SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-THINK-THAT-PROBABLY-CLARIFIES-THINGS dept.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg backtracks on comments about Holocaust deniers
Facebook may be locked in a battle against fake news, and now CEO Mark Zuckerberg is backtracking on claims that the social network won't ban Holocaust deniers.
Zuckerberg gave the explanation to Recode after the site aired audio of the Facebook founder claiming "abhorrent" content, the New York Post reported, had a right to spread across his massive social media network.
"I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive, and I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that," Zuckerberg told the website later. "Of course if a post crossed a line into advocating for violence or hate against a particular group, it would be removed. … These issues are very challenging but I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech."
Earlier, Zuckerberg had spoken differently.
"I don't think that we should be in the business of having people at Facebook who are deciding what is true and what isn't," he said, during an episode of the Recode Decode podcast on Wednesday.
Ed's note: And if there's one thing we can all agree on regarding limitations to freedom of speech online, it's that we'll never all agree regarding limitations to freedom of speech online!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Alfred on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (47 children)
But that will never fly. Someone will demand some kind of filtering. Correction, that was the plan all along, to have filters...because you asked for them. How and what they filter will not be objective, but close enough to objective to pass. Like a car out of alignment that doesn't go straight if you have enough straight space to test it. You cannot avoid the bias. Things that you say should be presented will be filtered. Thoughts will be steered like they were with TV and newspapers of your, you will be taught what to think.
But the root of the bias is the real problem. The bias will be based in what someone calls truth whether or not it is actually true. So really the bias is based on someones belief. Is that someone you or is it an opposing agenda? In this case it is the powers that steer facebook. Do you trust facebook? They always do the right thing, right?
There is no hope for the thoughts of the masses they are doomed and facebook is one tool to doom them.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:38PM (45 children)
The legal issue is facebook is a service and they can do whatever the hell they want because you agreed to the terms and conditions. The filters are theirs, the bias is theirs to employ. STFU suckers.
However, what gets filtered will be a hint at their agenda and desired trajectory. It will be done in the name of goodness or morality or thinking of the children...but those are excuses. Watch for what is filtered. there is bias against that, ask why they would filter that, learn the mind of your oppressors.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:48PM (44 children)
Premise rejected. Progs like Zuck changed the rules to "Shut up and bake the effing cake." so he really can't complain when the new rules get enforced back onto Facebook and twitter. Only exemption that seems to remain is a religious objection but good luck applying that to a publicly traded corporation.
And lets also reject the Holohoax's premise at the root. It isn't really important whether Hitler did or didn't gas the six gorillion, arguing about that is a distraction. What IS important is asking the question of WHY it is that almost the only fact about WWII that every schoolchild is taught? Stop a random person on the street and ask them how many Jews Hitler killed and the odds are at least even they will answer with six million. Ask how many AMERICANS died and you will get blank stares. Ask how many Russians, English, Canadians, Germans, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc. died in that WORLD WAR and you will get blank stares. Why is this?
Why are there Holocaust museums in every major city now and, as far as I know, only the one WWII museum (but it is very nice) in the U.S.? Why are schoolchildren bussed in and forced to focus on this one small chapter in WWII history to the exclusion of everything else? Why is there the distinct feeling that America is supposed to be guilty and atoning for the Holocaust; weren't we the ones who saved Europe from itself twice in the first half of the 20th Century? Just WTF is going on here?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:29PM (9 children)
Except the baker didn't have to bake the cake, and like it or not we have anti-hate speech laws. Most people seem totally fine with the laws and even shitlords like Richard Spencer are able to get around the laws to spew their hateful garbage.
Why are there museums around the world about genocide? Gee, maybe because humanity was so horrified at what we are capable of we wanted to make sure new humans GOT THE FUCKING MESSAGE!
