinced that it doesn't belong on the front page, I'm said
that I'm unconvinced that it does.

------
dryicerx
This is the right decision by Facebook. I don't agree with that group, but you
can't just go around bowing to everyone X group that's offended/insulted by Y
topic.

If they do, when do you draw the line? If a group of "A" people say that the
"B" religion groups are offensive/insulting/wrong, and how they committed
crimes in ages before, do you ban "A"'s groups? What about the other side, you
ban "B"'s group since the other side is wrong/insulted/offended?

Free speech is there for a reason, to protect those with unpopular views. The
views may be wrong/insulting/offensive/whatever, but their still their views.
The holocaust denial group is indeed in the wrong and I don't agree with them,
but they still have the right to express their views.

------
tophat02
Of course they're proud. They realize they're on the right side: the first
amendment's side.

You do NOT have the right to squelch speech simply because it's unpopular,
controversial, or distasteful. If Facebook pulls these groups, it should be
because of market pressure (advertising boycots and so forth), not some
government mandate. That's going in the WRONG direction. What's so hard to
understand about that?

------
mustpax
This is a very tough call on Facebook's part. Their primary purpose is to
serve as a facilitator, not as a moderator of people's opinions. At the same
time, this is a pretty clear case of religious/racial hate speech.

Leave it to TechCrunch to ignore every nuance of the issue and make a catchy
headline out of it. If anything I find TechCrunch's demagogy more offensive
than Facebook's official line on this subject.

~~~
gamache
Hate speech is speech. If you favor free speech, you favor free hate speech. I
don't get what's such a tough call about it, aside from the business/legal
implications of Facebook operating in countries which restrict speech.

~~~
swombat
The right to free speech does not equate to the right to free facebook
accounts.

Facebook is not the government. They can ban any users they want for saying
things they don't like, without impinging on our right to free speech.

~~~
gamache
Oh, certainly Facebook has the right to turn the Holocaust-deniers away. But
that implies that they do not support free speech -- at least not enough to
support it materially. That's the call that's being made -- whether Facebook
supports free speech on Facebook. I wouldn't have hard time with this call.

------
shabda
I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.

~~~
Confusion
An unbalanced opinion, based on a soundbite that is repeated over and over
again by people that should first think through what it would mean if put into
practice. You would not defend my right to publically, repeatedly, defamate
you or your products, would you? For that exact reason there are laws against
that. If I repeated over and over again you were a pedophile and spread false
evidence to that effect, don't you think I would be able to convince people?
And don't I need to convince only a few 'right' people to make your life hell?

~~~
philwelch
Disagreement about historical fact is not defamation. If I want to say Ataturk
or Hitler or Andrew Jackson are variously guilty or innocent of genocide that
is my right.

In fact, I really don't see how it's defamation to claim that someone is
_innocent_ of genocide.

~~~
Confusion
It's defamation to call an Auschwitz survivor a liar. More general, it's
defamatory to implicitly say that all those people that know the facts are
liars.

~~~
tptacek
It's defamation if it's known to be false and spoken maliciously. Moreover, to
be actionable, defamation has to actually cause damage. You're making
assumptions here that won't survive your argument.

~~~
Confusion
The fact that you cannot get someone sentenced for defamation does not mean
his words weren't defamatory. If a murder is committed in a crowd of fifty and
they all deny knowing who the murderer is, making justice impossible, then one
of them is still a murderer.

Imagine a holocaust surviver with a business. Imagine a client that is
convinced by a lying holocaust denier. Business owner loses client.

In more general terms, lies cause damage in indirect ways. That you cannot
prove such a thing in an individual case does not mean no damage is done. The
aggregated effect of holocaust deniers convincing a few more people that the
Jews are a lying bunch necessarily causes damage.

~~~
tptacek
"Imagine a client that is convinced by a lying holocaust denier".

Can I imagine him with antennae, too?

You haven't addressed my point, and you're repeating points you've made
elsewhere in this thread. You're making the same assumptions (that deniers are
malicious "liars", and not simply morons), and informing us only that you're
afraid of certain kinds of speech.

