Twitter, Like Facebook, To Remove Posts Denying the Holocaust (bloomberg.com) 300
Two days after Facebook announced that it would block posts that deny the Holocaust, Twitter decided to do the same. Bloomberg reports: Twitter's policy doesn't explicitly state that denying violent events is against the rules, but the spokeswoman confirmed that "attempts to deny or diminish" violent events, including the Holocaust, would be removed based on the company's interpretation of the policy. "We strongly condemn anti-semitism, and hateful conduct has absolutely no place on our service," she said in a statement. "We also have a robust 'glorification of violence' policy in place and take action against content that glorifies or praises historical acts of violence and genocide, including the Holocaust."
Elephant in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/... [nypost.com]
https://twitter.com/SohrabAhma... [twitter.com]
This is a Big Tech information coup. This is digital civil war.
I, an editor at The New York Post, one of the nation’s largest papers by circulation, can’t post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major-party presidential candidate, Biden.
Told you so months ago:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
If they thought [they] could get away with it, the social tech giants would just make their policy the same as the crazy knitting forum:
https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump [ravelry.com]
New Policy: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration
The goal is simply to get as close to that policy as possible through ever broader and vaguer (and selectively-enforced) TOS language and obstructionism like this. It'll get much worse the closer we get to the election (like it already has).
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the problem. Once you appoint a gatekeeper of truth first they're deleting flat earthers and vaccine hoaxes then they're deleting offensive or misleading claims and before you know it they're wading into political waters being the judge jury and executioner over stuff a sane reasonable person can't honestly deny reasonable people can disagree over. It just grows and grows by degree. Even if the megacorps didn't want it to get to this point which frankly they seem like they did, its a constant ratcheting pressure to do more and more once you 'solve' the last problem and the baying mob needs another target to focus its attention on.
Uh, when the "gatekeeper of truth" turns out to be social media, the problem isn't that tool. The problem, is the tools using it who were dumb enough to define the worlds largest rumor mill as a "gatekeeper of truth" when we should have kept social media in the entertainment category it belongs in.
The only thing that "grows and grows" among the masses, is ignorance. And now Free Speech is at deaths door, all because we placated to stupidity instead of intelligence and wisdom. We live in a world ruled by narcissism now. It was pretty damn easy to fix stupid. Ignore it. Too much to ignore now. They're on every news channel and on every campus, because we value it so.
Re: (Score:3)
QAnon would not be disrupting our society and elections right now.
When bullshit is not treated like true facts and is called censorship, we are in real trouble.
When ones opinion is based on bullshit, it should be called out and it does NOT have equal weight against other opinions.
There is difference of opinions based upon the facts. And then there is difference of opinions because one side is basing their opinion on bullshit.
I was listening to Amy Barrets confirmation hearing yesterday and a REPU
Re: (Score:3)
Every platform ever has had some limits and they all seem to have done just fine, as have we. Even 8chan had some rules beyond what is legal.
And anyway your slippery slope fallacy is obviously disproven by the law you think platforms should stick to. If it was true then the law itself would be subject to it as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you joking or do you actually believe that speech cannot be used to spread ignorance and therefore curbing speech is bad?
Are you joking or do you actually believe that intelligent humans share your same belief that Free Speech is bad, because ignorant people exist?
Next thing you'll be trying to tell me is you have a solid legal definition of "hate" that will be accepted among the intelligent masses too.
Perhaps we should start requiring adult humans to use their brain for more than a hat rack, so we don't have to use censorship to hold everyone's hand while shoving a fucking ball gag in the mouths of intelligent people.
Re: Elephant in the Room (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. Remember when Fen-Phen got banned? Fast forward and imagine deleting posts critical of a pharmaceutical company. Why? Because they happen to be the biggest Ad revenue and we would not want to upset out biggest client would we? Once precedence is set, they just keep expanding. It is the boiling a frog approach to taking away your freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
There have always been "gatekeepers" since the dawn of communication, just like 2000 years ago there were plenty of idiots who were sure that nobody today would be able to talk about their government because free speech is dying! It's such a fucking stupid hill to die on because it's so ridiculously more complicated than that. It conveniently sidesteps having to talk about actual details of who is gatekeeping what and how and for how long, and how things improve and get worse in different areas about differ
Re: (Score:3)
All slopes are equally slippery, eh? Simply deciding to build public roads has made the US fully and totally Socialist/Communist, right? Because roads are for the "common good" which means Communism and this hands over the means of road production to the state.
