Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Communications Network Networking Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

How Facebook Flouts Holocaust Denial Laws Except Where It Fears Being Sued (theguardian.com) 310

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Facebook's policies on Holocaust denial will come under fresh scrutiny following the leak of documents that show moderators are being told not to remove this content in most of the countries where it is illegal. The files explain that moderators should take down Holocaust denial material in only four of the 14 countries where it is outlawed. One document says the company "does not welcome local law that stands as an obstacle to an open and connected world" and will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial messages and photographs if "we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk." A picture of a concentration camp with the caption "Never again Believe the Lies" was permissible if posted anywhere other than the four countries in which Facebook fears legal action, one document explains. Facebook contested the figures but declined to elaborate. Documents show Facebook has told moderators to remove dehumanizing speech or any "calls for violence" against refugees. Content "that says migrants should face a firing squad or compares them to animals, criminals or filth" also violate its guidelines. But it adds: "As a quasi-protected category, they will not have the full protections of our hate speech policy because we want to allow people to have broad discussions on migrants and immigration which is a hot topic in upcoming elections." The definitions are set out in training manuals provided by Facebook to the teams of moderators who review material that has been flagged by users of the social media service. The documents explain the rules and guidelines the company applies to hate speech and "locally illegal content," with particular reference to Holocaust denial. One 16-page training manual explains Facebook will only hide or remove Holocaust denial content in four countries -- France, Germany, Israel and Austria. The document says this is not on grounds of taste, but because the company fears it might get sued.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Facebook Flouts Holocaust Denial Laws Except Where It Fears Being Sued

Comments Filter:
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:03AM (#54483511) Homepage
    These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.
    • On the other hand, Facebook is not a government, nor does it have a "common carrier" type status. If they don't want hate speech on their network it is their prerogative.

      • Steps from Fascism (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yes and no. When the corporations control speech, were are merely a few steps from fascism. Any two of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple have the ability to control the political narrative anywhere in the western world.

        • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:54AM (#54483829)

          I sort-of agree. Corporations are quasi-governmental... their structure is only possible because of a government-granted charter. And as a practical matter, they hold a lot of sway in government.

          With that said, while Facebook has a lot of sway, so does the NY Times, Fox News, and the BBC. They certainly do not hold a monopoly on information.

      • They are almost certainly doing this because they think it limits their moderation costs and liabilities.

        They also have no responsibility to fight anyone else's battles.

        • They also have no responsibility to fight anyone else's battles.

          Sure they do. In the same way that government can force a bakery to sell cakes to people the bakery doesn't want to. They are both 1st Amendment causes.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:15AM (#54483567)

      I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,
      The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.
      If the people of those countries feel those laws are bad, they can - through the democratic process - try to change the law. If Facebook believes those laws are bad - it can try to encourage people to use the democratic process to change the law.
      But it sure as hell should not get to flaunt a law, that is on the books, while it is on the books.

      There is no situation where we should allow corporations to get away with a policy of "we'll ignore the law unless we can't get away with it".

      Yes, in a democracy there is a place for civil disobedience and sometimes that's crucial form of protest against bad laws. But that privilege belongs ONLY to real citizens, not funny made up ones like corporations - and ESPECIALLY not when those funny made up beings aren't EVEN citizens of the country but foreigners just doing business there.
      I think banning alcohol is an evil law - but I sure as hell will refrain from drinking in Saudi Arabia. I, as a foreigner, cannot claim to be engaging in civil disobedience when I break the law in a country where I am a visitor - even if I'm there on business. And that's for me, an actual human being. A corporation MUST have lesser rights because it's NOT a person.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:46AM (#54483779) Homepage
        So, that's a really valid point: I've in fact expressed similar concerns before about people applauding Uber breaking the rules. And the point about corporations has some validity as well (although the distinction isn't as clear cut as one would like- at the end of the day corporations are composed of individual people acting as a whole). But I suspect that there would be a point where even you would think a corporation breaking a law might be a good thing. For example, what if it is 1955 in a specific US state and there's a law forcing segregation and restaurant refuses to have separate sections for blacks and whites? Or what if a corporation right now with the cooperation of archeologists and museum professionals helps smuggle out artifacts from ISIS controlled areas? Etc. At a certain point, the concerns and rights involved will override the local legal framework. The question then becomes when and how do we tell?
        • Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)

          by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:09AM (#54483931)

