
Zuckerberg defends Facebook users' right to be wrong – even Holocaust deniers - pmoriarty
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/18/zuckerberg-facebook-holocaust-deniers-censorship
======
girvo
How will the media and society deal with these sorts of situations if
decentralised alternatives to these social media sites take off? There won’t
be any one place or person or company to blame, no? Did the media write about
email being used negatively when it was taking off? (That’s an honest
question, I’m too young and a cursory search didn’t turn up anything
interesting).

~~~
jetblackio
I think the distinction is "reach". Emails are generally directed to dozens,
maybe hundreds of individuals, whereas with modern social media, an individual
can reach millions of people. It begins to enter the realm of traditional
media organizations.

But unlike traditional media organizations, there are far fewer laws in place
regulating the responsibility that comes with that reach.

It is an interesting problem, and I'm not sure there is a good solution, other
than try to combat it head on with education (how to properly evaluate the
information you accept), and possibly PSAs.

~~~
rusk
It's also a matter of "endorsement" which is what Facebook tacitly does when
they they host this stuff.

You are free to say or feel whatever you want in your own living room, amongst
your friends, private function, your head, email, decentralised hate-sites or
even reddit or 4chan.

Precisely the problem with Facebook is that they are actively stirring the pot
to sell ads. They are making money off this stuff.

------
incadenza
I don’t consider his position controversial at all...

------
zaarn
I find it far more interesting on how other content is dealt with. From what I
can gather from the heise.de and this report, unless it's specifically against
ethnic or religious groups, it stays up. "dirty muslims" is not okay, "dirty
muslim immigrants" is. I fail to see the difference, in both cases the author
is going against a group of people based on attributes of that group.

I hope that we can get federated facebook alternatives off the ground, FB is
clearly not capable of solving these problems on their own without displeasing
everyone. Want to see these comments? Go to an instance that permits them.
Don't want to see them? Go to an instance that deletes them. Problem solved.

~~~
mac01021
> Want to see these comments? Go to an instance that permits them. Don't want
> to see them? Go to an instance that deletes them. Problem solved.

Maybe what people _really_ want is to be outraged...

~~~
zaarn
Then that can be their choice too.

------
hyperman1
The West European bans on holocaust denial must be seen in their historical
context.

After WWII, there was a massive backlash against german collaborators.
Everyone even slightly suspect of being pro german was at risk of being
looted, tortured or killed by their furious neighbours.

Mob rule had to be replaced by lawfull governement, and this required
appeasing the mob. Part of it were dishonest trials, a blind eye against some
revenges. A very small price to pay was forbidding the denial of the crimes
that the Nazis had done.

I am not proud of this part of our history but it was probably necessary.

However, we are a few generations further now and a lot of relevant people are
dead now. Maybe the time is ready to review this rule. Discussing this stuf is
especially important as we seem to remake some of the errors that led to the
war

~~~
doubletgl
The holocaust deniers certainly aren't dead. The denial is the one of the
early steps of facist subversion and should remain banned. It's time to review
the rule when nobody is denying it anymore.

~~~
reuben_scratton
Can't you see that censoring an idea will lead people who are simply curious
to think that there must be something in it, or else why would they ban it?

Far better that idiocy should be on public display where it can be mocked and
destroyed.

------
ddp
There is a perfectly good reason why it is against the law to deny the
Holocaust in Germany. Can anyone guess what it is?

~~~
noobhacker
I honestly don't know why it's better to ban denial rather than trying to
engage and educate. It's been very confusing to me. Could you please explain?

~~~
mns
The entire school system is based on how bad they were, how many bad things
they did and how how everyone in Germany should never repeat the same mistakes
again. Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit, but that's the general idea. I think
Germany was one of the only countries to actually deal, accept and discuss
openly in society the atrocities they did in WWII. So it's not just banning
and getting over denial.

~~~
DanielleMolloy
The german school system is not about indoctrination or assigning guilt.

The post war german generations were not teached that they are guilty, but
that they do carry responsibility for being aware of how easily facism and
dehumanisation happens and escalates, and of keeping the memory of such evil
present.

And yes, this includes the responsibility of being aware that similar things
may happen again, clearly detecting extremism by the root, calling it out and
hopefully averting it. Probably every country in the world should put such
emphasis in their history lessons, but nobody else ever _really_ will for
obvious reasons.

So this kind of became a responsibility of the people born in modern germany.
This is why it is _one_ possible Abitur topic in politics, history and german
lessons, why it is _one_ element of the curriculum in (3 to 4)+2 different
middle school years + Abitur (saxony speaking) and why there are high school
visits to concentration camps.

~~~
mns
I just wrote it in the most simplistic way, but your explanation is the more
accurate one.