Re: (Score:2)
No the problem is Social Media doesn't have mechanism to weigh the quality of the messages. Official news sources, even bias ones (Not entertainment sites pretending to be news [foxnews.com]) will have a process to validate information as it gets it, to make sure it is truthful, also they will offer retractions if they found the information they has shown to be inaccurate.
They have this overhead to make sure what happens on social media doesn't happens to them. Because if some crazed conspiracy theory gets equal weight
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Informative)
In 2016 a bunch of data about Trump and his family was hacked by Anonymous and posted all over social media. Everyone's personal cell numbers, etc. None of that was taken down, just the opposite. They celebrated it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t... [nbcnews.com]
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2016 a bunch of data about Trump and his family was hacked by Anonymous and posted all over social media. Everyone's personal cell numbers, etc. None of that was taken down, just the opposite. They celebrated it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t... [nbcnews.com]
Not sure what's worse, a lack of truth and privacy in reporting, or the double standards in media that enable them to feed that problem.
Re: Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
The double standard, every time. Hypocrisy is the most toxic, morale destroying, thing you can do to undermine confidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Saw this on Twitter today. Scroll up and see who she's replying to and what he said. Hilarious how the stupid in media think they don't even have to think about hiding their hypocrisy. I don't think they even care what the word means any more.
subsequent comments: "In the history of self-owns, that is going to become a legend."
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, they're still as partisan as you! The NY Post article contains no sensitive information, unless you consider Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Burisma having a meeting sensitive and you want to strip the names to protect them from political harm.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fox hasn't reported the same story—they've only reported that the NY Post is being prevented from sharing it. Doesn't that tell you they want to wash their hands of culpability if it turns out the Post is spreading bullshit, like it usually does?
Or have you forgotten that Trump was impeached for trying to plant witnesses for this exact conspiracy?
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter's CEO has apologized for how this was handled but I don't think they've changed much so it seems to be an empty apology. Their reasoning for blocking it is disturbing, that it contains "hacked" information. Imagine if that same logic were applied to Snowden or Manning or Watergate.
Re: (Score:2)
What liability do you think Fox is avoiding? Major news outlets have published a mountain of information that later turned out to be false, and suffered little for it. Even in the context of an election.
Folks please. Let's stop using the word "news" when referring to media outlets. Their job, is to get ratings now, not deliver the news.
Which is exactly why Clicks, Likes, Hype, and Bullshit to get ratings, doesn't merely go unpunished. It's fucking rewarded.
And the end result, is the death of truth and common sense. Good luck believing anyone spewing anything online 10 years from now, when even AI will be struggling to tell what's fake. You'll be calling your own mother a liar before you realize you w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The liability of publishing personal information without consent.
They could report the story without that information included, it's enough to say that they verified it. But that's the other issue here - it's a completely unverified claim. There is a third issue too, that it's merely an invitation and doesn't show that any meeting actually got scheduled or took place. So really there is no story here at the moment, the only thing of actual note is that some social media blocked it and conspiracy nuts got th
Re: (Score:3)
The liability of publishing personal information without consent.
There is no such liability for Fox here, nor for any of the social media companies blocking this.
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you happen to remember late 2016, there was a rather famous dossier of Russian disinformation that was published and widely acclaimed despite nobody ever bothering to try and verify its claims - which were false.
News and social media companies have clear biases. They treat information very differently if it supports their goals and narratives than if it challenges them. I guarantee you that if Trump were the one implicated in this report, it would be the top story at almost every major outlet and would be widely shared on Facebook and Twitter. Just like in 2016 when lies that worked for Democrats were met with applause and Pulitzers, but we weren't supposed to even acknowledge that Hillary's damning emails were out there.
In the end, it is up to the individual to judge the information and determine for themselves what to believe. In order to do that, they need to have access to all the relevant information, even if social media companies are afraid of it.
Re: (Score:2)
They may have won but perhaps Fox just wants to be responsible this time. I mean it's Fox but it's possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is clear what is happening in the press and social media companies. The hypocrisy and blatant political bias is beyond appalling. They willingly spread lies a
Re: Elephant in the Room (Score:2)
The irony is, had they just shut up and let trump hang himself, he would have eventually done just that. They have inadvertently done more to get him votes, out of sheer anger that they had the nerve to blatantly lie to us, than any other method of campaigning. What is worse is that they create an entire double-think dystopian event where you can begin to accept things as true and a lie, at the same time. Now they single handedly have half the population convinced we now elect Kings to the role of presidenc
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A lot of the Steele dossier allegations turned out to be true. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect, actually. It was funded initially by anti-Trump Republicans and then funded as oppo by the Clinton camp.
