Earlier this week a Holocaust denier shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. Facebook didn’t change its policy on allowing Holocaus denial groups, even though one group quickly put up a cartoon mocking the event.
If attacks on Jews by Holocaust deniers won’t be enough to sway Facebook that this is all hate speech, perhaps angry advertisers will do the trick. Brian Cuban has been tracking advertisers who have insisted their ads don’t show up anywhere near Holocaust denial pages on Facebook, and at least one who doesn’t want ads to be placed on profiles of people who are members of such groups.
Vodafone, Tesco, American Airlines and Domino’s Pizza have pulled advertising, says Cuban.
Domino’s Pizza’s Social Media Specialist Phil Lozen wrote to Cuban saying that “initially, Facebook was pushing back on their ability to block ads” from some of the pages. But as of today even pages showing search results for hate groups won’t have Dominoes ads. He also says that Dominoes would not have purchased ads at all if they knew of the possibility of their ads appearing near Holocaust denial pages.
What we really need are a set of large advertisers to boycott Facebook entirely until these groups are banned. There’s a reason why eBay and other private companies won’t let this kind of hate speech on their sites. It’s bad for business. And as soon as Facebook realizes that, they’ll change their policy. Then look for lots of talk from Facebook employees about how proud they are that their company did the right thing – [insert current policy here].
And for those of you who will argue that the best way to handle hate is to shine a light on it, debate these people openly, and generally assume that reason will prevail: you’re wrong. Read this USA Today opinion piece that is talking about the steady rise of hate groups in the U.S. – “the Internet gives formerly isolated racists, whether individuals or small groups, a means to stoke one another’s smoldering anger. With the ready availability of weapons, even a single person can do enormous harm.”
Nicely said Michael.
For once, let us praise advertisers! I’m gonna order a Domino’s pizza right now.
(BTW, Michael, check your spelling of Domino’s and Vodafone.)
Spelling corrected, comment redacted.
Here goes the comments.. It is a difficult thing because on one side there is freedom of speech which you enjoy quite liberally as a blogger. Bloggers in general are symbolic of the whole freedom of speech.. but what if that freedom is used to spread hate? Here it is about the holocast. 2 years ago it was the Dixie Chicks who were shunned on radio stations.
See although you are right in some of your arguments mike.. the problem is if you censor on thing.. what stops us from becoming like V? Who is the moral authority? The govt which has shown it will use propoganda and indoctrination to get what it wants?
Furhermore you are asking Facebook to be a moral authority. If Facebook really is about mimicing real life interation in a website isn’t hate groups a part of that?
I simply do not have an answer.. truth is in all social sites trolls spew all sorts of hate.. and I think that hurts advertising more than these hate groups.. I think people who get trolled stop going to websites.. stop using groups..
Should facebook do a lot more like comparing the IP addresses of trolled accounts with others and simply say that computer cannot access facebook.. so many questions.. no answers..
we’re not talking about freedom of speech. we’re talking about how Facebook is going to deal with hate speech.
it’s a really easy decision when you look at this this way. Once you’ve read enough holocaust denial literature you understand that “the holocaust didn’t happen” is code for “All Jews must die.” It’s how they gain acceptance in society. but the translation is clear.
Thanks, Mike. Seriously.
How is that not Freedom of Speech? You are talking censorship. You are saying Facebook a web company should censor certain topics like hate to all jews. Yet you say nothing of the trolls that spew hate towards black people, towards Asian people.. hate drives half the comments in the groups.. I was in a facebook WOW group and request help finding a good anime artist only to hae some guys spew hateful comments towards asian people. Why are you focusing just on the jewish issue?
This a generic topic that applies to many topics.
Do you really think any smart person would take a group like that seriously?
The question here is does freedom of speech include hate rhetoric. Should we be allowed to say hateful innacurate truths in online social communities. What is the appropriate action? Who is to decide? It is a slippery path if we make facebook do this.. suddenly you are giving them controll over the information shared in these groups..
The problem is where would it stop?
well said. I would like to th hear the authors response to the questions raised by gebadia.
otherwise this is just another ploy to rile up some readers and increase readeship on techcrunch. that probably make syou even worse that authors of those groups.
Your name is a salesmans nightmare.. lol..how do you say that.. I do think it is something that we have to look at.. do these groups influence hate killings… we have heard the same thing about video games, music for years. The answer is likely yes, in a small way, just as certain video games in a small way make it easier to kill people..
I think the only answer is to Rate the groups where you have to be 18 years or older and no picture is shown. Just a title and then an advisory.. That is what the music industry did…
And then we need to trust people.. trust them to look at the evidence.. see that is what is missing.. we are not having faith in people to know the truth. I have never seen that group because I never went looking for it.. Likely if you don’t hate jews you never will.
There is nothing wrong with opposing the hate speech against Jews=–it does not assume that there is nothing wrong with the rest of the hate speech. As someone who supports the TOS of Facebook banning hate speech, I think the holocaust denying and anti-Jewish pages are disgusting and a violation of those terms. I also think that ANY other hate speech on official sites for that purpose is ALSO a violation of those terms.
There have always been rules of civility for discourse. Freedom of speech does not mean you are welcome everywhere. In fact, we ask to join Facebook, we are not citizens or taxpayers of a nation or people called Facebook.
