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.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re:Steps from Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Steps from Fascism (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporations are government sponsored entities. They are granted, by government, their status and as such are tied to government. I would suggest that they are actually a public/private partnership because of that. In the same way, that an unpaid high school football coach is "government" and can't give a prayer before a game because of "establishment clause" is. In fact, I would suggest to you, that the ties are even closer in the case of Corporations.
Further, if government can force a privately held bakery to participate in a quasi religious ceremony, then by all means, the government can force corporations to adhere to OTHER First Amendment Rights. After all, we have established that personal ethos are overruled when they serve the public.
Welcome to the flip side of the coin.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations are government sponsored entities.
That's a little extreme. A corporation is largely a kind of tax shelter. If the tax shelter went away, the company itself would still be there, and people would still work together in a similar way, but finances would be tougher.
So it's not that the government sponsored the entity, but rather the entity existed and interfaces with the government through the corporation legal fiction. But companies would exist even without government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Holocaust were unimportant, we wouldn’t have around 20 countries on this planet outlawing its critical investigation. In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law. This is proof for the fact that the powers that be consider this topic to be the most important issue to keep under their strict control. Those censoring, suppressing powers are the real criminals—not the historical dissidents they send to prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely.
Oh yeah? So why is it that when the allies forced Germany to adopt laws restricting holocaust denial, we didn't institute the same kind of laws in our respective homes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for completely missing why these laws exist. They exist because the concern is that Holocaust denial will make similar atrocities in the future more likely.
What will make similar atrocities in the future more likely are people ceding to the government the right to control the teaching and study of history.
Re: (Score:3)
What are these quasi-anythings, and who is granting this status?
Corporate charters come from the government. Corporations get all sorts of special rules and benefits - perhaps the most dramatic being limited liability, where people can cause you harm and be limited in liability to just their investment in the corporation. If government were to vanish, so would corporations - they are entirely a construct of law. Compare this to older business arrangements like partnerships, which are based upon contracts between individuals, and in which the individuals bear full respon
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Good (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
Gandhi picked up salt off the beach. This was illegal. He did it because it was illegal.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
>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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
A corporation is not a human, corporations are not people. There are people who own a corporation - they ALREADY HAVE rights.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
why is multiculturalism a good thing? show me a single instance where it's actually been 'great'.
Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)
The entire history America and Canada.
Re: Good (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
My country ended the period of guest labourers with ~22k Moroccans and ~65k Turks. In 40 years that became around 400k each through family reunification, foreign brides and high fertility. From " not be a noticeable amount of people" to nearly 10% of the population in 40 years ...
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't that be /ss as in double sarcasm?
Otherwise you unironically said Turks and Moroccans are vibrant communities which enrich an European society ... which is just fucking retarded. By any objective metric they make the country worse for being here, their community is a net tax consumer, they have far higher levels of crime than the native population etc. To deny this requires far more mental gymnastics than denying AGW. Which in the end is only ever a theory extrapolated from evidence, while the crim
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Really ? You all speak Navajo there ?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Good (Score:3)
Hardcore bdsm porn on public tv at lunch time. You can't even say "shit" on TV
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not ignoring it. I just don't think it's so important that it makes a government different in kind for this purpose.
Democracy fails all the time.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Tyranies fail worse and a corporation is just a private tyranny
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Good (Score:2)
I said greatest not only.
Re: (Score:2)
and in the usa They could try the CEO in court with laws the can take away stuff like jury's and a right to an attorney or blacklist them from doing business in the USA.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ...
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed it should be illegal, but how is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre in any way hate speech? It's a really bad prank, not an expression of hate.
I would suggest something like defamation of character, where one can be sued for falsely impugning someone's character, and some jurisdictions even treat it as a criminal, not civil, matter.
Hypocracy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I disagree with any law inhibiting freedom of speech/expression 99.9999% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because 60% of my business comes from Fb contacts. Without it, I can't pay rent.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also been blocked for linking to off-site NSFW content. It's ludicrous!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the last one I was blocked for is perfectly acceptable if human eyes look it over. The only thing I can think of is that the clothing worn by the model is very close to her skin tone and Fb is simply using software to scan the images.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn it!
Censors are stupid (Score:2)
Re: Censors are stupid (Score:2)
That's funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Defending the right to speak for people you hate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
... told moderators to remove dehumanizing (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just tag it fake (Score:2)
Like Uber, Facebook won't follow law (Score:2)
facebook apparently puts its liberal anti semetic beliefs above all else.
This post was an emotional rollercoaster! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if one acknowledges the Holocaust, questioning the number killed is viewed can be viewed as denial. Number killed? 200K, 1 million, 2 million, 6 million, 12 million, ... What's the correct answer supported by solid evidence? Is one even allowed to question the number killed aspect in various countries that limit Holocaust denial speech?
That's interesting. I'd like to know in what context the laws are used that way. I would hope that a scholarly study, which said that maybe a million had been double counted, or that many more were killed without being logged would not be affected by the law, whereas someone shouting that there were only a handful killed with no evidence would be.
Re:no one should sensor free speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if facebook offered a set of filters
This.
The moderators should be labeling content (or parts thereof) that people can choose to filter. Or local laws can choose for me, if necessary. My TV set has this for sex and/or violence*. I'd also like to see options for hiding such content or displaying a 'redacted' label. So I know when I'm missing something (and why).
*I still can't figure out why setting the violence filter won't block NFL content. Or why there isn't even a blockable category for televangelist programming.