          As a general rule: does the behaviour make or cost the company money. If a company is not willing to lose money for a cause its not acting on any principal beyond personal gain.
          The best you can then hope for is that whatever nobel goal you are pursuing continous to align with their revenue goals. Hardly a reliable alliance.

      • Re: Good (Score:4, Interesting)

        by A. B3ttik ( 1344591 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:55AM (#54483835)
        So you believe that ISPs and tech manufacturerers should bend the knee and install backdoors when requested by the NSA/CIA/FBI/KGB? There is an article about the UK looking to legislate required backdoors for authorities to use, spurred on by the Manchester attack. I believe Corporations can and should partake in "civil disobedience" in these cases and stand up for their customers.
        • They can and will - and if a corporation is 'standing up for it's customers' it's only because it's more profitable to do so (or they believe it will be) than to comply.

          You can't rely on corporate good will - there is no such thing.

          And hoping your interests will remain aligned with theirs is ... well let's just say you're hoping on something very, very unreliable.

          • Horseshit again. Let me elaborate: google left china because it wouldn't sensor its search results to Chinese censorship laws anymore, effectively allowing the stratospheric rise of Baidu. Your assumption that corporations are ONlY profit driven is wrong. In fact, it is a law that corporations MUST BE profit driven, otherwise shareholders have right to sue the management. Shareholders who take control of a company by purchasing a majority share have a Shareholder Fiduciary Duty to the minority shareholders

        • So you believe that ISPs and tech manufacturerers should bend the knee and install backdoors when requested by the NSA/CIA/FBI/KGB?

          You don't need to break the law to protest. If Gmail, Facetime, FB Messenger, etc went offline in the UK on the day the government required encryption backdoors, that would send a pretty friggin strong message without breaking the law (a bigger message than if they just disobeyed the law and kept their encryption in place).

      • Gandhi picked up salt off the beach. This was illegal. He did it because it was illegal.

        • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

          by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:42AM (#54484185)

          Ghandi was a person, not a corporation. The right to protest is a human right. A right humans have (whether or not the law acknowledges this right). Corporations re not humans and do not have human rights.

          • Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)

            by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @11:19AM (#54485007)

            Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights. Just like countries have humans and should have rights. Just because the humans group together and colllectively cooperate doesn't deviod them of anything.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              >Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights.
              Bullshit. The humans in them already HAVE the rights. At best your arguing for letting some people double-dip and get twice the rights everybody else does.

              >Just because the humans group together and colllectively cooperate doesn't deviod them of anything.
              Nobody IS devoiding them of anything, we're just not allowing them to double-dip and demand double-rights. Every share holder in a corporation already has all the human rights, there is no rea

              • Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)

                by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday May 25, 2017 @03:32PM (#54486977) Journal

                >Corporations have humans and therefore should have rights. Bullshit. The humans in them already HAVE the rights. At best your arguing for letting some people double-dip and get twice the rights everybody else does.

                I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Let's make it more concrete by picking one important right: Speech.

                Are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights themselves, but when corporations speak it's actually the speech of the people who collectively make up the corporation, and those people have the right of free speech? If so, how is this not a distinction without a difference? In this view any time a corporation wishes to speak it may do so, with full protection of the constitutional right of free speech, because it is actually exercising the rights of the employees (or at least the leaders).

                Or, are you saying that corporations don't have free speech rights at all, that the people in the corporation may speak as individuals, but do not have free speech rights when they speak through the company? If so, does this mean that employees of corporations may be silenced by the government when they're speaking in an official capacity? How official does it have to be? And wouldn't this mean that a newspaper article written by an employee of the newspaper corporation would not enjoy free speech rights, and could be silenced by the government?