We do NOT have to trust those with hate speech as a norm. That is precisely how the holocaust DID start. And precisely why it’s so dangerous to ignore such discourse (about ANY group) today and always.
The real issue with Facebook’s decision not to ban Facebook groups is that it already HAS become a voice of moral authority by deciding to ban pictures of women breastfeeding. See http://www.allf...bate-continues/. Facebook needs to decide, but waffling is worse.
oh god what is with you woman and their tits.. we don’t want to see it.. we are jealous.. it is just not fair they get to suck on them… it is a breast and it has food.. why can’t we have a turn.. but no… I so should not drunk comment.. but Pittsburg 2 Detroit 0 I know your apple is more sexy..
It is inappropriate to wite “jew” without capitalizing the “J.” And, it is inappropriate for a social networking site to allow itself to become a platform for hate.
I wrote “Jacob’s Courage” to teach a lesson about the Holocaust and to give people an idea of how it felt to be persecuted, tortured, used as forced labor and then murdered – only because of their religion.
“Jacob’s Courage” (Mazo Publishers) is a tender coming of age love story of two young adults living in Salzburg at the time when the Nazi war machine enters Austria. This historical novel presents accurate scenes and situations of Jews in ghettos and concentration camps, with particular attention to Theresienstadt and Auschwitz. It explores the dazzling beauty of passionate love and enduring bravery in a lurid world where the innocent are brutally murdered. From desperate despair, to unforgettable moments of chaste beauty, “Jacob’s Courage” examines a constellation of emotions during a time of incomprehensible brutality.
The Holocaust happened. Millions of innocent men, women and children were exterminated. It is obvious that the world has not learned from this experience, as the same has happened in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. Until we learn to value the differences among us, rather than fear them, such books appear to be critical.
freedom of speech is a right owed to you by your government, not by a privately held company who has already demonstrated it’s ability to censor content (breastfeeding) based on internally driven decisions.
@gebadia smith:
With all respect.
To me this has nothing to do with “freedom of speech”.
(if i got your correctly)
by your definition freedom of speech means i am allowed to tell my dog “attack/kill him”
or to say it mildly – “i am allowed to persuade my lesser minded companian in a discussion about the error in nature that you even exist and support this thesis by false facts. thereby i indirectly convince this companian to hate and attack you.”
imho: my freedom of speech (and living) ends where the freedom of the next person starts.
Hate speech should not be a protected form of free expression/speech. I don’t know what the limits of the right to free speech are in the US Constitution (I am sure there are limits) but the South African Bill of Rights, one of the most liberal in the world, specifically excludes hate speech and incitement to violence from the protection afforded by the right to freedom of expression.
Allowing hate speech under the pretense of protecting free speech is absurd. Hate speech does not deserve to have this level of protection and Facebook certainly should not allow these groups that thrive on hate speech to exist on its system.
Would Facebook take a different line if the hate speech was aimed at African Americans? What about prejudice against women (oh, wait, it allows that already)?
What is “hate speech”?
Liberals have shown themselves to not be trustworthy enough to make this determination.
Just saying anything that opposes them politically is often classified as “hate speech”.
Why even a simple tax protest was called a “Klan rally” (in effect) by a certain comedian!
I would like to say I agree with advertisers pulling out.. that is where Facebook did something wrong. It does worry me to think if I advertise in Facebook my ads could be places next to those groups.. so I think you will win long term by focusing on that…money makes the world go around.
I agree…getting corporate opposition to it is sadly a more powerful voice than those of citizens in this corporate democracy.
I really don’t understand what’s wrong with hate speech. Of course hate crime is horrible (though really, is it any worse than ‘normal’ crime?), but I fail to see how speech can hurt people. I’m not even going to get into the difficulty of defining what speech ‘hateful’ and what isn’t.
In short, opinions lol.
Hate speech is type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them. – History Central
Any language that dehumanizes anyone has no place anywhere under the auspices of Free Speech. – me
On the contrary: that is precisely where it belongs. Learn to identify the true dangers in actions as there are no immanent dangers in ideas or words.
Hate speech is problematic because it incites violence against specific groups of people. It leads to hate crime.
There is nothing wrong with reasonable discussions about contentious topics but when those discussions devolve into hateful attacks based on prejudices like racism, anti-semitism and so on, there is no form of expression deserving of protection there.
Mike, correct me if I am wrong, but when you say some statement like the denial of the holocaust is “code” for hate speach, you are making your own interpretation on that statement, correct? I agree people should not spread hate, however shouldn’t people be able to make whatever claims they want about history? Can someone not say that slaves didnt have it that bad in America’s early years? It may inflame Blacks and others, but that person has the right to their expression no matter how wrong they are.
I firmly believe in evolution, some view this as code for being anti-Christian, but I do have the right to express that. right?
Sure you can express that… until you add, “And all Christians should die because they disagree with me.”
no, it’s not Mike’s interpretation. it is commonly accepted that there is a direct link between the two. you can read more on the ADL’s web site here: http://www.adl....ntroduction.asp
Hate is in the Eye of the Beholder.
And in the corpses of the innocent people who die because of it.
You are right, hate is in the eye of the beholder. when you look in the mirror, do you hate what you see, locator douche?
