>With just its famous name and a savvy social-media strategy, the Anne Frank Center has transformed into a putative authority on anti-Semitism and American politics. But it’s not at all clear the organization speaks for anybody other than its own leaders—not Holocaust scholars, Anne Frank’s family, or the Jewish community. Ultimately, by politicizing Anne Frank, the group may undermine her legacy.
It is the same as if I started the Nikola Tesla Research Center (I have no connection to Tesla).
It seems like you could write any similar book about racism or sexism or any other form of persecution and argue how it corrupts the authentic struggles of that minority or group.
It is related, but fairly tangential to denying specific historic facts.
Just because they weren't commercially successful doesn't mean there weren't people who had then and used them.
The diary as originally presented to the public, was edited by Otto Frank: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/08/books/an-authenticated-ed...
I'm not sure I agree with this line, but perhaps I can be convinced. The way I see it, with all the world's information in everyone's pocket, blindly taking random social media posts at face value is what causes the harm.
I'm not sure how you inferred that I don't think that when that's pretty much what I directly implied, and that is what causes the harm - self imposed ignorance.
These affronts to freedom of expression are concerning. It's important to allow Holocaust deniers, Sandy hook deniers, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, Christian Scientists, flat earthers, etc to have a platform, for them and for us. You can't protected people from stupid ideas, and more and more we are just forcing these people into echo chambers.
Ideas need to see the light of day, especially bad ones. The more discourse and dialog (and not insults) we share, the more quickly misaligned beliefs will fade.
No, we can't protect folks from stupid ideas. But you can stop them from spreading as quickly and try to protect people against actively harmful ideas and ones whose very intention is to spread hate or harm or divisions in peoples.
Anti-vaxxers, for example. This is actively harmful to people. This group of folks can kill innocent folks simply by refusing to vaccinate. Christian scientists? There are reasons to suspicious of some science, sure, but these folks are using the "science" bit to try to make folks believe in religion and discredit actual science. Holocaust deniers? Racists or stupidity. The actual message doesn't matter - it is knowingly offensive to groups of people. Sandy hook deniers have harassed victims.
Flat earth can be a fun theoretical topic to discuss so long as everyone is of the understanding that the earth isn't actually flat. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.
As far as their echo chamber is concerned, they already have it. Having mainstream sources cater to their views just increases the echo chamber. We already know folks have it. It also makes it easier to recruit others into that echo chamber. We can't stop it, but we can surely make it more difficult to create one, make it more difficult to convince folks, and so on.
Denialism has already seen the light of day. Why must we enforce that it continues to see the light of day forever?
This implies that the marketplace of ideas optimizes for truth, which may not be the case.
>Why must we enforce that it continues to see the light of day forever?
Either it lives in the shadows forever, or the light of day forever, but it never goes away. With each succeeding generation as history becomes more abstract, denialism and revisionism becomes easier to justify and accept.
After all, why are there more people who believe the Moon landing was a hoax, now, than believed it when the event was recent, living memory? Because it's no more real to modern people than fiction.
The same effect applies to the Holocaust. History becomes myth, myth becomes farce. We forget the lessons of the past and we're doomed to repeat them. The only thing the suppression of shitty ideas does is make the wheel turn faster.
The process that decides what should be censored might easily be used to squash valuable and important minority dissent in the future.