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.
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.
Laws forbidding the expression of opinions and ideas are barbaric.
They'd better burn copies of Mein Kampf while they're at it, hypocrites.
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
It is stupid to censor things like this. It makes it much easier to identify the idiots and the people to avoid. I'd rather know that some guy is a denier, so I can ostracize him.
Isn't that how businesses operate — get away with as much as possible and pull back when a lawsuit becomes inevitable?
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.
Defending the right to free speech means defending that right even for people you despise and disagree with in every way. Because it is the only way to guarantee your right to speak to oppose them. Also remember, that your right to free speech can't be used to take away theirs. You can't go to some else's speech and scream at them to drown them out and call it your right to free speech.
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.
I can see why it shouldn't be removed, because it's not inciting violence. However, isn't this the kind of stuff that should fall under the "fake news" category, or similar? Nothing wrong with tagging it as "fake", "incorrect", "urban legend", "failed fact check", etc., and including a link to some reliable material that debunks it.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.
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.
But at the same time they heavily censoring everything else they don't like. Please do us a favor an re-read TFS.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
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.
...that led to the holocaust? The caption of their reference image could be used for either denial or recognition. Words matter. I'm not sure Facebook should be making those judgments so perhaps it could be right that they don't make prior decisions on there things.
facebook apparently puts its liberal anti semetic beliefs above all else.
Corporatism != Free Market
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.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
At first I was all like "Wow, surprisingly facebook is standing up for free speech! They are opposing authoritarian laws in other countries!" And then i was all like "Oh, they'll stop tho if they are threatened legally or the country will cut off access to facebook" and then i was like "Oh wait, they are still restricting free speech, just along their own content guidelines, making them no better than the countries who's laws they disobey"
But but "Free Speech" can only apply to a specific government limitation, not a general cultural value where ideas can be freely discussed! True free speech means that corporations and mobs can bully people into silence with impunity, shutting down all but only the most mainstream ideas (as long as the government stays on the sidelines)!
Germany doesn't get. It was a collectivist , totalitarian government which told people what they could and could not say which killed 6 million Jews. Why would you want to emulate them? Talking is thought made manifest. We have to think and discuss reality to know what it is. Once we know what it is, we can show other people why we are right and wrong people are just wrong. If you try to stop thinking and talking, you fail. If you criminalize talking, then people talk in private and the specific, supporting details of their erroneous minority viewpoint go publicly unchallenged, and thereby gain more adherents. Merkel thinks she's so different from Hitler. She thinks she's the anti-Hitler. That thought is the entire basis of her self-esteem and self regard. She parades her virtue like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day float. However, in reality, she's just another German leader who's obsessed with what race people are, wants to control other people's culture, speech and thought, is not afraid to use government violence on the German population in pursuit of a totalizing, utopian vision of the world, grounded in pseudoscience, which she and her cronies cooked up, in secret, outside the view of serious public challenge. In the end , she will just bring Germany to ruins. Sound familiar?
Germany doesn't get. It was a collectivist , totalitarian government which told people what they could and could not say which killed 6 million Jews. Why would you want to emulate them? Talking is thought made manifest. We have to think and discuss reality to know what it is. Once we know what it is, we can show other people why we are right and wrong people are just wrong. If you try to stop thinking and talking, you fail. If you criminalize talking, then people talk in private and the specific, supporting details of their erroneous minority viewpoint go publicly unchallenged, and thereby gain more adherents. Merkle thinks she's so different from Hitler. She thinks she's the anti-Hitler. That thought is the entire basis of her self-esteem and self regard. However, in reality, she's just another German leader who's obsessed with what race people are, wants to control other people's culture, speech and thought, is not afraid to use government violence on the German population in pursuit of a totalizing, utopian vision of the world, grounded in pseudoscience, which she and her cronies cooked up, in secret, outside the view of serious public challenge. In the end , she will just bring Germany to ruins. Sound familiar?
+1
Facebook must either comply with laws or fight them in court. Not agreeing with them or even being morally correct does not mean they can fail to follow or comply with said laws.
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 protection of those rights.
I do not say that human rights are a poor concept, but they are a human concept. We invented them with our imaginations, and we must now protect them if we wish them to exist.
