Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by FatPhil on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:45PM   Printer-friendly
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!


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @08:57PM (#712682)

     
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:03PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:03PM (#712690)

    Go woke, go broke [bbc.co.uk]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:20PM (5 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:20PM (#712700) Homepage
      More charts for those who like statsurbating: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-25/facebook-shares-implode-after-revenue-user-growth-disappoint

      Yeah, I just posted a Zero Hedge link, lumberhumpers - deal with it!
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (#712709)

        That's where I first read it. Too much shooting the messenger over ZH links, it's in the top 500 visited sites for the US.

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:39PM (3 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:39PM (#712759) Homepage
          More frikken ZH!!!!!

          https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-25/facebook-shares-implode-after-revenue-user-growth-disappoint
          """
          Update 2: Well that escalated quickly... FB is now down over 20% from its closing highs, erasing all of the post-Q1 earnings gains and officially entering a bear market...
          """

          Buy bullioncoin, suckers!
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 1) by Barenflimski on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:43PM

            by Barenflimski (6836) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:43PM (#712786)

            If only these folks had gotten into crpyto-currency at the beginning, they would be up infinity percent.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:21AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:21AM (#712803)

            Bloomberg tells me at least one fool still bought at today's closing price at 8pm.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:26AM

              by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:26AM (#712939) Homepage
              My pet poodle tells me that someone bought at every single level that was a trade price yesterday. Of course, what you're probably seeing in the charts widely-distributed is the "mid market" price, which is not a trade price. (For that reason, for a commodity I am interested in, but where the trading platform doesn't draw such charts itself, I keep a record of both highest bids and lowest offers, so I can see what the real dumbest fomomofo was actually willing to pay before a catastrophic plunge.)
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:21PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:21PM (#712701)

    Nazi sympathizing scum!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:42PM (#713119)

      Look AC I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, smoke a joint and think things over.

  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:22PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:22PM (#712702)

    one of those things where there were a couple of crazy people got together to troll and it was pushed long enough in the news until it attracted enough crazy people to become a movement?

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:24PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:24PM (#712705)

    Does not apply to a commercial service.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (#712711)

      It does if the commercial service wants it to.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:35PM (#712714)

        Its not free speech if they decide if you get it or not. My statement still applies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:35AM (#712841)

      Yes, it does. Freedom of speech is a broad concept and is not limited to its legal implementation. Corporations are allowed to engage in censorship, and the degree of censorship on their platforms will tell you the degree of freedom of speech that exists there.

      But I find it funny how it's seen as fine to criticize a corporation for being too permissive regarding speech, but if someone criticizes a corporation for being too restrictive regarding speech, then idiots will try to shut down the conversation with the 'Private websites are legally allowed to censor!' argument, even though the person in question did not argue otherwise. If the logic were applied consistently, both groups would be shut down with the 'But they're legally allowed to do this!' argument, or neither group would be. Yet, that doesn't happen. Quite a double standard.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Alfred on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (47 children)

    by Alfred (4006) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:33PM (#712712) Journal
    Free speech should be allowed including hateful speech. I should be able to say "I hate your guts" or "they are a terrible person" or generalizations about any demographic.

    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)

      by Alfred (4006) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:38PM (#712717) Journal
      That was the moral issue.

      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)

        by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:48PM (#712762)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:29PM (#712782)

          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)

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:37AM (#712807) Homepage Journal

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:34AM (#712840)

              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)

            by Arik (4543) on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:39AM (#712846) Journal
            "like it or not we have anti-hate speech laws."

            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)

              by ewk (5923) on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:29AM (#712998)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:32PM (#713450)

                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)

              by weeds (611) on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:54PM (#713220) Journal

              You mean the one that says:

              Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

              Last I checked, neither the corporate Facebook or the individual Zuckerberg were congress nor were they making laws.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:30PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @11:30PM (#713446)

                He was responding to this comment from the above AC:

                Except the baker didn't have to bake the cake, and like it or not we have anti-hate speech laws.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:41AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:41AM (#712848)

            Hate speech is not illegal in the US.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:36AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:36AM (#712955)

              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)

          by Freeman (732) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:44PM (#712787) Journal

          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)

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:21AM (#712801)

            It was genocide.