And FYI, the Steele Dossier was generally determined to be factual, despite claims to the contrary:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Mueller Report substantiates the core reporting and many of the specifics in Christopher Steele's 2016 memoranda, including that Trump campaign figures were secretly meeting Kremlin figures, that Russia was conducting a covert operation to elect Donald Trump, and that the aim of the Russian operation was to sow discord and disunity in the US and within the Transatlantic Alliance. To our knowledge, nothing in the Steele memoranda has been disproven.
The reality is that the FBI tried to verify his claims and couldn't:
The FBI document laying out the efforts taken by the bureau to attempt to verify the claims in British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s discredited dossier has been declassified and released, showing the bureau’s unsuccessful efforts to confirm the dossier’s claims of collusion between the Kremlin and then-candidate Donald Trump.
link [washingtonexaminer.com] The Steele Dossier was nonsense. Just because they couldn't prove that the claims were fabricated doesn't mean they are factual.
Re: (Score:3)
The Steele dossier was never used as final evidence for any of the FBI allegations, though when first presented to them they did investigate it but stopped when it was determined that it was worthless. However there was lots of other evidence that did pass scrutiny that did lead to the FBI's conclusions. You can't use the initial use of the Steele dossier to claim all evidence is equally tainted and unreliable.
Re: Elephant in the Room (Score:4, Informative)
Absolutely false. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (which cites its own sources), the Washington Free Beacon did fund Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump before Trump became the nominee. But this research was based entirely on public sources, did not involve a foreign network of sources, and did not end up in the Steele dossier.
The Steele dossier, and the research that fed it, was funded exclusively by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, working through a law firm as a cut-out.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox hasn't reported the same story—they've only reported that the NY Post is being prevented from sharing it.
What?? This is literally their top news story right now Hunter Biden email story: Computer repair store owner describes handing over laptop to FBI [foxnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News isn't a news site, it is an entertainment site. The pretend to be a news site, but will just publish stuff that they think will keep their core viewers. To keep its viewership up, they love to make the point that "We are giving you the whole truth, avoid all the others news, those are Liberal lairs while we give you the whole picture"
Are other news sites Bias, yes they are. You really should be sure that you read different news sources as if they are truthful they give a better picture of the pro
Re: (Score:2)
non-stop anti-Trump smear jobs being pushed on the public
That's just the actual news. Nobody has to try. Just watch any public press conference in full.
Re: (Score:3)
Wake me up when they release the emails with mail headers so we can check and see if they look like they were sent from the correct servers.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not getting much attention yet. The NY Post is the only place covering it, and when the only place covering the story also covers such revealing stories as A woman's relationship with a ghost just wasn't working out [nypost.com]. They can get away with just dismissing the story as coming from a third rate tabloid.
Re: (Score:3)
The Biden campaign has denied it:
https://www.washingtonexaminer... [washingtonexaminer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That story says the Biden campaign denied meeting with the Ukranian guy because no such meeting is on Biden's official calendar. Later yesterday, however, they released a statement saying he might have actually met the guy anyway.
Your linked story doesn't say anything about the authenticity of the emails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"news"
I can't find anything in the completely untrustworthy NYPost story about shopping trips. The amazing thing about that story is that it only describes emails supposedly *sent* to Hunter Biden. That's proof of nothing - anybody can send an email.
But this story is having the desired effect of distracting from the real, documented conflicts of interest [newyorker.com] of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump who, unlike Hunter Biden, actually work for the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Because obviously there could never be any "unofficial" meetings, and we can rest assured that even a brief meeting with his family members and their corrupt friends would be listed in detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to what slashdot likes to believe, twitter and facebook are private entities and can publish whatever stories they choose. I saw the story all over my google news feed yesterday.
Perhaps (Score:2)
Because the source is dubious at best? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1... [nytimes.com]
More sources for you conspiracy nutjobs https://apnews.com/article/ele... [apnews.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So /. posts this distraction, while both Twitter and Facebook are censoring a story because it's damaging to Biden.
Also because it is so far factually unsupported - in fact it contradicts a number of established facts - and is likely a work of Russian propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
You have it around the wrong way. It's not that they're on Biden's side and so they're trying to make him win. It's that they think Biden's going to win so they're trying to look like they're on his side. Their risk analysis guys have woken up to the fact that having a business model of "be the President's unofficial PR team" only works if the Oval Office never changes hands.