Go away you lame equivocator, you are not needed.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:37AM (1 child)
Are you from Germany? Possibly you're in Germany. So strange that in Germany -- of all places -- you have laws that say you can't wear a swastika. But in America, where I am, we don't have those laws. We don't have hate speech. Fortunately for our fabulous Westboro Baptist Church! ✝️
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:34AM
I texted your TRUMP line but all it did was send me links to tor sites providing hookers and blow. I stopped after I got to the less, uh, standard services.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:39AM (4 children)
Like it or not we have a first amendment, and it outranks them all.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by ewk on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:29AM (1 child)
Artificial constructs like this (laws, rules, amendments) and the units (countries, civilizations, companies) they apply to, have been know to change.
Just saying, that if you have a specific construct in a particular unit now, there is not much guarantee that you will have that construct tomorrow (assuming you stay in the same unit).
And, as with this 'outranking'... different units may very well have different constructs. So, outside your particular unit, your construct possibly does not mean more than diddly-squat.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:32PM
So you're pointing out that laws and Constitutions can change. And?
Hate speech is not currently illegal in the US. That is a fact. That was what was being point out.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)
You mean the one that says:
Last I checked, neither the corporate Facebook or the individual Zuckerberg were congress nor were they making laws.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:30PM
He was responding to this comment from the above AC:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)
Hate speech is not illegal in the US.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:36AM
Actually, it is. Turn yourself in now, or we will have to hunt you down and punch you in the face, you poor excuse for a human!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:44PM (9 children)
It was genocide. Which is a pretty big deal and it was a shocking revelation of truth. You can blame mass media as much as anyone for what most people know about WWII. In addition, Americans really didn't lose that many people compared to the other major players in both World Wars. I'm sure at some point I heard the casualties for Russians, Germans, Japanese, and Americans. Yes, war is horrific, but genocide is even more horrific. Bad news flies and that seems to be what news outlets sell anymore. Sure, they may report on a happy story, but then it's followed by 30 minutes of "look at all the bad things that happened". P.S. I don't remember random trivia like 6 million Jews died in the holocaust. Though, I have a lot bigger chance now that I've commented about it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:21AM (5 children)
So? Seriously. You are probably as ignorant as any other normie and don't know, but Google can educate you. Go now and look up how many million plus mass casualty events happened in the 20th Century. Genocide, war, mass slaughter of civilian populations, if you can imagine it in a nightmare it is a good bet some Communists / Socialists / Fascists / etc. gave it the good ol college try in the 20th Century. Our education materials fixate on one of them to the exclusion of the others. Asking why is a totally legit question.
We don't study the Great Leap Forward to learn the lessons in how NOT to plan a social change, so we don't care about tens of millions of dead Chinese? Maybe not since we also don't teach about Japanese atrocities against the Chinese in the war either. And our "good friend and ally" Stalin murdered how many Ukrainians with nary a mention in our textbooks? The NYT still hasn't even given back Duranty's Pulitzer for helping the Soviets cover it up. And that was only one of the many million plus mass casualty events attributable to the Soviet Union's rise and fall. Or perhaps the piles of skulls from Communism bore you. So do you wonder why nobody gives a shit about the genocides in Africa? Lemme guess, nobody cares because those are black people getting stacked in mass graves? Got one cranking up in South Africa right now against whites and nary a peep from anyone in any sort of position to raise enough alarm to matter so nah, it ain't about the color of the victims. Never again? Yeah, right.
Truth is you can't bring attention to any other genocide because you can't divert attention away from THE Holocaust, the ONE True Genocide that matters. Because it is the only one that impacted the only people who matter, the ones who run your TV, books, textbooks, magazines, etc. and they have been milking it for sympathy and using it as a general purpose "get out of any criticism" card for decades.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:40AM
Haha "normie". How many bridges have you stuffed up your butt so far trollbro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:47AM
[citation needed]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:11PM
I don't think you're allowed to call it a genocide if you're doing it against your own people. Unless it's an ethnic subgroup of your people (like the Holodomor?).
Otherwise, interesting points.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 26 2018, @05:55PM
I've definitely heard / read about other atrocities that have occurred in USSR, China, Africa, and many other places. I just think you've gone a bit on the conspiracy theorist end of the knowledge pool. We should care about things like the Holocaust, the genocides that have happened in African nations, and other atrocities. World War II was the last time we as a nation were nearly universally praised for a military action. It makes sense that one of the worst atrocities that happened in World War II is of concern to Americans.
