Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Scenario 1: I am a facebook user that wants to say something that people find offensive. I may write or share an article I found online to "support" my views. This is allowed under the idea of Free Speech.
Scenario 2: I am some entity that wants to generate controversy and polarization by gaming recommendation algorithms, and thus flood the space of discourse with offensive material. I don't care about the material itself less so than the vitriol and outrage. AKA "Fake News". This is what they want to ban.
What trolls have done is essentially "hacked" the idea of Free Speech. The original idea behind Free speech was that people would at the very least earnestly believe what they were saying, or at the very least were engaging in satire. Trolling is satire on a whole new level, and it does seem truly difficult to separate the two without being too draconian.
It's a strange world when the "antifascists" want control of speech.
Free-to-speak is one thing; free to distribute hate speech by electronic means to billions of people in seconds is another.
Its a game these days, to pretend one thing is the same as another even though they are massively different.
Used to be conspiracy theory, now actual basis for action of an actual political force.
Sad times.
Speaking freely in your home, or a public place, or even on a TV station, are so different from spreading fake news via internet bots etc as to be different things. Its about the coefficient of 'being heard' which has an infinite set of values between 0 (aren't heard) and 1 (the whole world sees it in seconds).
The coefficient gets too large, and drastic changes in group behavior can occur. Undesirable changes.
We can study these things with science, and understand where the coefficients should lie, without shouting 'freedom of speech!' into the wind to shut down conversation.
Facts are not negotiable, but unless you're omniscient, you have effectively no way to know whether or not someone else's claims are factual, especially when you're confronted with contradictory data sources, unless you happen to have the ability to validate or invalidate those data sources. Maybe instead of attacking the victims of incorrect data sources (thus driving them even further into the wrong by polarizing them against you), you might want to consider attacking the incorrect data sources themselves (and perhaps even their sources). Meanwhile, help those incorrect and duped people find the tools and resources to validate or invalidate those misguided beliefs.
People that hold these views are ignorant. It's like claiming you can seat down and speak someone like Drumpf (a person that never read a history book) out of his stupidity.
I would have said racist or antisemitic, but when talking about Americans (if we're talking specifically about Americans), I really think it's pure ignorance.
European fascism and antisemitism is historic and profound, almost biological (read Pinsker's Autoemancipation! (1882), for example).
I think presently, many American neo-nazis (so called "alt-right), are tapping into it out of profound ignorance.
It's enough to hear conservatives (and neo-nazis) call liberal ideas Stalinistic, Nazi and communist (same breath) to figure out it's really just ignorance. Many don't know anything about either.
So who do you want to enter into a dialogue with?
He also added: "I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong.
That strikes me as naïve. Some, no doubt, are intentionally getting it wrong. Others have their heads so deep in the conspiracy sand that no polite discourse on Facebook is going to resolve it. Either way, this doesn't seem like a huge deal. Zuck says Facebook allows freedom of speech, even in muddy waters.
Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense.
No, but if I was running a social-oriented platform, they could post it themselves.
> By your reasoning, if you don't, you're blocking free speech.
Not really, since I'm not a government. The user doesn't have a right to free speech on my platform, so I'm not denying them a right.
> Facebook is not the government and has no obligation to publish anyone's hate speech, holocaust denialism, or other harmful conspiracy theory nonsense.
Absolutely agree, that's why I think it's great that Zuckerberg is choosing to respect free speech, even though he doesn't have to.
He's not just respecting it, by curating content on the platform he's personally endorsing the stuff that stays up. If FB was an uncensored platform it'd be another story, but it's not.
I have a suspicion that policing a social network with billions of users and keeping on top of trolls, bots and spam make it a little more complicated than 'if it stays up he personally endorses it'. This is a false dichotomy, there is a middle ground.
They are very effective at policing their platform, full stop. The stuff that's on there is the stuff they've decided they want to host and share with the world, including holocaust denialism.
I don't think anyone is. It's their platform, they can do whatever they want with it. Facebook access is not an unalienable human right.
> Thus it follows that Facebook implicitly endorses Holocaust denialism. If they didn't, they could remove it.
They can allow something on their platform without endorsing it. Permitting something and endorsing it are absolutely not synonymous.
Hey guys, I'm not endorsing the extermination of muslims in Myanmar, I just have a bunch of signs up in my yard with messages from people who want them dead. Permitting anti-muslim propaganda in my front yard and endorsing it are absolutely not synonymous.
Facebook is highly motivated to remove illegal things from their platform.
> They are very effective at policing their platform, full stop.
The efficacy of which they police their platform is up for debate, but the fact that they can and do police their platform is not. I agree with you - they do police their platform. They can and do remove things at their discretion.
> The stuff that's on there is the stuff they've decided they want to host and share with the world, including holocaust denialism.
You are incorrect, or at least confused. Deciding not to censor something absolutely is not endorsement of that thing.
"BARBARA. Sorry, I'm sure. By the way, papa, what is your religion--in case I have to introduce you again?
UNDERSHAFT. My religion? Well, my dear, I am a Millionaire. That is my religion."
- Major Barbara [0]