                These aren't idle questions, or sophistry. They're pretty deep issues and are exactly the sort of thing that prompted courts to decide that corporations do have rights, because it's too hard to disentangle the rights of the corporation from the rights of the people in the corporation. It seems impossible to grant the employees and shareholders their rights in full measure without effectively giving the corporation exactly the same rights.

                • Actually no, that's not what I'm saying.
                  The people who own a corporation have free speech - the corporation shouldn't. It should be a crime if a corporation ever makes any false claims. False advertising should mean CEO in jail for fraud. We're way too lax on fraud by corporations as it is because of the ridiculous notion that THEY have rights.

                  If a company claims something about their product that cannot be verified by scientific testing, or represents scientific results in a misleading way - that should be

      • by Jawnn ( 445279 )

        I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration, The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.

        This. A thousand times, this! "Citizens United" notwithstanding, corporations are not people, and certainly not citizens. They should exist only as construct that is explicitly and implicitly subordinate to government and the citizens that the government exists to serve.

        • Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)

          by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:54AM (#54484279) Journal

          Corporations are "people*" in as much as the law defines them as such. This is the problem Liberals have with laws, they don't like. Don't like the law, change it. We do live in a democratic republic, and have the means to change the law.

          Citiizens United was a valid ruling because the law is clear on this subject. Just because you don't like the corporate "personhood" definition, written in the law, doesn't mean it is not valid.

          *The law actually doesn't call them "person" they call it "legal entity", with certain rights granted as a "legal entity". Those rights mirror citizens or people in general. Knowing WHY Citizen's United exists as a court decision is helpful in changing the laws that define corporate rights.

      • Re: Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:03AM (#54483889)

        I must dissagree with you - and state categorically that whether the laws are good or not is not a relevant consideration,

        Yes it is. Remember Rosa Parks? Remember the American war for Independance? Those were against the laws of the time. Sometimes bad laws make it through because not all govornments are ruled through democratic or republic means, and can become corrupt, and act against the best interests of the govorned.

        The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.

        Really? Not backwards religious ideologies who decapitate and murder now probably close to a million people in the northern mid-east and Africa? Not Russia backing despots who chemically attack their own citizenry who disagree with their governance? Not the dictator who launches ICBMs in preparation for mounting a warhead on it? Seriously? You think Facebook taking pictures on and off its own site is " single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world"?

        If the people of those countries feel those laws are bad, they can - through the democratic process - try to change the law. If Facebook believes those laws are bad - it can try to encourage people to use the democratic process to change the law.

        Ah but not all countries are democratic, and not all protest can be done lawfully, especially when those forms of protest themselves are banned. See my comments above.

        But it sure as hell should not get to flaunt a law, that is on the books, while it is on the books.

        Sure it should. It's a powerful corporation with an army of lawyers and tons of outreach. If anyone should be standing up for the little guy against their oppressive govornments who try to write mind-control (which is what barring holocaust denying is) into law, it should be powerful organizations like Facebook though its audience and reach.

        There is no situation where we should allow corporations to get away with a policy of "we'll ignore the law unless we can't get away with it".

        Every one of the weed growing businesses, even for medical use is illegal under federal law, even though their state govornments deems them legal. They help millions of sufferers of chronic illness lead a life slightly less painful. You see it's not as simple and cut and dry as it seems. Govornments, like organizations are run by people, and there are some situations where they do good, and some where they don't. Ultimately we have to use our critical thinking skills, rather than make carte-blanche statements like that. They don't always apply and sometimes we don't want them to.

        Yes, in a democracy there is a place for civil disobedience and sometimes that's crucial form of protest against bad laws. But that privilege belongs ONLY to real citizens, not funny made up ones like corporations - and ESPECIALLY not when those funny made up beings aren't EVEN citizens of the country but foreigners just doing business there.