TL;DR: Either you believe in free speech or you don't, there's no "doesn't apply to Facebook" rule.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Gandhi also slept w/ his nieces to demonstrate his self control. That was illegal as well, but he never got arrested for it
There is no difference. In a democracy, only citizens get to vote. I don't get to vote in elections in Mexico, where I'm not a citizen.
Same thing w/ corporations. I own Cisco stock, I get to vote in their shareholder policies. Had I been an employee in Cisco, but w/ no stocks, I wouldn't have. If I have issues w/ that, I ought to work in employee owned companies - there are such companies, which design themselves to be owned by their employees. There, I'd certainly get a voice.
The votes go to people providing the money. In a democracy, it's the taxpayer, therefore all of us. In a corporation, it's the shareholder: employees draw money, unless they happen to be shareholders as well. One could make the argument about non-citizens who pay taxes, but even they get rights like free public school education, access to emergency services, et al, which is (theoretically) covered by their taxes
I don't advocate for Muslims to be censored, but I do advocate them being banned from coming to non-Muslim countries. The issue is not how many of them are dangerous: the issue is that it's impossible to determine which ones will be 'radicalized', and when. Also, there is a whole mountain range of data about Muslims being incapable of religious tolerance, which one will see from Gambia to Brunei.
If it were possible to psychically determine which Muslims are tolerant, and which ones were potential Salman Abedis, then there would be a case for allowing a lot of them in. Since it's not, those who advocate bans in Muslim immigration are completely justified
These laws are against our values of free expression, offensive as such expression can be to some. American companies shouldn't cooperate unless they have to.
I'm not a fan of Facebook in general, but fighting against these disgusting laws is a very amiable goal, and I'm proud of Facebook to sticking to it. Of course, they need to do this in France, Germany, Israel and Austria as well. The way these countries try to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that Holocaust deniers simply don't exist by banning their free expression is appalling. The United States doesn't get many things right, but Free Speech is definitely one of them. The problem is that these laws can never be challenged in court, because sensible people don't actually deny the holocaust, nor would they ever want to defend someone who does, so they just go on and on, in perpetuity. Nice to think that the internet can help, even if only a little bit.
TL;DR: Either you believe in free speech or you don't, there's no "doesn't apply to Facebook" rule.
Moreover, such a rule would either be meaningless, or it would also deny free speech to the employees and shareholders of Facebook.
If you say Facebook has no free speech right, but the people who make up Facebook can speak in any way they like, through the actions and decisions of the company, then the rule would be meaningless. The employees of Facebook could take whatever action they wanted with the company's resources (subject to shareholder approval) to speak whatever message they want, subject only to the limitations on the speech of the people (e.g. no "Fire!" in a crowded theater, no libel, etc.).
On the other hand, if you say that Facebook doesn't have free speech, and that if the people in Facebook speak through company channels, using company resources, etc., their speech isn't protected, then you also have to conclude that a reporter's column in a newspaper (which is a corporation) also isn't protected speech, since it's being delivered through company resources -- and with the intention of generating profit!
Corporations are the primary way that large groups of people organize to accomplish things they cannot do on their own. I think it's all but impossible to disentangle the rights of those people with the rights of the corporation they make up.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No it wasn't. The original estimates were based on Soviet propaganda. Auschwitz officers were tried for the murder of more people than we now believe were processed by the camp. I'm not saying the holocaust didn't happen or it wasn't terrible. It's just that the initial numbers thrown around were very high estimates based largely on Soviet propaganda that were revised down.
What are you smokin', broham?
Facebook might just be too lazy to find the said posts but they certainly have an army of pro-Israel moderators that will delete whole accounts that are reported to them. And I'm not talking about incitement to violence but for the most petty excuses. To suggest that Facebook don't act as the thought police is really quite deceptive.
We care about holocaust denial because we seek to not see fascism directed at the Jewish community. Yet when we see fascism directed by the Jewish community at Palestinians we are near blind. Which is most likely to cause future issues for Jews? Holocaust denial or shooting the crap out of Palestinians, locking up Palestinian children in jail, bulldozing homes of Palestinians, building an illegal nuclear program in Israel... if we are concerned about what has an impact on Jews then we should be far more concerned about the rising tide of fascism in Israel than some minor group of fools engaged in holocaust denial.