Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg Backtracks on Comments About Holocaust Deniers

posted by FatPhil on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-THINK-THAT-PROBABLY-CLARIFIES-THINGS dept.

realDonaldTrump did, or maybe didn't, write:

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!

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg Backtracks on Comments About Holocaust Deniers | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 76 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by requerdanos on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:46PM (3 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:46PM (#712789) Journal

    First quote:

    "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.

    Second one:

    "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."

    Official editorial Way We Are Supposed To Think about these quotes:

    Zuckerberg backtracks on comments

    Zuckerberg is backtracking on claims that the social network won't ban Holocaust deniers

    The first quote
    - offers nothing in the way of support of neo-nazis, holocaust deniers, or nutty hate-based conspiracies in general
    - indicates that Facebook should not be in the business of deciding what's true or not.
    - (That may or may not be a good position* for Facebook to have, but that's what he said.)
    - does not offer support for banning the hate-nuts.

    The second quote
    - amplifies the no-support by calling the hate-nuts offensive
    - affirms that he was not defending/supporting them.
    - affirms that Facebook will/should remove speech that incites hatred or violence by crossing a line
    - points out that such issues are challenging
    - does not offer support for banning the hate-nuts
    - says the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech (as opposed to a ban).

    Look, I'm no Zuckerberg supporter, nor lover of Facebook (who considers Big Brother an amateur wannabe [freworld.info]), but these statements seem to be consistent with each other. I dont see any points in one that contradict any points in the other. I can't see any backtracking except in the mind of the person presenting the spin about the statements.

    -----
    * in my humble opinion, Facebook ignoring whether things are true or false, given that they already exert editorial influence, is a bad idea in terms of spreading hoax nonsense and in terms of public relations, but it's their circus, their monkeys; not mine.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:57AM (#712884)

    Yeah, noticed the same thing. Zuckerfuck can go to hell for all I care, but it makes me wonder why the propaganda continues....

    Er, no, nevermind. It's another prong of "Everybody off the internet!"

    Anybody placing bets for how long it'll be before Facebook is a wretched hive of alt-right villainy that only incels use, according to the media?

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:53AM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:53AM (#712910) Journal

    Context for the first quote is important. They were talking about something else, and then Zuckerberg brought up Holocaust denial as an example himself..

    [Zuckerberg:] But overall, let’s take this whole closer to home...

    I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened.

    I find that 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, but I think-

    [Interviewer interrupts...] In the case of the Holocaust deniers, they might be, but go ahead.

    [Back to Zuckerberg...] It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I’m sure you do. I’m sure a lot of leaders and public figures we respect do too, and I just don’t think that it is the right thing to say, “We’re going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times.”

    So no, he was never supporting Holocaust deniers directly. And I agree there's been an overreaction to his remarks. But he did in fact bring up the topic himself and then went out of his way to try to excuse the deniers as sort of misinformed (I suppose that's a fair reading of his statement), rather than motivated primarily by racism and thereby frequently ignoring facts to follow a racist agenda (which is the typical path of a Holocaust denier).

    Again, it's a far cry from actually supporting deniers. But his first statement definitely could have been worded better.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:34PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:34PM (#713048) Journal

      rather than motivated primarily by racism and thereby frequently ignoring facts to follow a racist agenda

      Ideological blinders are among the worst sorts of misinformation.