If Biden wins, Elizabeth Warren will be at the cabinet table and she'll be carrying a bat with BREAK UP BIG TECH written on it. These social media whores are just preparing their "please don't hit me Miz Warren, we're the good guys, look at how we banned those posts" performances.
F*ck them all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, did they stop publishing the NY Post? Is the story available on the NY Post's website? Why should twitter be compelled to carry a story that's a political hit job developed by Republican operatives to try and save the chances of a deranged moron who is easily the worst President in American history. The New York Post is a sleazy right-wing Rupert Murdoch tabloid that coordinates with right-wing nutjobs to attack Democrats and doesn't deserve your sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter claims to be a platform instead of a publisher and enjoys the tax and legal protections of a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
worst part of that : "could not post because Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful"
is "our partners" the ad companies, or someother groups that we don't know of?
Re: (Score:2)
So /. posts this distraction, while both Twitter and Facebook are censoring a story because it's damaging to Biden.
The story even made Ars Technica [arstechnica.com], which Slashdot frequently posts stories from, so I was kind of shocked by its absence on this site, given all the other posts about social media censorship.
It's weird because by censoring it, they've effectively Streisand Effect-ed this story. Now everyone knows about Biden and how he got a prosecutor fired for investigating his son. (Which isn't news, incidentally, this story broke in January. What's news is that they now have the emails that prove that Biden did it intent
Re: (Score:2)
Neither one of those committees had access to any of Hunter Biden's laptops. New evidence can come to the forefront and change conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you need to take your blinders off. We have an email showing clear government corruption at its highest levels; people paying Hunter Biden large sums of money to dictate policy through (then) VP Joe Biden. Are you actually somehow insinuating that somehow that's Ok?!? Seriously, since when has that been OK? I voted for Obama and I have a huge problem with that.
Re: (Score:3)
You have an email from the guy thanking Hunter for the invite. The email has been with the FBI since last year and no action has been taken.
There is no evidence the meeting with Hunter ever took place, and no evidence that he ever met the VP either.
If you consider that "corruption at the highest levels" then anyone can simply send an email to a high ranking politician saying "thanks for the invite, is next Tuesday okay?" and they have committed a federal crime by receiving it.
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all been investigated by the FBI and two House committees and law enforcement overseas.
By all means if there is strong evidence let's see it, but it's all been tested and failed to meet the required standard so far.
Re:Elephant in the Room (Score:5, Informative)
The full content of the email:
Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving me an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together. It's really an honor and pleasure. As we spoke yesterday evening, would be great to meet today for a quick coffee. What do you think? I could come to you office somewhere around noon or so, before or on my way to the airport.
Best,
V
Sent from my iPhone
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/... [nypost.com]
It's unclear exactly what he meant but I read it as the invitation had been extended. In any case if was talking about prior events there is zero evidence that this meeting actually took place or that anything came of it. If this is a major scandal then the Russians at the Trump Tower meetings are off the charts.
Re: Elephant in the Room (Score:3)
I can pay for access to Trump and/or his family, and you can too, lots of people do it, what's the big deal? Do you think the Trump family DOESN'T get paid? How is that fair? Elections have consequences, and this is totally normal now, so what's the problem?
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
And flat earth?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is easily detectible too...
Well to be honest, I think the world has chosen to let that group go for the sheer comedic value they bring.
Re: And flat earth?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those people are less dangerous.
Holocaust denial is used as part of a larger effort to push Antisemitic policies, which in turn are targeting to reduce the freedom of a group of people, for the sake of their religion or upbringing.
Detecting disinformation.. (Score:2, Troll)
If only we had some way, to determine what was (most likely) true (such as libraries of books written at the time) and historical records that haven't been re-written since.
Disinformation is the bane of the modern world, and has reached unsustainable levels (imho), As far as I can see, turning round to someone and saying "You're not allowed to peddle outright fibs as truth and attack people who disagree with the falsehoods" is not censorship, it's actually being reasonably responsible.
There's a place for m
Re: (Score:2)
While "history is written by the victorious" sometimes does apply, in this case there's a mountain of physical evidence that exists to support the written accounts. Or you can go visit some of the camps if you really think it's a hoax. Photographs taken at the time of the liberation are easily tested for authenticity.
The reality of wha
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, there is an mountain of evidence (which is what I was hinting at). I'm firmly of the opinion that the Holocaust happened, and that no rational person would think otherwise.