        Facebook has corporations established in most if not all countries they do business in, which helps them have local customers and such. Either way, corporations are just groups of people too, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. So is govornment. Get off your high horse. There are evil people, corporations, and govornments. All are "REAL".

        I think banning alcohol is an evil law - but I sure as hell will refrain from drinking in Saudi Arabia. I, as a foreigner, cannot claim to be engaging in civil disobedience when I break the law in a country where I am a visitor - even if I'm there on business.

        So just to be clear, you are against the companies (both foreign and domestically headquartered) that violated segregation laws in the US and apartheid laws in South Africa? Got it.

        And tha

        • Re: Good (Score:4, Interesting)

          by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:45AM (#54484213)

          Every single country in the world where holocaust denial is a crime is a liberal democracy - so pretty much your entire post is nothing but strawmen.

          And every one of those nice legitimate forms of civil disobedience you listed as if I hadn't spent a paragraph addressing the issue were people acting, corporations are NOT people.

          And in this case the corporation is not even a citizen of the country - it's a foreign company. It has absolutely no stake in the future wellbeing of that country, it would hapilly cause a civil war if it would make the company more profitable since nobody at the company would experience any of the downsides.
          It is therefore, doubly precluded from a legitimate right to protest as it has absolutely no skin in the game.

          • Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)

            by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @11:17AM (#54484997)

            Corporations absolutely have skin in the game, and "nationalize" by incorporating in various countries. Corporations have profited by war, so yes, but much more has been destroyed than created. I picked your argument apart, including that corporations should have rights "because they aren't people", as if it's the steel and concrete making the choices and not people.

            No sir. Your argument is that corporations shouldn't have rights because they dont have any values is utterly horseshit. Hobby Lobby is a giant corporation with a strong connection to evangelical causes and beliefs. I don't agree with them, but it's a clear example of corporations standing by principles other than profit.

      • If you want a nation with inhabitants and corporations which internalize morality and respect their nation's laws, then you don't want globalism.

        Globalism and multiculturalism create mercenary corporations, all the law can do is create a maze for them to optimize their a-moral profit chasing behaviour around ... which doesn't necessarily mean obeying the law.

        • You're conflating two issues globalism and multiculturalism which have less than fuck-all to do with each other.

          Multiculturalism is a great thing, globalism has a crapload of downsides (you correctly identify one) but the two are not similar, not related, and not in any way the same thing.

          • why is multiculturalism a good thing? show me a single instance where it's actually been 'great'.

            • Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)

              by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @10:45AM (#54484715)

              The entire history America and Canada.

              • Without multiculturalism every country on earth is doomed to a civil war forever.

                But if you truly oppose it I suggest you give your property to an apache family and get your ass back to whatever country your ancestors came from.

              • Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)

                by rogoshen1 ( 2922505 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @11:42AM (#54485225)

                Yes, tons of western and northern Europeans move to a new area ... and within a few generations are virtually indistinguishable from the population at large.

                Perfect example, thank you.

      • Sorry, I will never acknowledge the sovereignty of any entity that tells me what I can and cannot think, believe, or read. Certainly, what you posit is the classic proof as to why democracy is a terminally flawed system. The mob always wishes to censor the truth and persecute those who challenge their complacency and unnatural ideas. So it has been since the Death of Socrates.

        • Do you live in one of those countries ?
          If not, then you are unaffected by these laws and you, in fact, are the one trying to impose your will onto other people and dictate what THEY are allowed to think.

          If you are, then use the democratic process to try and convince people to change the law.

          And while democracy has it's flaws, every other system is even worse.

      • If the people of those countries feel those laws are bad, they can - through the democratic process - try to change the law

        If there's no free speech, then there's no democratic process.

        • Banning one, very specific, type of speech does not mean "there is no free speech".

          You've taken the slippery slope fallacy to a whole new level by not just assuming that any reduction must lead to absolute loss of a right, but that it must have already happened.
          Basically you took a stupid argument, and made it stupider.

          In reality, most of these countries have rather MORE free speech than America does.

