
Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row - parvenu74
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44883743
======
headcanon
I think the line he is trying to draw is this:

Scenario 1: I am a facebook user that wants to say something that people find
offensive. I may write or share an article I found online to "support" my
views. This is allowed under the idea of Free Speech.

Scenario 2: I am some entity that wants to generate controversy and
polarization by gaming recommendation algorithms, and thus flood the space of
discourse with offensive material. I don't care about the material itself less
so than the vitriol and outrage. AKA "Fake News". This is what they want to
ban.

What trolls have done is essentially "hacked" the idea of Free Speech. The
original idea behind Free speech was that people would at the very least
earnestly believe what they were saying, or at the very least were engaging in
satire. Trolling is satire on a whole new level, and it does seem truly
difficult to separate the two without being too draconian.

------
JohnBerea
> Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC:
> "Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide
> distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager."

It's a strange world when the "antifascists" want control of speech.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Used to be, hate speech got disseminated slowly because of the resistance of
the crowd to repeating it. But give one guy a machine-gun message-spreading
website, that's a whole new world.

Free-to-speak is one thing; free to distribute hate speech by electronic means
to billions of people in seconds is another.

Its a game these days, to pretend one thing is the same as another _even
though they are massively different_.

~~~
candiodari
Translation: you can speak freely, as long as you aren't _heard_.

Used to be conspiracy theory, now actual basis for action of an actual
political force.

Sad times.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Again the conflation of two unrelated things, because they share a trivial
detail.

Speaking freely in your home, or a public place, or even on a TV station, are
so different from spreading fake news via internet bots etc as to be different
things. Its about the coefficient of 'being heard' which has an infinite set
of values between 0 (aren't heard) and 1 (the whole world sees it in seconds).

The coefficient gets too large, and drastic changes in group behavior can
occur. Undesirable changes.

We can study these things with science, and understand where the coefficients
should lie, without shouting 'freedom of speech!' into the wind to shut down
conversation.

------
tribune
To be clear, he said that the words of Holocaust deniers are allowed on
Facebook. I guess what you think shouldn't be allowed on Facebook depends on
what your definition of free speech is (if you accept that Facebook should
allow free speech).

He also added: _" I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I
don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there
are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're
intentionally getting it wrong._

That strikes me as naïve. Some, no doubt, are intentionally getting it wrong.
Others have their heads so deep in the conspiracy sand that no polite
discourse on Facebook is going to resolve it. Either way, this doesn't seem
like a huge deal. Zuck says Facebook allows freedom of speech, even in muddy
waters.

------
brink
While I do take a strong stance against flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers,
etc.. I can sympathize with Zuckerberg here a little bit, because just banning
Holocaust deniers is on a big slippery slope, that could lead to larger issues
like "Do we ban religious speak against homosexuality due to instruction from
an invisible man in the sky?" since we only deal in materialistic fact here
and all controversial opinions are unwelcome. Where do we draw the line?

------
hart_russell
Ethics vs free speech. A company whose bottom line relies on ad dollars should
probably lean towards ethics.

~~~
Najda
How do you draw the line of what crosses the boundary too far and needs to be
taken down though? Ethics are not absolute and change from country to country
while Facebook is a global platform.

------
lolsal
I don't run a huge company or have any influence whatsoever, so I am probably
being very naive - but I believe the Holocaust happened and if I were in his
position I would not remove Denier rhetoric either.

~~~
staticautomatic
Why not?

~~~
lolsal
I believe in free speech whether or not I believe with what is being spoken.

~~~
mullingitover
Would you post other people's hate speech on your own web site? By your
reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech.

Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate
speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense.

~~~
lolsal
> Would you post other people's hate speech on your own web site?

No, but if I was running a social-oriented platform, they could post it
themselves.

> By your reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech.

Not really, since I'm not a government. The user doesn't have a right to free
speech on my platform, so I'm not denying them a right.

> Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's
> hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory
> nonsense.

Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing to
respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to.

~~~
mullingitover
> Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing
> to respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to.

He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's
personally endorsing the stuff that stays up. If FB was an uncensored platform
it'd be another story, but it's not.

~~~
lolsal
> He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's
> personally endorsing the stuff that stays up.

I have a suspicion that policing a social network with billions of users and
keeping on top of trolls, bots and spam make it a _little_ more complicated
than 'if it stays up he personally endorses it'. This is a false dichotomy,
there is a middle ground.

~~~
mullingitover
You ever notice that Facebook isn't known for hosting child pornography? It's
because they police their platform effectively, and things that they don't
want on their platform are quickly removed.

They are very effective at policing their platform, full stop. The stuff
that's on there is the stuff they've decided they want to host and share with
the world, including holocaust denialism.

~~~
adamrezich
Yes because in the United States, child pornography is illegal, and Holocaust
denial isn't.

~~~
mullingitover
You're notably not fighting my point that Facebook has total control over
their platform. Thus it follows that Facebook implicitly endorses Holocaust
denialism. If they didn't, they could remove it.

~~~
lolsal
> You're notably not fighting my point that Facebook has total control over
> their platform.

I don't think anyone is. It's their platform, they can do whatever they want
with it. Facebook access is not an unalienable human right.

> Thus it follows that Facebook implicitly endorses Holocaust denialism. If
> they didn't, they could remove it.

They can allow something on their platform without endorsing it. Permitting
something and endorsing it are _absolutely not synonymous_.

~~~
mullingitover
> They can allow something on their platform without endorsing it. Permitting
> something and endorsing it are absolutely not synonymous.

Hey guys, I'm not endorsing the extermination of muslims in Myanmar, I just
have a bunch of signs up in my yard with messages from people who want them
dead. Permitting anti-muslim propaganda in my front yard and endorsing it are
_absolutely not synonymous._

~~~
lolsal
You putting signs in your front yard is not the same as people posting content
on a free service, hopefully you see that. Either way, I don't think you're
really interested in discussing this, so I'm done with you. Have a good day.

~~~
mullingitover
It's not a "free service," Facebook is spending vast sums of money to operate
their site. They're spending non-zero sums of money distributing people's pro-
Nazi holocaust denial propaganda. Unlike the government, there's no law
stopping them from taking this garbage down.

------
theseatoms
Publisher vs Platform. They're still trying to have it both ways.

------
jimnotgym
Zuckerberg demonstrates an alarming tendency to appear inhuman sometimes.

------
AdmiralAsshat
> "I'm Jewish and there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust
> happened," he told reporter Kara Swisher.

"BARBARA. Sorry, I'm sure. By the way, papa, what is your religion--in case I
have to introduce you again?

UNDERSHAFT. My religion? Well, my dear, I am a Millionaire. That is my
religion."

\- Major Barbara [0]

[0][http://www.fullbooks.com/MAJOR-
BARBARA1.html](http://www.fullbooks.com/MAJOR-BARBARA1.html)