So you suggest to take down these groups and turn an idiot who shoots a guard to a Martyr? Leaving these groups to the open just exposes their ‘ideas’ to public criticism, and shows just how ridiculous they are. Now, if people buy their preaches, that means someone did a bad work teaching them history.
You are giving these ridiculous groups unjust publicity with what repeated posts on the subject. You may start a holocaust advocacy group if you want, but don’t ask for censorship; it would open the gates of hell.
Seriously, Michael, it’s sounding more and more like you have a conflict of interest on this topic.
It’s a protected right to *express* your opinion about anything anywhere even if it’s wrong, inaccurate, distasteful, etc. Those who take an intellectually honest look at history will have no doubt of the holocaust’s occurance.
Nonviolent white supremacists are still allowed to gather pubically, march on their twisted ‘values,’ and *say* whatever they choose.
Banning speech of any kind is a slippery slope.
You’re always so good at extrapolating decisions to the bigger picture everywhere else, and I truly respect your intellect, but it sounds like a very personal and small-minded decision of yours suggesting removal of a group’s right to assemble and dispense nonsense.
Just my .02
facebook already bans some content, so they set the precedent for this.
and its not a slippery slope at all actually. there’s so much clarity on this topic that even a few *countries* have banned public discussion of denying the holocaust.
Holocaust denial is indeed illegal in 13 democratic countries.
Mike stop crying. You know it is wrong. But if freedom to express is there it is there for all. Even for the sickos.
I am usually very much against censorship, but in certain cases I believe it to be a good thing. I am from Austria, and just like Germany, we commited a lot of the worst crimes in histrory. Because of the events that happened in Austria and Germany in history, Austria has a law called the “Wiederbetaetigungsgesetz”. basically every person has the right of speech, BUT, if he openly denies the holocaust, distributes Nazi propaganda or has a swastika, there is a heavy fine and or jail time. This has been a law since over 50 years, and there have been no other forms of cencorship enforced since and the countrz is very liberal about everzthing else, although there is a tendency to push for higher penalties on hate crimes (which I think is good). In either case, this shows that there is a line that can be set between the freedom of speech and the censorship that are well defined.
Gebadia said…
It is a difficult thing because on one side there is freedom of speech which you enjoy quite liberally as a blogger.
No Gebadia, you’re wrong, if Facebook blocked those holocaust denier groups, it is entirely their right to do so. It’s got nothing to do with free speech. You can’t trump up free speech as something to override private property rights. I wouldn’t invite you to my own house for dinner so that you can abuse/lecture/telling-me-off, etc,… on the guise of free speech. You can do that elsewhere but not on my property.
Can you now differentiate between property rights & free speech? Holocaust deniers can develop their own websites and do all their postings and hatred free speeches over there, but not on someone’s private property such as Facebook if FB deemed that such groups would be devastating for their business and thus banned them.
So, enjoy your free speech on your own house not on mine.
But it isn’t in your house. It is in a group, that you chose to go to. Freedom of speech is not something you can turn off. It is a right, my parents, parents died for in WW2 and I am tired of people like you pissing on it.. you did that during the war in Iraq with your “not supporting the soldiers” propaganda.. if you can’t see the danger of freedom of speech being sold off because someone dared say something bad about jewish people then you need your head checked. Do you know what makes it bullshit is how we care more about something that happened 50 years ago but don’t give a dam about black muslim people dying in Dufar.. there is something intrinsically wrong with a society that cares more what some idiot says that trying to stop it from happening again..
Freedom of speech is NOT a right on a privately owned website. Not sure where you’re getting that idea.
You need to go read up on your legal rights on the internet.
I support Gebadia on this, and I support Facebook’s decision not to close down these sites. This is every bit a freedom of speech issue in as much as Facebook has decided to set itself up as a forum for free interaction.
This may be a bit cynical but in my opinion, advertisers who chose to pull their ads from Facebook over this issue are either just being plain disingenuous (willfully undertaking a sham PR exercise) or are too stupid to comprehend what Facebook is about. I doubt if an ad appearing randomly on a hate-group’s Facebook page justifies any more connection between the company and the group than would a billboard at at a crime scene would establish a connection between the advertiser and the criminals.
It’s documented history – what is there to deny for **** sakes.
I’ve always wondered that, it almost seems like a bad joke. It sounds the same as “Vietnam War deniers” to me. I’m also a little astonished it takes such a ruckus from Brian Cuban & finally advertisers to quell blatant hate speech on Facebook. That seems like an easily justifiable line to draw.
No its not as easily cut as that. It is an interesting topic to dig into, if u have the time.
I suggest you take a look at David Coles work who is Jewish. He went to Auschwitz and his conclusion is that 6million didn’t die and that there were no gas chambers its highly recommend you check it out
http://www.yout...h?v=iXKHw0EZrqM
He life was threatened by the way.
Mike here just wants to stir the birds nest. The violent minority is a sad case.
Wow, that was an incredibly fascinating video. Like most people, I thought the Holocaust was documented truth and that you had to have some sort of agenda to deny it. Now I’m not so sure, sounds like there is a real debate there. Thanks for posting the link.
Dave, there are Jews who lie about the Holocaust, just as there are gentiles who deny it. That does not make their claims true. Citing a Holocaust denier does not verify their incorrect, illogical and immoral allegation.