          • In reality, most of these countries have rather MORE free speech than America does.

            Oh yeah? I'd like to see how you figure that.

            • Hardcore bdsm porn on public tv at lunch time. You can't even say "shit" on TV

              • No, you're confused. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean, and will never mean, "I can say whatever I want wherever I want." You personally will probably never have a chance to say much on television, but that doesn't mean you don't have free speech.
                • So now you're arguing that free speech can be legitimately limited in some senses - after arguing that even a single, narrow limitation meant people "had no free speech".

                  You're not much for consistency, are you ?

          • You've taken the slippery slope fallacy to a whole new level by not just assuming that any reduction must lead to absolute loss of a right,

            There is no place in the world ever in history that had absolute loss of freedom of speech. Even in the Soviet Union, people had freedom of speech until they wanted to say something that was forbidden.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hizonner ( 38491 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @10:16AM (#54484471)

        But governments and laws (and "nations") are artificial constructs, too, just like corporations are.

        Let's raise the stakes a bit on drinking alcohol in Saudi Arabia, OK?

        Say I went to Saudi Arabia, and I somehow managed to run into a young woman who was, say, trying to escape from her family and get out of the country to avoid an arranged marriage, or avoid being beaten to death because she was a lesbian, or whatever. Well, then I damned well hope I'd have the courage and wherewithal to help her.

        That would be a direct violation of Saudi law; I think they'd treat it as equivalent to kidnapping. Nonetheless, it would be the right thing to do.

        ... because Saudi Arabia and Saudi law are phantoms, just like corporations, whereas that hypothetical young woman would be a real person. Her claim to control her own life would be independent of law, and independent of the opinions of people who happen to live near her.

        The idea that an arbitrarily chosen group of millions of people who can't know each other get to tell each other what to do, while the views of millions of other people don't count, and the views of the tell-ee don't count either, is very hard to defend from an ethical point of view, especially when what they're demanding is egregious. I don't forfeit the right to notice abuse, or escape the duty to notice it, just because I come from the wrong side of a line somebody drew on a map.

        It's a mistake to treat corporations as artificial without recognizing that political units are equally so. Maybe we have to compromise sometimes and let these abstractions exist, but that is a pragmatic choice, and we can't just close our eyes to everything else from then on.

        There's another issue, too: at the point we arrive in this story, corporations have already been set up as arbiters of what actual human beings can say. Not only that, but corporations have been institutionalized as probably the major way for large groups of human beings to coordinate their actions.

        That may be bad. It's probably bad. You could probably sell me on making some huge changes to it, but it's the institutional structure we have. And corporations are already creations of government.

        If you demand that corporations, or the real people employed by corporations, act exclusively according to the rules the government dictates, you deprive actual humans of one of the most important ways they have of acting together. Basically you bring the options that much closer to being only to "if you don't like this, go vote".

        Not only is government just as artificial as corporations, but just as easy to corrupt. Democracy isn't a guarantee of justice, it's just a least-worst approach.

        • You're ignoring one key difference between a democracy and a corporation.
          In a democracy - all the citizens get to vote.

          In a corporation - only the shareholders get to vote, the people who work there, they get no control over the corporations' political activities. Indeed we frequently see corporations lobbying for laws that will harm their own workers.

      • The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is

        You can stop right there because whatever follows betrays your bias. What probably comes to most people's minds: Apathetic populace? Overly ambitious leaders? Totalitarian governments? Ecological disasters? Nope, you only care about

        corporations

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:15AM (#54483569)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • But then there's the problem, who do you call a Nazi to justify who you advocate use of violence against? How far are you willing to push that line in the bus? Communists have the habit of pushing that line quite far as well ...

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's ironic that most of the people screaming "muh freedum of speech!" are also the ones demanding that Muslims be heavily censored, and not even allowed into their countries because they are so dangerous.

      • I think there's a strong case for Nazi advocacy to be heavily restricted, and in many cases banned outright, and I think the opposing case is particularly weak in this instance.