Yes, horrible things happened in China, and horrible things happened in Russia during World War II. The main difference, is our troops saw first hand the atrocities of the Holocaust. Thus, we have video evidence and other things that made it more real to our people. We weren't on the best of terms with Russia during World War II or after World War II. It's kind of hard to care about commies when the media is pushing the fact that all commies are horrible, baby eating, devils. Guess what China was? They were commies too.
China and Russia were more the enemy of my enemy. As opposed to truly being our Allies. That doesn't detract from the horror of the massive loss of life in either country, but it does explain some of why the USA didn't much care about their hardships.
You don't see a coalition of "The Killing Fields Deniers" do you? The Holocaust is/was the main example of genocide to Americans, because they saw the results of the horrors inflicted on the victims of the Holocaust. American troops were there and there is ample evidence of the horrors that were committed.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:22PM
I learned about all of those in World History in high school. I also learned that Hitler killed tons of Poles and other Slavic types, gays, retards, etc. Your school just sucked.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @09:10AM (2 children)
The Nazis attempted genocide against a lot of different groups of people, so why do we focus only on one group?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:05PM (1 child)
#1 The other groups of people were groups of various peoples.
#2 Some of those groups didn't want to call attention to themselves at the time.
#3 We are human.
The Nazis were usually hyped up on drugs when going into combat. Why didn't I know that fact until recently? Does it really matter that I know that now?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:24PM
So are many US soldiers. Amphetamines are in broad use.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:47PM (15 children)
Hi, German here. In our school system, we're being indoctrinated from an early age that we as a people (even those of us born 3 or 4 generations later) are guilty of the holocaust. There is a word that you may have heard at some time: Tätervolk ("predatory people"). We're also learning how glorious America saved and liberated us.
What's usually not taught in school is how the USA was happily doing business with and thereby economically and materially supporting Nazi Germany quite some time into the war. The OSS didn't have the resources the CIA has these days, but you can be fairly certain that the ethnic cleansings, deportations and death camps didn't go unnoticed from US leadership. Not part of the curriculum either: that the USA entered the war in Europe only after it became apparent the Red Army would be winning and therefore there was the very real threat of communism taking all the spoils of war.
Not talked about either: how the US recruited Nazi/SS officers into secret service positions while an occupying force after the war. Because Nazis are still better than communists, rait? And I dare you to publically mention the US-initiated Gladio/stay behind guerilla cells all over Europe, recruited preferentially from old and new Nazis - still better than communists, remember - you'll be called a conspiracy theorist. But I digress.
US intervention in WW2 in Europe was never about the death camps or liberation from the Nazis. It was about what was best for the USA's long term economic interests. So yes, your school children should probably learn about the holocaust.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:57PM
Missed to properly close my argument:
...and how the USA looked the other way because they didn't care, then later used it for propaganda of how they're the good guy liberators. Look to recent history in the middle east. Humanitarian interventions my ass. A geopolitical game of chess with total disregard for human life. That's what war is about to US leadership.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:36AM (1 child)
Pedantry: "Täter" is the perpetrator of a crime, so the "perpetrating people". What does that mean? Like all Australians are criminals?
Predatory people would be "Raubvolk" as in "Raubtier" for a predator (animal).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:19AM
My bad, it's late. Thanks for the Korrektur :)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:37AM (10 children)
I was with you right up to there. That's just not even close to true. Peace was an option and would have been far better economically than years of production diverted to bring death. There were no 'spoils of war' in Europe worth what the war cost us either.
It wasn't about the economic interests of the USA at all, it was about the political interests of the folks that we see now, in retrospect, as the pioneers of the 'deep state,' both in the USA, the UK, and elsewhere.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:29AM
Arik, you have gone off the deep end! Come back to sanity! Don't be a putz! Arik?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:30AM (6 children)
Huh? You do realize that production of wartime materials in WWII was partly (arguably primarily) responsible for the greatest economic speed-up the U.S. had ever seen? A U.S. that had been struggling in its worst economic slump for the preceding decade?