Think about this. More than 98% of PhD (professional) historians stake theie careers on the veracity of Holocaust data. The Holocaust is the most completely researched genocide in history. Tens of thousands of thesis and dissertations confirm the figue of 6 millions murdered Jews. The most accurate number (and this comes from Nazi records) is that 5.8 million Jews were exterminated. So, Dave, does it matter if the number is 5.8 million or 6 million? A genocide is a genocide, regardless of the total number of those murdered. Even if it were only 4 million (and it is not), the Holocaust would remain the most complete and devastating genocide in history.
If you prefer, I can provide dozens of vetted links that prove the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. I conducted more than three years of research in writing my Holocaust book, “Jacob’s Courage.”
You DO care about the number!
I find it highly suspect myself that the number 6 million is so rabidly guarded.
All of that is what makes these people thrive.
It *is* that cut and dried, Dave. My grandfather was a liberator of Dachau. He told me many stories. I have seen the pictures he took to prove the truth of the holocaust. Railroad car after railroad car, stacked with emaciated bodies. I’ve been to Dachau as well in recent years. The smell of death still permeates. Does such a graphic description of the undeniable truth make you uncomfortable? It should. Imagine what those young soldiers felt when they stumbled upon such a place.
You are wrong. The holocaust deniers are wrong. They are simply racists looking for any way to justify their hate. They are using Facebook (and people like you) to perpetuate their propaganda in order to indoctrinate a new generation and spread anti-semitism. No matter how slick the videos, how articulate the arguments, they are lying. Maybe you don’t know this, but I do.
Facebook is utterly wrong on this. As a private company, they have every right to ban this type of content. To me, they have a moral obligation to do so, and they are failing.
hey “Dave”, that’s pretty well done spin. writing the ‘oh i was surprised to learn’ comment right after the video? nice touch.
jerk.
I disagree with the entire denial of the holocaust, but I also think blocking it is ridiculous. People have opinions, I disagree entirely that abortion should be illegal, but then people think it should and that’s an opinion, so is whether or not the holocaust happened. Sure there is evidence to back it up and most of the people who deny are totally mad, but it doesn’t mean facebook should be preventing them from having such an opinion, just allow people to opt out of viewing such groups or having their adverts on the page.
It really isn’t hard to make a “flag as volatile” on a group page and have a staff member approve/deny the claim, if approved any users who opt not to see such groups don’t see it and advertisers aren’t having their adverts on such pages.
I say Facebook should leave these groups active just so it’s easy to recognize the fuckers who join them.
Seriously, with more and more employers checking Facebook pages before hiring, what better way to have this disgusting filth exposed?
David keeps tabs on the monsters before be closes them down. record will still be kept
Michael, we wish you would have mentioned this campaign, that we told you about on your Facebook page, which started this.
Why do you continue to shaft my organization which has been on the forefront of these issues?
Here are our posts about this:
Alert 50 Companies that they are Advertising Side by Side with Holocaust Denial Content on Facebook
http://www.thej...anies-that.html
Companies Respond to JIDF about Their Ads Appearing Beside Hateful Facebook Content
http://www.thej...f-concerns.html
you guys are starting to worry me. this is about hate speech, not “shafting” you or anyone getting credit. I noticed this issue because Brian Cuban sent me his posts and I decided to write about it.
i guess i missed whatever you sent to my facebook page. but try to remember what the core issue here is.
We’re well aware of the core issue, as we’ve been on it for a while and have been trying to get your attention onto our work, but thanks.
A link to our campaign, which inspired Cuban’s posts , would have been nice, that’s all.
Especially as I shared our campaign on your profile. It was pretty large:
http://i40.tiny....com/mt1ou9.jpg
It’s one thing to talk about these issues and a couple of companies, but JIDF researchers have gone through the trouble to acquire contact information for 50 companies.
How are companies going to know to do the right thing if we don’t alert them?
For future reference, in case you do anything about the 750 nazi channels on YouTube, we tried to get your attention on it here too:
http://twitter....uses/2099541316
There’s a whole history and context here and you can learn more about it on our website, as we’ve been tackling hatred on Facebook, YouTube, and elsewhere on the web for a while.
Mike,
The people at jdif.org do deserve some real credit on this issue. They’ve been working hard and are at the forefront (w/cuban) on this. With great power (reach) comes great responsibility Mike, use your power for some good here. Get more involved, you can make a difference.
wtf. if this post isn’t “getting involved” to try to “make a difference” then i don’t know what the hell is.
Ignore them Mike. You gotta do whats right without regard for others’ PR campaigns.
Thanks for keeping this issue at the forefront.
It’s not a PR campaign – we don’t have a PR dept,a PR budget or any PR pro’s working with us or helping us. It’s a grassroots effort and this is just one email campaign to alert advertisers of the issues:
TAKE ACTION: Alert 50 Companies that they are Advertising Side by Side with Holocaust Denial Content on Facebook
http://www.thej...anies-that.html
Mike is doing what is right, and I appreciate his effort. I just wish a little bit more credit would be given where it is due. That’s all. Not whining. I’ve just tried to alert him about our effort and the bigger picture here, but he chooses to continue to only focus on Brian Cuban’s work, who unfortunately, gets a lot of his inspiration from our work, and then mischaracterizes it at times, and doesn’t mention it others.