        Banning a bad idea is the surest way to perpetuate it.

      • I think there's a strong case for Nazi advocacy to be heavily restricted, and in many cases banned outright, and I think the opposing case is particularly weak in this instance.

        The problem you're missing is essentially "who will bell the cat?" We like banning Holocaust deniers because they're liars and so on. But the issue is whether a government gets to define lying. Turkey bans groups who claim the Armenian genocide is real. That's the Turkish gov'ts definition of "lying." You in favor of that too?

    • I understand the reason, but the fact that they don't block until someone tries to post still means they are still acquiring intelligence. From what I understand, Facebook still logs all input even if not posted, so I'm sure they would hand this over to whatever government that requests it.

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xanthines-R-yummy ( 635710 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:33AM (#54483707) Homepage Journal

      I would also add that aggressive censoring potentially leads to conspiracy theories, thereby strengthening the original hate message.

      Hate speech is not a technical problem. It's a social problem.

      Just my $00.02, anyway...

    • While I am against censoring any points of views, as the act of censoring it, will often just give the conspiracy nuts fodder to show that they are on the right track. We do need some methods to keep, false, untrue, misinformed, and faked information from propagating. If a lie is said enough times, people will begin to believe it. Social media is a perfect method of being able to repeat false hoods. so misinformed data gets equal weight as informed information. Generally confusing the masses.
      While ther

      • We do need some methods to keep, false, untrue, misinformed, and faked information from propagating.

        I'm curious - who do you think should get to decide what is "false, untrue, misinformed, and fakes information"?

        And whatever leads you to think that whomever you chose to make those decisions will always do as intended? As opposed, to letting, say, their own opinions replace the truth?

        Myself, I've always been in favour of Free Speech, and don't really want to replace it with a Board of Censorship (operatin

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @09:18AM (#54484003)

      These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.

      I agree with you, but not because of the slippery slope argument. To most rational people Holocaust denial is reprehensible and the evidence of the Holocaust in undeniable. But for the small subset of people that are likely to believe in denialism, censoring it might actually make them want to search out denialism even more. In their mind, the fact that the government is trying to stamp it out and suppress it adds legitimacy to the "theory", because why would they try to hide it if it weren't true or if they weren't threatened by it? Of course, this applies mostly to the followers of denialism, not those purporting it for political gain and who most likely know it's a crock of shit. Crazy ideas like this have to be out in the open where they can be challenged and refuted. Sure, you most likely aren't going to sway very many people that believe in those crazy ideas, but if you push those ideas into the shadows then it allows the believers to stay in their own bubble, feed off each other, and make the problem even worse.

    • These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things.

      That aside, these laws are a bad thing because what is it that makes the holocaust special amongst genocides that it gets its own laws and day and everything? It didn't have the highest body count, it wasn't the most recent, it wasn't the most violent or brutal it wasn't the most anything. It might have a hat in the ring for most efficient but that's about it, best name maybe? No one will argue, genocide is a terrible, terrible thing regardless but why is the holocaust special among them. No doubt I'll get

  • Hypocracy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tinfoil ( 109794 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:17AM (#54483585) Homepage Journal

    I am a photographer and I am on my second account and 7th temporary post block on Fb for content that allegedly doesn't follow facebook guidelines (the model is wearing flesh(ish?) coloured clothing I guess? I mean.. I guess... boobs can be freaking dangerous, yo.

    But oh HELL no, Fb is fiiiiiine with Holocaust denial, and they will even allow it in most countries where it is illegal unless Fb senses a real risk to their advertising dollar.

    Utter cocks.

    • by Tinfoil ( 109794 )

      That said, I disagree with any law inhibiting freedom of speech/expression 99.9999% of the time.

    • Why would you post content to a site that doesn't want you? Seems weird.
      • by Tinfoil ( 109794 )

        Because, according to human eyes the last picture that I was blocked for was perfectly within Facebook community guidelines, yet some reason still triggers the software porn scanners I suppose?

