Slashdot Mirror
How Facebook Flouts Holocaust Denial Laws Except Where It Fears Being Sued (theguardian.com)
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.
There's not a country in the world that doesn't practice some kinds of censorship, if only related to state secrets, promoting crime, terror, even lying or promoting information known to be false, etc. Slippery slopes are, well, slippery, but that doesn't mean you never clean the slopes.
Nazism (and fascism in general) is a particularly extreme ideology that's inherently violent, both on a microlevel originating (and still existing) as gang level politics whose leaders openly advocate violence against opponents, and macro level where it's caused wars. Advocating for it is doing more than simply advocating a different point of view, it has direct real life consequences for those victimized by fascist groups.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
tinfoilmedia
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...
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?
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.
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
"NAZIsm" means -just- "National Socialism". I am a Nationalist (but not Socialist) Greek that supports the "nazi" Greek party "Golden Dawn": the party that is the continuation of the "nazi" (even using the then common "nazi" salute) Greek party that ruled Greece just before and during WW2, when Greece fought against the "nazi" Germany and its allies (Italy, Albania, Bulgaria, e.t.c.). I am also a "Holocaust denier" who believes that, while many Jews did died, the total number of the victims (including Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, e.t.c.) died in forced work (NOT "death") camps was below 1 million - that makes me a criminal by law because in the last couple of years in Greece (after the E.U. rules and the demands by the international Jew comity) it is illegal to post such a message (but thankfully Greek courts find that law unconstitutional... for now).
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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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?