No big woop.
Facebook itself knows who’s behind it (as do all our activists who help get the screecaps, and do the research, etc.)
It’s all great exposure on the actual issues, so it doesn’t really matter. There’s just many other issues out there (like the 750 nazi youtube channels I shared with Mike, that Brian will eventually write about, so that MIke could then do a story, and leave out the fact that one of our activists did the research….)
It’s a recurring pattern. No big deal.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean -neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’ — Lewis Carroll
some of us were working on it on twitter too. but I guess that was also “avoided”. this isn’t about one social net. this is an industry problem. and if the industry had woken up when the Jewish Internet Defense force spoke out then maybe the Shoah museum might of been avoided. TechCrunch is a Tech Journal and it is the Tech Industry that is the problem. One can’t define a terrorist without being marginalized by the Scoble crowd. Social media is a Kangaroo court. How ironic that you are now trying to co-opt a movement of the Jewish Internet Community itself. We were alarmed before Brian Cuban. When the Tech Elite let @aMANdaCHAPel tell Jewish people on twitter that they were “Hiding Behind the Star of David”. do you wonder why we have to take severe actions? You let Loren Feldman front for @aMANdaCHAPel. you let these people accuse me of rape. Loren Feldman worked for you Michael! If I am not mistaken “rape” is what Palestine accused the Jews of in the newspapers in 1948. history repeats itself.
Now Im going to have to start fucking with you again. Didnt want to, now I have to. Noah everyone knows about you, and your crazy ways. This isnt about you sicko. Will be updating a certain domain today, rumor has it that you work for the palestinians anyway.
“rumor has it that you work for the palestinians anyway”
that’s absolutely absurd.
Loren I called out Strumpette on a blog post she wrote parodying Jesse Jackson’s career gaffe. http://strumpet...and-Blacks.html “Jesse says he’s organizing a march on Wall Street, to be followed by meetings with CEOs of large financial institutions… and a national broadcast from Trinity Church in Heimytown.” I also corrected “her” on the influences of Hanan Ashrawi on the biased reporting of Peter Jennings. and explained that I had sources such as Roz Abram of ABC news who had said that Ashrawi was the tip of the iceberg and that the affair between Kayce Freed and the columnist Richard Cohen had very much to do with Jennings radicalism even compared to the so called liberalism of Richard Cohen. All of this could of been left at disagreement, but Strumpette attempted to escalate our differences with libel and slander and sexual accusation. She sent people like yourself to destroy my reputation and the reputation of my friends. you never stopped Loren. you do not have a right to own my name online. http://NoahDavidSimon.com is not yours rightfully to control. http://noahdavi...v/file/1524682/ what you are doing is wrong. What you and @aMANdaCHAPel do is not parody. It is harassment and vitriol.
Can anyone explain to me why having an opinion should be banned? I don’t agree with denying the holocaust so please don’t try and turn this back on me sympathising with them, but why ban it? I think religion is a huge joke – a man in the sky?! – does that mean it should be banned? Religion promotes something which I feel never happened, holocaust denial is very similar, just slightly more far fetched and I don’t think there’s a legitimate reason for it to be banned.
Yes, facebook is a private site and they can do whatever they want and I really don’t care if they do ban it or let it stay, I just think coming here and saying it should be banned is stupid and I’d like to know why people seem to think it’s okay to claim banning such a thing is right when promoting the belief of a man in the sky.
good point. let’s ban those god believers. they got no proof.
lets ban these non-God believes they got no proof that God does not exist.
You cannot prove or disprove religion/faith.
Because the holocaust was genocide for which there’s extensive proof like, say, dead bodies?
And religion is just a mental condition?
why not ban religion then, since we have ample counter-proof and no proof?
this JIDF seems a bit like a hate organization itself. What’s with this image on their home page?
http://leftaint...bbasOfFatah.jpg
Have you seen the pictures about Islam? I hope it’s an elaborate Joke.
Yeah, because posting a picture of Obama and Abbas shaking hands on our website is truly indicative of a “hate” organization…
Why Doesn’t Obama Bash Mahmoud Abbas For Holocaust Denial? http://yidwithl...-abbas-for.html speaking of this issue?
Michael,
Can you explain why you have the same hate pictures posted on TechCrunch associated with this post? Does this negate your argument?
Why did you post them?
http://cache0.t...6/picture-5.jpg
I can’t believe you still want to fight fascism with fascism.
I don’t think he is.. he is fighting it with capitalism.. what company wants its ads side by side with hate.. not a good message. This affects there advertising platform. You just can’t have your site or your business associated in anyway with such groups..
apparently someone doesn’t know the meaning of “fascism” – Facebook has rules (TOS) – learn them.
I know what it means.. but the core aspect of the argument is money will cause Facebook to hange its tune. A companies desire to gain the greatest profit margin, a selfish act will determine its TOS and that is capitalism… it is just my interpretation of it.. could be wrong.. at least I don’t wine in TC for credit.. please mike give me props.. that is capitalism.. self promotion.. look at me.. I am the one who pointed this out.. look at me..
No one is “wining” or whining for that matter. I defend the fact that thousands of activists have been involved with this, doing research, writing letters, making phone calls about these issues on Facebook for nearly 2 years.