        • OK, but why would you create a second account? It is like the abused wife who keeps coming back.
          • by Tinfoil ( 109794 )

            Because 60% of my business comes from Fb contacts. Without it, I can't pay rent.

            • by PPH ( 736903 )

              You can't post a link on your Facebook page to invite potential customers to your Deviant Art* account?

              *Just used that as an example of a site where some boobage won't get you TOS'd off.

            • Time to diversify, but yeah that sucks.
    • It's trite but true, but "Two wrongs don't make a right".

      We shouldn't accept more violations because some are in place - we should work to push back those that are already a problem.

      I don't get it - Twitter has no problem allowing "adult" content and there's no huge backlash. If you don't want to see that content don't follow that account. Facebook shouldn't be practicing any form of censorship.

      And yes, I completely understand that as a private entity they have no LEGAL requirement to allow free speech, h

  • It is stupid to censor things like this. It makes it much easier to identify the idiots and the people to avoid. I'd rather know that some guy is a denier, so I can ostracize him.
    • Agreed. The truth is out there regarding UFO's is ok to be discussed, posted about etc. But the truth about the Holocaust isn't (strong evidence it didn't go down the way the Yanks said it did)
  • That's funny... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:21AM (#54483623)
    Isn't that how businesses operate — get away with as much as possible and pull back when a lawsuit becomes inevitable?
    • it gets worse than that. lots of multi-billion dollar corporations will knowingly break the law if the profit margin is high enough, even though they know they will be sued or fined by the government, its in the math, if they can make 10 billion in profits and only be sued or fined for a couple of million, they consider it the cost of doing business,. they are amoral when it comes to laws
  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Thursday May 25, 2017 @08:31AM (#54483697)
    Defending the right to free speech means defending that right even for people you despise and disagree with in every way. Because it is the only way to guarantee your right to speak to oppose them. Also remember, that your right to free speech can't be used to take away theirs. You can't go to some else's speech and scream at them to drown them out and call it your right to free speech.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yet the constitution forces bakers to bake cakes they don't agree with.

        Which one is it? Companies must follow the constitution, or they must not?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yes, it does. It stops the government for retaliating against Facebook.

        You seem to think you're in the other argument that we usually have, "corporation arbitrarily decides to censor someone." You'd be wrong in that argument, too (The amendment enacts the principle. The amendment doesn't circumscribe or limit the principle. You're attacking a straw man.). But it's not the one we're having today.

      • Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.

        The right to free speech is considered a human right and blathering about the First Amendment as if the United States were the only nation to at least pay lip service to this human right is obtuse at best. Human rights must be aggressively defended because they are not natural rights; there is no such thing. If we want to have rights, we must defend them both for ourselves and for those with whom we do not agree or else we are giving up our right to them in the only way in which matters: decreasing protecti

    • Facebook has told moderators to remove dehumanizing speech

      Does not smell like defending of free speech to me. They are defending whatever side of the fence they are on at the moment by censoring any dissenting views. I suspect they used full-on censorship to affect US elections.

    • by WDot ( 1286728 )
      But but "Free Speech" can only apply to a specific government limitation, not a general cultural value where ideas can be freely discussed! True free speech means that corporations and mobs can bully people into silence with impunity, shutting down all but only the most mainstream ideas (as long as the government stays on the sidelines)!
  • I can see why it shouldn't be removed, because it's not inciting violence. However, isn't this the kind of stuff that should fall under the "fake news" category, or similar? Nothing wrong with tagging it as "fake", "incorrect", "urban legend", "failed fact check", etc., and including a link to some reliable material that debunks it.
  • facebook apparently puts its liberal anti semetic beliefs above all else.

  • At first I was all like "Wow, surprisingly facebook is standing up for free speech! They are opposing authoritarian laws in other countries!" And then i was all like "Oh, they'll stop tho if they are threatened legally or the country will cut off access to facebook" and then i was like "Oh wait, they are still restricting free speech, just along their own content guidelines, making them no better than the countries who's laws they disobey"

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...