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:40AM (#712847)

              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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:47AM (#712880)

              Truth is you can't bring attention to any other genocide

              [citation needed]

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:11PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:11PM (#713152)

              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? [...] And our "good friend and ally" Stalin murdered how many Ukrainians with nary a mention in our textbooks?

              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

              by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 26 2018, @05:55PM (#713254) Journal

              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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:22PM (#713284)

              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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @09:10AM (#712982)

            It was genocide.

            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)

              by Freeman (732) on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:05PM (#713260) Journal

              #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

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:24PM (#713288)

                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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:47PM (#712790)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @11:57PM (#712794)

            Missed to properly close my argument:

            So yes, your school children should probably learn about the holocaust

            ...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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:36AM (#712805)

            Tätervolk ("predatory people")

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:19AM (#712824)

              My bad, it's late. Thanks for the Korrektur :)

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:37AM (10 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:37AM (#712844) Journal
            "It was about what was best for the USA's long term economic interests."

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:29AM (#712874)

              as the pioneers of the 'deep state,

              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)

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:30AM (#712897) Journal

              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)

                by Arik (4543) on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:31AM (#712919) Journal
                https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/63/Broken-Window-Fallacy
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:38AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:38AM (#712956)

                  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

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @09:17AM (#712983)

                  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

                  by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:09PM (#713032) Journal

                  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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:57PM (#713308)

                  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

                    by Arik (4543) on Thursday July 26 2018, @09:41PM (#713377) Journal
                    I'd call that Voudou, but then I'd have to apologize to Voudounistas.

                    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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @03:55AM (#712912)

              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,'

              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

                by Arik (4543) on Thursday July 26 2018, @04:34AM (#712921) Journal
                Staying scrupulously neutral would have likely resulted in a similar amount of the intellectual capital finding it's way here anyway - without all the blood and treasure to make it happen. It would have also resulted in a significantly weaker post-war Soviet Union.

                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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 26 2018, @12:00PM (#713026) Journal

            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.

            It would be educational to apply a date to that and compare the support for Nazi Germany to the support for the UK.

            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.

            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.

            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.

            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.

            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.

            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)

          by hendrikboom (1125) on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:09AM (#712819) Homepage Journal

          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)

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:36AM (#712842)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:34AM (#712877)

              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

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @02:51AM (#712881)

              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.

              That's a laugh. What, exactly, would those forbidden thoughts be?

            • (Score: 2) by ewk on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:52AM

              by ewk (5923) on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:52AM (#713009)

              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

              by DutchUncle (5370) on Thursday July 26 2018, @01:50PM (#713080)

              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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:46AM (#712943)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @07:43AM (#712957)

            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

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @06:05PM (#713261)

      Free speech should be allowed including hateful speech. I should be able to say "I hate your guts" or "they are a terrible person" or generalizations about any demographic.

      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.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:44PM (#712723)

    So this is another case of mass media mouthpieces asserting that "if you don't censor something, you must agree with it"? There was no backtracking here, just a clarification for the hard of thinking.

    Earlier, Zuckerberg had spoken differently.

    Nope, the statements are entirely consistent. Only the literately challenged would claim otherwise. Unless they're trying to imply that denying the holocaust is equivalent to advocating violence and hate?

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:49PM (1 child)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday July 25 2018, @09:49PM (#712729)

    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!

    Shut yo' mouth!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:35PM (#712754)

      Make me bitch!! You live near the Dairy Queen? Come at me bro, I'll be waiting.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 25 2018, @10:37PM (#712755)

    mini-true doublethink, down the memory hole.

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

    by requerdanos (5997) 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.

    • (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.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:15AM (#712994)

    ... just Zuckerberg once again trying to find a way of saying he's actually going to do nothing, without offending anyone.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:51AM

    by Bot (3902) on Thursday July 26 2018, @10:51AM (#713007) Journal

    > "and I absolutely didn't intend to defend the intent of people who deny that [the holocaust]"

    Thank you Zucky, since nobody will label you a conspiracy nut, it necessarily follows that conspiracy theories are kosher now.

    --
    Account abandoned.
(1)