We alerted Michael about our campaign to contact 50 advertisers, but he continues to rely upon the sometimes unreliable information from Brian Cuban.
My whole point is that this is not a one man show, and that the problem is not limited to Holocaust denial on Facebook.
I believe if someone is going to tell a story, that the context and accuracy of the story is important. The fact that thousands of people have been on this for a while as part of multiple JIDF campaigns for two years is something these characters know, but choose to leave continuously leave out.
While I thank Brian Cuban for mentioning our campaign, he mischaracterized it by saying that the JIDF claims that advertisers are “enabling Holocaust denial.”
That’s just stupid and absurd and we have not done that whatsoever. We launched a campaign to INFORM the advertisers. How can an advertiser “enable Holocaust denial” when they don’t even know it’s happening?
Therefore, the JIDF campaign was created so that people would alert the advertisers. Michael could have helped us to do that, that’s all. No one cares about “credit” – we care that people come to our website and help contact the advertisers directly (a lot of them don’t read TechCrunch, ya know)
You have no idea what you are doing.. you need to relax.. there are no borders online.. some people hate some people love.. get over it.. we get it, the holocast was horrible.. now move on.. you depend on people like them.. it is how hate permeates.. you need to take more of an aikido approach.. you have made it so nobody cares.. I don’t see any jewish people in gas chambers.. I see black muslim people with aids getting slaughtered all the time and I don’t see you doing anything about that…
Why is it a jewish life is worth more than a black one? Maybe it is time we stop remembering and solve the problems now.. actually learn from the past.. or do you only care about jewish people?
You are right Aavid, you did not say they were enabling HD. You said the companies were:
“IN THE BUSINESS OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL”
A much worse and arguably defamatory statement. I chose to use the much tamer word of “enabling”. since the point of the piece was not to criticize your choice of wording. My choice as a writer.
You of course have since taken down that that post after I pointed it out to you. You have no credibility.
Anyone who doubts this can read the email exchange right here.
http://www.bria.../Picture-15.png
What are you talking about, Brian? I read the post on the JIDF website. David started the campaign to alert the companies where their ads were being placed so they could make informed decisions. Where do you even get that from? The link you post only further explains that David never blamed the companies — he blames Facebook.
Brian Cuban – As I commented on your website, we took down the post since it only served as a “rough draft” and precursor to our current campaign to inform 50 companies and thus, was fairly irrelevant at this point. However, since you brought it up, we have put it back up to prove the point. As you can see, in the post:
20+ Companies in the Business of Holocaust Denial Via Facebook
http://www.thej...-holocaust.html
We were asking for people to help us gather contact information for our campaign in order to inform the companies of the issue and ask them to remove their ads. The operative term that you leave out purposely is “VIA FACEBOOK” – all along we have said that Facebook is 100% responsible for the problem. If advertisers were “enabling” Holocaust denial, that would assume that they knew of the problem.
Why would we initiate a campaign to inform advertisers if we assumed that they knew of the issue, and thus, were “enabling” it? One would think if anything was “arguably defamatory” that we would be hearing directly from the legal departments of the 50 companies we contacted. That hasn’t happened. I wonder why.
On top of mischaracterizing our campaign and baseless accusations of defamation, you claim that the JIDF has no credibility.
That’s peculiar considering I was the one you to this entire issue in the first place, and do you not rely upon our research all the time?
You want to bring up emails?
How about this email:
http://i39.tiny...com/348speb.jpg
Or this email:
http://i42.tiny....com/fth2qx.jpg
Or this email:
http://i41.tiny...ic.com/ao2h.jpg
Or this email when you were asking for screencaps and you specifically said, ” I will thank JIDF for providing it” –
http://i39.tiny...com/34q5qms.jpg
(and MANY others)
Now the screencap we provided is on your website and here @techcrunch where’s that “thank you” you mentioned?
For someone with “no credibility” you certainly turn to me and my organization for information enough times! If you think we’re not credible and yet you rely upon our information, does that make you credible?
Correction:
“That’s peculiar considering I was the one
***WHO INTRODUCED YOU***
to this entire issue in the first place”
is hating on haters the solution?
two hates dont make a right.
You are getting better locator dude.. I still will never try your site but your remarks are getting better.. at least now you are entertaining.. my question here is would you advertise on Facebook without a garentee your site will not show in ads next to hate groups? I won’t.
See “locator douche” a lot of people think you are a waste of time
Not that I like it, but is there a perverse benefit to allowing groups like this in that the authorities can then get a better idea of what people to keep an eye on, rather than lurking in the shadows? Or is it too simplistic to think that such people let their guard down (there the other negative, of course, which might allow groups like this to draw in more members).
this is a great step, and there would probably be a large amount of positive PR for these companies to really make a stand and stop advertising on facebook until the hate groups are removed (all hate groups, i assume holocaust deniers aren’t the only hate groups on facebook).
Michael, YOU HAVE the ability to start anti-FB campaign. Why don’t you do it?
Facebook is a for-profit corporation. It’s not a part of the U.S. government. It does not take taxpayer funding. It does not have to abide by freedom-of-speech laws. It can censor anything it wants to.