When I was a kid, I met a few of the people who'd actually been there and listened to the stories they had to tell. They couched it in terms a kid would not get terrified by, but it's still not happy telling.
And yes, history is written by all those factors, and libraries are the place that they persist, and will likely be the sourc
Re: (Score:2)
A few centuries ago it was misinformation to claim that microorganisms were responsible for disease. Accepted facts change, new science emerges that discredits old. Suppressing "disinformation" suppresses science along with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. There was no scientific reasoning that had been proven for disease, and thus it was a whole horde of made up thoughts as to why it may happen. The scientific method hadn't got around to actually discovering what it was.
Claiming micro-organisms were responsible would have been one more theory at the time, not misinformation. And having postulated that, it would have had the benefit of being disprovable if someone could, and you could disprove it by getting a microscope and going to have a look.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not take a class called "History" and learn about a period called "The Middle Ages?" You're taking a modern perspective on science and acting as though though 800 years ago people treated science the same way. Put differently, Galileo didn't die from natural causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Untested theories are not science.
Paul Harvey where are you? (Score:2)
After only 75 years? (Score:2)
Congrats, I guess we'll have also to wait decades for some of the other crap to get deleted?
Bad precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
First for the record, if you deny the holocaust you're a douchebag and worthy of complete contempt. Second, this is nothing more than an excuse to justify censorship for things that they want to censor such as stories that support conservative views.
The only solution is stop all censorship altogether. That means you have to let antisemitic douchebags deny the holocaust. They are making asses of themselves, and hopefully someday they might visit a place like Auschwitz and realize the horrors of what previous generations of anti semitic douchebags did.
Your not going to stop douchebags like that through censorship. The only way to prevent history from repeating itself it to allow people to talk freely without censorship or threat of being cancelled. You can't do that with censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
The social media companies should let any post stay, but amend them with a link to the truth.
My wife went to Auschwitz during college overseas. She said it was terrible. The beaches of Normandy weren't so hard, but the graves were.
Attempting to de-Godwin, with flat Earth people, who the fuck could be so stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not getting much attention yet. The NY Post is the only place covering it, and when the only place covering the story also covers such revealing stories as A woman's relationship with a ghost just wasn't working out [nypost.com]. They can get away with just dismissing the story as coming from a third rate tabloid.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah totally overlooked by AP news... https://apnews.com/article/ele... [apnews.com]
Or that liberal rag the WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
New York Times perhaps? Oh look they covered it too https://www.nytimes.com/2020/1... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The "story" being reported in these is the Post itself and how shaky the info is. The NY Post is still the only one publishing the story.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not how many there are, it's more how much of a pain in the arse they are.
Like most conspiracy theorists, they can be quite a handful for the people they run into, aggressive and abusive often. And woefully misinformed (clutching at any cherry picked information while discarding the body of evidence).
Back in the earlier days of the internet (before the "Eternal September", people like this were generally called out for being complete idiots and told in no uncertain terms if they wanted a civil discour
Re: (Score:2)
But I've no problem with people turning round and saying "Actually, this conflicts with the provable body of information, so please stop being a muppet, pick your coat up at the door and don't come back until you're willing to be sensible".
You may not see a problem with that, but smart people certainly do when they're standing in an empty room.
Common sense, isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a few on here. They don't come right out and say but they lead into it like oh it can't be six million or there aren't any records available or something like that. Or I wasn't there at the time so I can't say is another classic argument.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the argument starts. Well they lied about the numbers so what else did they lie about... Also does it matter if it was six million or six thousand?
Re: (Score:3)
To be able to get a feeling of the magnitude of the problem...
How many Holocaust deniers are there anyway? I know I've come across to occasional anti-semite on the internet... in real life I can count them on one hand. It's hard to imagine that this is really an issue.
How many people suffer from gender dysmorphia anyway? I know I've come across the occasional transgender person...in real life I can count them on one hand. It's hard to imagine that a group representing less than 1% of society was worth destroying the age-old concept of two genders (for those wondering, we're now up to 112), along with the ability for every biological woman to compete in any sport.
Yes, of course you will torch and troll this comment, even though my intent was to merely explain exactly ho
Re: (Score:2)
There can be as many genders as society wants.
I haven't seen evidence society wants more than two.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen evidence I want more than two.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen evidence we need more than two.
FTFY
FTFY. And before you defend that, consider first if it has actually done more harm than good, especially with gender dysmorphia. We still call it biology for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen evidence I want more than two.
FTFY
What does it mean that 'society wants' these changes then? Does it mean most people? A significant minority?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. That doesn't mean there is no associated damage.