~~~
Confusion
Antennae would be very fashionable in Milan this time of the year :).

Was your point that 'defamation' has a strict meaning in law and that I was
wrong in suggesting that these deniers are guilty of defamation in that strict
sense? In that case, that is probably true, I'll trust you on that.

My previous comment was intended to explain that I did not mean it in such a
strict sense. My argument was not that it is wrong _because_ it is that exact
offense that is punishable by law. The fact that we have laws covering parts
of that behaviour merely illustrates that we consider it wrong. But that only
parts of the behaviour are covered does not mean that the other parts are not
considered wrong. Some behaviour is not outlawed because it is not feasible to
formulate proper laws to cover the behaviour: even in countries where
holocaust denial is forbidden, most cases of holocaust denial cannot possibly
be prosecuted.

As an aside, in my book, a 'liar' does not necessarily have malicious intent.
He may just be ignorant: morons and liars are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, seeing what demagogues have been capable of: yes, the power of words
is scary. Fear is a bad counsellor, but still a warning to be heeded after the
fear has passed over you and through you.

------
markessien
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of all human beings. Freedom to hate
is also their right. Otherwise who decides what is right to say and what is
not right - at some point in history, it would have been illegal to have a
group advocating miscenegation.

Hiding the groups does not change the beliefs.

------
jhamburger
The only time I really hear about these groups is when there is a controversy
over censoring them. Seems to be by far the best way for them to get their
message out.

------
okeumeni
Going against the holocaust crazy and Jewish haters will hurt Facebook more
than just allowing free speech.

These fools are just seeking the opportunity of using censorship from Facebook
to their advantage.

Good call Facebook, let the haters roar in their little hole, no more free PR.

~~~
kyro
I'm sure Facebook has been letting them roar in their little hole for some
time. It's techcrunch that's reopening the issue, which I don't quite
understand. Facebook is a rather small snapshot of the real world - a real
world where hundreds of thousands of Holocaust deniers exist. Removing this
insignificant subset from Facebook wouldn't do anything. I think Mike needs to
just settle with the realization that people with these opinions exist, and
will always exist, and have always existed.

------
tezza
It is a real shame that such an horrific event has become simply a football
concerning the merits of Free Speech

------
brl
This isn't only a free speech issue. Nazis are using social networking sites
to recruit, organize and build political strength.

In the current economic climate, the threat of white supremacist idiots being
able to pull their shit together is something to take seriously.

~~~
tptacek
There's a distinction to be drawn between espousing a worldview and organizing
direct action. We don't know what Facebook would do if confronted with
evidence that a violent group was organizing and energizing itself through
their service. All we have are people drawing lines of varying thicknesses and
curvatures between ideas, actors, and projections.

~~~
brl
Many right-wing extremist groups organize on Facebook. They organize camping
trips, rallies, birthday parties, and sometimes they even organize illegal
direct action.

I don't know if Facebook should step in or not because the profiles of these
groups are a goldmine of information about their activities. What I do believe
however is that any decision to let them continue existing on Facebook should
not be made on the basis of respecting their free speech or assembly rights.

~~~
tptacek
You clearly know more about this than I do. So, people tell Facebook, "these
people are organizing an attack on a grocer like in Romper Stomper", and
Facebook leaves them there?

~~~
brl
Mainly they use Facebook for organizing perfectly legal events, as well as
keeping in touch with other Nazis.

Regarding illegal activity, incitement would be a better way to describe what
I've seen than blatant organizing.

The loose cannons among them (of which there are plenty) also have a
propensity to use social networking sites for self-incrimination. Here's a guy
that uploaded pictures to Facebook of himself Nazi saluting in front of
worlds-lamest-hate-crime:

[http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/meet-richard-m...](http://anti-
racistcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/meet-richard-martin.html)

------
ilitirit
When it comes to living in a society, I believe in degrees of free speech
rather than absolute free speech. Sometimes tempered opinions lead to improved
social harmony. I don't see a problem in this case though, especially
considering the dozens of "hate" groups on Facebook.

