Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating | Hacker News Reader

Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating

techcrunch.com

11 pointsvaksel24 comments

There's a difference between posting gratuitous comments as in the picture (which sounds more like trolling than true racism to me, although I could be mistaken), and holocaust denial. I don't think banning discussion on anything is "common sense and decency". There are anti-hacking laws in most countries, should discussion on hacking be a bannable offense?

Why in the world must they draw a line in the sand and then stand on the same side as Holocaust deniers is beyond me. That's basically saying that if you don't ban holocaust denier, you're an holocaust denier, which is a huge fallacy.

I'm surprised how worked up even technical people can get when people post false things on the Internet. Let the trolls be, there's not much to be done about it.

Facebook is not taking a "ban nothing" approach. They have no moral highground to stand on. They are taking a "ban what they feel like" approach. And they feel like banning mild things, but not troll level quality of thinking holocaust denial hate speech. They are giving the holocaust deniers better treatment than far more legitimate groups. That is siding with the holocaust deniers somewhat, and it's bad. They should either ban nothing, or add the really awful stuff to their ban list, their choice.

They seem to draw the line at images. So talking about breast feeding or anti-semitism is okay. I assume they also wouldn't allow pictures of jews or blacks being gassed.

More sensationalism from tc, whats new?

probably another dozen twitter articles

Groups like the JIDF can have hate groups taken down from Facebook by getting enough people to complain using the site's feedback feature. FB doesn't seem to be prone to taking down the largest hate groups at all, and only when the hate is very acutely expressed in a group's title or charter.

Something like "We hate all F##### Jews and want them dead" would get taken down without much issue, but something like "Jews are bad because of Israel and Hamas are great" could avoid FB censorship, especially if it's very popular.

If breast-feeding is banned upon submission, it shows that there are resources to censor in real time. There aren't really any pure Muslim hate groups too, it seems, like there are Jewish ones.

I'd have to look into this further, but it does interest me.

The funny thing is that the title works both ways - Jewish haters are also welcome.

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=980

I wouldn't call that funny.

There are multiple definitions of funny, including "Strangely or suspiciously odd; curious."

Is lack of a double standard for pro and anti jewish hate speech and violence advocacy strange? Suspiciously odd? Curious? I don't see how any of those fit.

I am making it clear that Facebook isn't only "failing to act" against Holocaust-Denial groups. Thus the title is overstating the case. If one is looking to be offended, I can assure you that I will find something that will offend you.

Facebook isn't even that bad - all these groups are marginal gatherings of insane people. On the other hand, one of the larger groups on Mixi is dedicated to denying foreign-born Japanese residents the right to vote (even if they pay taxes and what-have-you). It is mainstream - that's a lot more scary than some dead-enders on facebook.

http://mixi.jp/view_community.pl?id=69430

No, but if you buy the argument that techcrunch is making, it would seem odd.

The two groups are in no way logically linked, and by conflating the two the author is sensationalizing the issue.

Way more countries have laws against holocaust denial (11 or so) than breast feeding (0), but guess which one is banned on Facebook?

Holocaust denial laws are bullshit. Free speech is free speech.

Perhaps his point is not that they should take down the denier groups but instead let back in the breast feeding pictures.

Clearly the tone of the article doesn't make that appear to be the case, but Arrington is indeed correct in pointing out a discrepancy here. I find it funny that people champion Facebook in the comments for taking such a "high ground", when clearly they are not doing so in the case of breast feeding images. Facebook is censoring its content, albeit making some controversial choices, but censoring all the same.

If free speech is free speech, then the images should be allowed back on. There exists no reasonable argument for removing them outside of "they're offensive to X group", and that is the exact same argument being made about the denier situation.

I think its great that Facebook has relatively pro free speech attitudes, but let's not kid ourselves here: every choice about what stays on and what doesn't is purely based on marketing. In this country we have a problem with nudity, so the breast feeding pictures are out. If enough people got angry about the denier groups, I guarantee those would be taken out as well. At the end of the day, its absolutely true that these choices are a function of cowardice: not wanting to upset certain demographics that would leave their service.

At the risk of being polemic: The discrepancy you point out is perceived much more generally about the US as a whole by, dare I say, much of the rest of the world. High-minded talk about freedom coexisting with military aggression/intervention and even torture coexisting with incredible pettiness about sexual matters (bared nipples anyone?). But perhaps you are right in a deeper way: Who cares about logic. It's all about marketing!

Ask yourself this question. When someone starts spreading slanderous lies about you, whoever you are, which threaten your family and your business are you going to resort to the statement that "free speech is free speech."

Anyone with a basic knowledge of how the Holocaust started would be surprised how easy it was to rile up the mobs of people against a segment of people in their society.

Speech is powerful. Things start in the mind, move towards speech, and come to final expression in action. It is no surprise that Ahmadinjehad is one of those who actively denies the Holocaust happening and openly intends to wipe the Jewish state of Israel off of the face of the map. Speech >> Action.

A holocaust denial law in the US would be bullshit b/c holocaust denial here is only slightly dangerous.

In some countries, e.g. Germany, it's a lingering part of world war 2 which is not yet obsolete. It's a war act, and it's suppressing a genuine, serious risk of violence.

I know that's a bit hard to believe for an American who would never do such a thing. The holocaust was hard to believe too. We should not ask or encourage Germany to repeal their holocaust denial laws before Germans judge that they are ready.

You really think that Germans are likely to commit atrocious acts in the future, but are being held back by something like the denial laws?

Additionally, you think Americans 'would never do such a thing'? I don't know how you can argue against denial laws in the US and for them in Germany.

People in general have always had flaws that result in them committing horrible deeds. The holocaust occurred because many individuals committed acts that they were able to rationalize to themselves - which as a whole resulted in a great evil. No law about what people can say in public will prevent such an event.

Yes I really think what I wrote. Do you really think questioning my genuineness is a serious or valid way of arguing?

This is flawed logic.

You can't stop Holocaust denial with a law. You just drive it underground. Worse yet you give Holocaust deniers a valid recruitment argument in that they can say the government is "trying to silence them" which makes their beliefs seem more plausible than they are.

The best thing to do with Holocaust deniers, or any other foolish movement for that matter, is to let them speak their mind and make fools of themselves.

It matters what the authority of Government says about an issue. Government opposition makes it illegitimate. Many people care about that and avoid illegitimate things.

Some things should have to be underground, which many will see as a mark of shame for it. Most people don't want to be underground. You seem to take "opposed by the Government" as a badge of honor, which is understandable, but it is not how a majority of people think, especially outside the US.

That may be true for rational thought but belief isn't rational thought. If the Government of the United States decided tomorrow to make believing in Alien Abductions and Crop Circles a law I'd simply be forced to break the law.

That's where the flaw is. The governments of these other countries think they can suppress belief simply by suppressing speech and they can't.

It's not really about suppressing beliefs, it's about suppressing instantiations of those beliefs, especially legitimate organizations that people can be part of and enjoy their life without shame or hiding underground. That discourages many people away from them. Why suppress such organizations, groups, discussion meetups, social circles, etc? Because of the danger of violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com