Facebook should pick and choose what it wants proclaimed on its property. Indeed, having hate speech freely bandied about on your private property makes it look like you tacitly accept it. That’s bad for Facebook’s brand.
Refusing to make a values-based decision is, in itself, a values-based decision, like a parent who lets his young child watch whatever she wants, even if it’s porn.
If Facebook sticks with its policy of speech neutrality, the postings could get worse. There’s a load of vile vile stuff out there: websites that glorify violence against women, or that use the N-word in clear hatred of blacks. Do we want to see those on Facebook? If Facebook continues to hem and haw, the scum will show up — just wait.
Facebook already has strict terms restricting nudity in photos. Denial of the Holocaust is infinitely worse than photos of the human body.
Hopefully, this action by the advertisers will make Facebook realize that banning hate speech is simply smart business.
Well said.
Agreed
Mike,
Who will police the police? You keep trying to win this one, and I hope you wont. I like to think people will have some amount of intelligence to decide for themselves and not need a morality police.
Lastly, I personally would have waited a bit before making this post lest appearing I am taking advantage of this tragedy to make your point.
I don’t think Mike is taking advantage of the shooting by discussing issues surrounding it. Certainly, posting something interesting and timely may draw in more readers, but we all benefit from a good discussion. Thinking this post was calculated to get you to click one more ad is pretty callous.
who is talking about ad clicks. Mike started this crusade and he just doesn’t want to lose face by not getting a FB concession. He stopped after user backlash and now he reopened the can after this tragedy.
right. this post is me, backing down.
Mike,
Here is a suggestion. Why not use your and team’s vanity URL to make a point. Get names like, stop-holocaust-deniers-on-facebook. or something thing like that. Or even better, remove your FB account and stop using it as a show of protest.
This is anti-Libertarian. How is this different from the Craigslist vs. AG of SouthCarolina? Attorney General Arrington? Are you aiming for public office or HuffPo?
As someone said above, it’s better these nut-jobs assemble in public where they can be properly ridiculed, not shuffled into meeting in the shadows of the night or their own private Idaho…
On the other hand, it would seal FB’s fate (i.e. fad) as the digital world will move to a democracy, just like most countries in the world.
Pretty sure Zuckerberg et. al. do not have many views in common with these people (nor do I). Nor do I believe people that actually stumble upon pages with ads from a given company next to some group or someone espousing such ideas ties the company to the group.
Mike did not start this campaign. The Jewish Internet Defense Force did….nearly two years ago. It’s nice that some others are finally waking up to it.
This JIDF seems a bit on hate side itself. I would have picked another organization if you want a broader legitimacy for your cause.
Why won’t you argue with me.. your no fun.. I understand that for the Jewish people they just are afraid they will be forgotten because that happened in WW2 where we all turned our backs.. nobody gave a dam how many Hitler killed..
I get that and the holocaust was something horrible.. but you all need to change how you market this. You need to use the story of world war 2 to stop what is happening in africa.. that is the problem with your message.. you are selling it wrong and it has become annoying.. nobody gives a dam about these groups except idiots.. can’t they just remain a showcase for idiots.. why don’t you start a project with Facebook to tell the storie of the wars in a facebook app. link in to hulu also.. go factual. leave no doubt. do mobile also.. and then learn to make fun of yourselves cause you all are too uptight..
Honestly it is insulting how you expect people are stupid. Build an app, a Facebook fan page, website, a feed of jewish twitter comments.. I don’t know but seems to me to be the more logical way to combat this stuff.
See Mike you have given every idiot a bright shinning path to the place to be stupid.. I don’t know if it is the right approach.. why fight by banning.. why not simply answer the question..
People watch CSI.. CSI the holocast for real..
Please don’t cause you know I got man love for you.. in a non gay way.. not that their is anything wrong with that.. unless you decide to get married.. then the planets are coliding.. world coming to an end… cause if we make being gay ok we as men are afraid their gay dar will go off when they look at us.. its true.. the only reason we don’t like gay guys is because we are afraid they will say we are gay….
where was I…
Ok the last part makes no sense.. little drunk.. lol
Great post Michael. Please keep it up until the break. Facebook and its management should be ashamed.
“this kind of hate speech”???
it’s the FREE SPEECH!
looks like that america isn’t a free-speech country anymore
Facebook is a business. It’s not America.
Rep – in many countries other than America, places that are perfectly lovely democracies, there are hate speech laws.
Additionally, as Phreddy pointed out, the TOS of FB which you agree to when you become a member, over ride the constitution.
Offering further confusion, how’s this? I signed up to FB when I lived in Canada (which has hate speech laws) and now live in New Zealand (which also has hate speech laws) and sometimes I post on it from the US (which doesn’t – or has weakened versions). Presumably if I were to go to Germany (where denying the Holocaust is illegal) I’d post photos on facebook.. so your “this is AMERICA!!!” argument (besides not really applying to FB) ignores the reality of the geographic and jurisdictional dispersion of the FB user base.
Mike, your point is valid, some of your commentors don’t get it yet.
The original form of hate speech in Nazi Germany gained ground actually because of similarities to certain US freedoms. And the biggest joke was Adolph was democratically elected, then proceeded to screw democracy over.
History has already told us where holocaust denial and other anti-Semitism leads. It’d be naive to suggest it won’t end up that way again if we let it.