I'm no fan of war, but there is absolutely no way peace could have spurred such a positive economic shift in the desperate circumstances the U.S. was then in.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Arik on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:31AM (5 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:38AM
Oh, Grate! Now Arik is a broken window as well as being Courier. Do not see this ending well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @09:17AM
It's only a fallacy if you care about the welfare of the economy as a whole. If you only care about the US glazier's business, the German window-owner can go fuck himself.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:09PM
Well, there are reasons to criticize the broken window fallacy -- which is an oversimplification. But it really doesn't apply in this case because the U.S. didn't suffer the primary destruction of the war. It got to fight the war primarily on foreign soil. The war overall obviously wasn't good for Europe, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have serious benefits for foreign powers who invested in it. If the war had moved to American soil significantly, things would likely have been quite different.
In fact, some economists have argued it was this very difference that led to the U.S. post-war economic dominance -- it took advantage of a foreign situation which elsewhere was overridden by the destruction of war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:57PM (1 child)
I'll see you your Broken Window Fallacy, and raise you a Keynesian Economic Model [wikipedia.org].
There is every reason to think that massively increasing demand during a recession can help. Even if that output is thrown away (read: is a broken window), it can still in aggregate help.
Not all economists agree with this model, but there is a fair bit of circumstantial evidence that it may be true. Case in point, the ending of the Great Depression coincidentally aligned with the US involvement in WW2.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 26 2018, @09:41PM
Keynes and his animal spirits are simply a handy rationalization to take a loan, throw a big party, and wake up with a hangover. You can keep telling yourself it makes you rich, and when you're in the heady euphoric phase of the night we can even sympathize, but at the end of the day it's still just a bunch of transparent bullshit and you only believe it because you REALLY WANT to go ahead and get trashed.
There was a little bounce in 46, coincidentally that's also the first time they cut taxes since the 20s or before. It's only after the war is over that you see a real recovery though. The draft cut unemployment, sure, but that didn't mean that the draftees were more productive as a result of no longer being technically unemployed. You could guarantee full employment by drafting everyone, but then who would grow the food?
Obviously the army would have to. Hey, North Korea, here we come!
And there's as good an illustration as any of just how utterly wrong this argument is. If you were right, North Korea would be the richest nation on earth, at least per capita. They've been at war for 68 years straight! I bet their economy... oh... wait. No, nevermind.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:55AM (1 child)
In capitalism, political and economic interests are very much interchangeable. Ask China about their hacking doctrine :)
There were quite a few spoils to be had. Short term mainly in the form of military tech that was years ahead of its time - missiles, jet engines, submarines, tanks... both the USA as well as the Russians took of that what they could and their post-war designs were often if not largely copies, then directly evolved from German designs. Medium term there was the extraction of talent - see Operation Paperclip. German scientists and engineers were taken by both winning parties, in some cases more, in others less voluntarily. Long term there was was denying Russia influence over a highly industrialized country with excellent infrastructure, plenty natural rescources and traditionally a strong economy. The Russians were pretty dumb in the regard of what they did with their half of the country; they de-industrialized it by taking whole factories to Russia and letting infrastructure rot while West Germany rebuilt and (once again) became an important trading partner.
What I'll give you is that neither of these are of direct or immediate economic benefit, but in the end having a stronger military than the other guy is about one thing: being able to secure the resources you already have and being able to grab more resources by force when politics won't work (as seen on TV). So securing the tech and talent was imperative in order to prevent losing the edge on Russia^W the commies.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:34AM
Taking the same course in WWI instead could easily have avoided the rise of Hitler entirely.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:00PM
It would be educational to apply a date to that and compare the support for Nazi Germany to the support for the UK.