Re:Another win for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
What you call Censorship happens all the times.
If in School and even in college, if you are in a class discussing a topic, and a student goes off on some rant they can and have been dismissed from the class, as their speech is not the topic of the discussion.
If you are in a town hall, and you talk about items which are not in the agenda, you can be dismissed from their too.
If you were talking loudly in the middle of the movie, you can get kicked out of the theater.
The social media companies, do not want discussion on holocaust denial.
Here are some reasons why, and none are really considered a moral judgement.
* Most businesses want to sell to as many people as possible, having their Ads tied to White Supremacist and Objectively false statements, will only hurt their brand image.
* Prevents boards from being taken over by extremist groups. To have the best coverage of Ads to as many people as possible, Social Media much rather have a diverse set of traffic, as to impress as many targeted ads. These groups which are often a vocal and aggressive minority mess with with the statistics and create the wrong view of the demographics.
* Social Media companies are currently under a lot of scrutiny from many countries many who they need to expand to to keep their business growing. Much like how Child Porn is illegal in the united states and not protected by free speech, other countries consider white supremacists speech not protected by their laws.
* If their rivals did it, so will they. Facebook did it, Twitter if they didn't, would be saying welcome to these people who got kicked off of facebook, and they really don't want them.
So they will try to stop them.
If you want to still go onto that rant you can still go on that rant, you have other media options to go on. To get it to spread to a lot of people it may take a lot of money, you may no longer have the blanket of Anonymity to protect you from other who would disagree with you. But you are still free to speak it, and you will not be getting arrested for what you say or believe. But you can get arrested on how you decide to say something.
Re: (Score:2)
What you call Censorship happens all the times.
Not only I call it "censorship", so does the Britannica encyclopedia. To quote:
Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good.
And the fact that it happens "all the times" [sic] doesn't make it any less harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
"The correct response to wrong speech is more speech."
How little we knew ye.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess, this is where you engage in the slippery slope fallacy?
It is not "a slippery slope" to ask where you draw the line.
OK, so nobody cares about flat-earthers and moon-landing deniers, but what about the Armenian genocide? [wikipedia.org] (to pick just one example that has a long history on the internet)
You can be sure that page is locked! If you ban the holocaust deniers, don't you have to listen to all the people demanding the banning of other Genocide Deniers?
And before you know it, Facebook and Twitter would be censored in Turkey. So it will never happen. (sadly)
It is real
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of that very Armenian genocide you mentioned, how can one actually promote "moderate content"? One side says the genocide happened, the other it didn't -- and right now, the Azeri president says he's sad the "noble deed" hasn't been finished then and needs to be continued. So how do you meet in the middle?
Re:Another win for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "line", it's a subjective assement and the line will never be 'mathematically' 2d or perfect.
But perfect is the enemy of good, and numnuts who ask "where does it stop" are only implying that zero censorship, something we collectively reject by virtue of the many types of speech not protected even by the USA's relatively strong First Amendment, is the only way to draw a clear line. The ongoing discussion about what constitutes acceptable expression on privately owned networks is fine, but discuss it on the merits of actual action and policy, not on the moot observation that no quantitively defined line can be drawn and thus no moderation should occur.
Re: (Score:2)
And my life is too busy for spam. So let's please be OK with censoring spam too.
Re: (Score:3)
There is only one type of speech that is banned in the US and it isn't hate speech. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that hate speech is protected. The only speech that is not protected is a call to violence. "I hope you died soon" is protected, "Someone go kill this guy" is not protected. If you don't live in the US then it wouldn't surprise me that you don't know this because it isn't the same anywhere else in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
You should remember that the reality of that particular extermination was not acknowledged in public until the end of the WWII (see the tag Polish_resistance,_flow_of_information_about_the_mass_murder on the Wikipedia page for references). That is, the reality of it was denied, and not only by the German propaganda at the time, but also by the censors of the United States and Britain.
Censorship in this case resulted in a much higher number of victims. The silence of the powers at the time is one of the "arg
Re: (Score:2)
You can be a lot sure of the holocaust having happened than you can be of any ongoing disinformation campaign - whether done by Ukraine or forged by Russia to implicate Ukraine. There is almost nothing that can be said with certainty from where we sit on this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The right to say something differs substantially from the right to say something on twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, go troll somewhere else. Your comment is so obviously fabricated it's boring. Twitter and Facebook are essentially saying "I don't want to have this conversation", and nothing else. They don't owe the fourth reich a soap box.