Assertions made without evidence or relevance for that matter. And one of the three is not like the others. Ethnic cleansings and deportations were well known from before the war started while death camps were covert. That's part of the reason the USSR survived the Second World War in the first place because Hitler turned out to be worse than Stalin and Russians knew that.
As to the death camps, why does it matter when they were known about? I imagine there's also a huge difference between some intelligence report that might be wrong and having your people actually in the compound taking pictures and interviewing the inmates.
Finally, the US was involved in the fight in Europe from early on, including massive support for every ally in the region and fighting in North Africa.
What's supposed to be wrong with that? There has never been only one group of bad people in the world and the Communists were already set to take over the rest of Europe. Making allies of a defeated enemy is far from a new thing.
Let us note a more modern example that went the other way. The US, after toppling the Saddam Hussein government, banned former Baathists from the new government. Many of those then ended up providing support for various enemies of the US in the region, particularly ISIS.
And yet the death camps were ended and you were liberated from both the Nazis and the Communists. So maybe motive isn't as important as you make it out to be.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:09AM (5 children)
To remind everyone that they should not participate in genocide.
Not that that's the only genocide there has been. But it's one that was well-documented, and is therefore accessible to historians.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:36AM (4 children)
Circular arguing if I ever saw it. The reason we only talk about The holocaust is because it is the one that everyone talks about. Is that the best argument ya got there sport? It isn't the high score, it isn't the most recent, it isn't even the bloodiest and most shocking mass slaughter. So why is it The One. That is my question and no, I'm not expecting an answer because other than EF and perhaps TMB I'm probably the only other one here that might have the balls to even think the forbidden thoughts required to get to an answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:34AM
TMB? Anti-semitic Holocaust Denier? How about instead, can we genocide jmorris? Just this one time? He seems to be in favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:51AM
That's a laugh. What, exactly, would those forbidden thoughts be?
(Score: 2) by ewk on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:52AM
Not because we all talk about it, but because it is the (as of yet...) best documented one (this in regards to the initial idea, planning and execution).
So it can be used as an example to avoid another one. Really, it is not meant as a 'how-to' or 'reference manual'.
See, now that wasn't to hard to understand?
But somehow I am afraid with you it's more like leading a horse to water, but not being able to make him drink.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:50PM
Maybe because the people who committed it were obsessive about documenting it, keeping records of exactly who was killed at each camp and exactly what loot was taken from them, and filming conditions at their own concentration camps. They were presumably intending to document their success at their task, and even planned a "museum of an extinct race" to celebrate this success. Speaking as someone who lost relatives to those people, I endorse the idea that OTHER genocidal incidents/periods should get more attention as well, from the Armenian genocide (that Hitler himself referenced as an example of getting away with murder) through to the present day.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:46AM (1 child)
Ask them how many people died in the Nazi death camps during world war 2. The answer you will get is six million.
The correct answer is eleven million, but gypsies, homosexuals and the handicapped don't count.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:43AM
Are you suggesting, my Dear and Ponderous AC, that jmorris is a gypsie, a poufta, or handicapped? Please specify, and we will no doubt include him in the count, although his anti-semitism will probably not allow him to see himself there. Poor jmorris. There is so little need for total morans in a high-tech economy. He would have been just fine as a cobbler, or a barrister, or a codswabbler. So sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:05PM
I agree with your statement in principle, but in practice, real-life is never that easy.
Let's take a non-controversial example. There is a persistent myth in Africa that having sex with a virgin can cure you of HIV. All the scientific evidence suggests this is not true, but the myth persists. Now, perpetuating the myth causes actual harm: (1) virgins get exploited and sometimes raped, (2) more people get HIV due to the sex act against previously uninfected people (3) people falsely think they are cured so go on to have more sex and spread HIV.
So what do you do about websites promoting this folk remedy? It's easy to say "free speech," but is it worth it to allow these kinds of myths to spread.
To be clear, you may think it is, and society as a whole may think it is as well. However, surely you can see there is an argument and how some people earnestly and without malicious intent think there should be some kind of prohibition against this kind of speech.
Now simply extend that reasoning to other more controversial topics.