Joke to holocaust deniers. The Nazis’ own records sank them. Their own records provided testimony to what they did. End of story.
Facebook should take a stance against Holocaust denial only in cases where it is literally attacking a person or peoples. If it is calling out a peoples on what they believe to be a lie, without attacking them, it should still be allowed.
I’m not for Holocaust Denial, but those believers also have the right to their opinion, regardless of fact. Holocaust Denial on its own should not be disallowed, but more so attacking (which already is.) The question is whether Facebook is taking a stance against actual attacking of peoples on their platform.
The Constitution does not say anything private entities having rights such as freedom of speech.
It applies to the Government only.
FB does not have to allow holocaust deniers but they continue to do so which is pathetic.
At the same time they have banned breast feeding photos. Talk about having weird set of values and perspectives.
the screenshot above must be months old or faked!
all the groups did’nt exist (anymore).
i don’t think facebook deleted them sooo fast after this article.
The screen caps were taken within a week ago and all the groups should still exist. My organization provided the screen caps (again, no credit given)
Waaaa
Seriously now, I have been reading through a string of comments and you really need to take another tone with your posts. I’m on your side but you just seem like you’re whining because the author failed to give you credit. Oh, the horror! He is bringing legitimate attention to your cause. You should be happy at the underlining story instead of whining about not getting any credit. It’s pathetic.
He’s bringing a little attention to one small aspect of the cause, but not sending anyone to help with our campaign, which initiated all of this. Furthermore, the problems are much greater than Holocaust denial and Brian Cuban used a screencap the JIDF provided and said he would thank us for the help. He didn’t. I have no real issues with Arrington, other than the fact that he is relying upon so much of Cuban’s work, which relies upon our work, then mischaracterizes it, then claims the JIDF is “not credible” etc. This goes back to last summer – and even further back with Brian Cuban – i don’t expect outsiders to understand the scope of my issues. If it sounds like whining, it’s not – I don’t really care about “credit” – I care about principles.
Let’s consider a group of people who state “event A did not occur”. They may be wrong or they may be right. There may be a hateful reason that they believe that A did not occur. The entire set of people who believe A did not occur may in fact be violent and rage against whomever they feel like.
But this isn’t any different than people who say “event B occurred”. They may be wrong or right, they may be openly hateful against the people who believe B did not occur. They may be violent and rage against whomever they feel like.
The first group of people represent large denial groups such as the Japanese groups who deny the events in Nanking or the people who deny the Holocaust. The second group of people have traditionally been religions who claim divine events and have been able to amass far more resources for their cause, and who have also been violent in the past.
Any set of attitudes or beliefs that deny reason and truth are always more likely to create the naive sort of blind hatred that damages societies. But what we need to attack I believe are the acts of hatred, violence and intimidation themselves, not the belief or the expression of that belief. This seems to me the only sane thing to do.
by the way the groups in the screenshot have only ~2000 idiots for fans. Random lolcats have more
There were many more of these Holocaust denial groups that previously existed on FB with thousands more members.
Facebook has continuously removed them over the past 2 years, but for some odd reason has now decided to make a statement in leaving these small remaining ones up.
Why delete some and not others? There is no rhyme or reason to the inconsistent manner in which FB enforces their own ToS.
Well written.
what would happen if somebody denied that 9/11 happened and made fun of it and its victims. Would that upset the American soul?
Um… They do
> Then look for lots of talk from
> Facebook employees about how
> proud they are that their company
> did the right thing – [insert current policy here].
I’m a Facebook employee, so I’ll go on record: If Facebook changes its policy on this, it will be wrong, and I will not be proud. Our current policy is correct, notwithstanding your irrefutable citation of a USA Today op-ed.
And just to be clear, I’m speaking as myself, not as a representative of the entire company. I know this blog was confused about that the last time Randi decided to express her thoughts.
hey Blake, if you had to take a guess on FB employee’s opinion on this issue, where would it fall? 90% pro current policy? 50%?
I am not so presumptuous as to speak for anyone else in the company, but I am also a Facebook employee and fully agree with Blake. If we change our policy I think it will be wrong and I will not be proud.
You and Blake are already wrong, as is the company and you have nothing to be proud about – you people didn’t even take action against Islamic terrorist content until you got negative publicity due to JIDF actions to expose the issues.
You have TOS against hatred for a reason.
Enforce it and stop saying how proud you are to be supporting hatred on your site.
in the butt.
Good for you guys. Got my support for whatever it’s worth.
why won’t you be proud? what specifically makes you proud of your actions? is it the “we support hate crimes” bit, or more the “we sit on the sidelines with silence indifference” bit? let me guess, you guys also think the situation in Darfur is just some mild internal conflict that we should probably ignore too?
it’s shameful.
Blake, sorry, on this one you’re wrong. Here’s why. You guys regularly censor speech. Heck, you pull down mothers who show pictures of breast feeding. And I get email from many other people who’ve had accounts closed because of various behaviors that could be construed as exercising their right to free speech.
So, since Facebook has already forked from a vigorous free speech defense you have no moral authority to take the stand you are taking. Your company is in the wrong here. So are you.
If you are really for freedom of speech you must allow ALL speech. Even stuff YOU don’t like, like spam or breastfeeding photos.
Your stance on this is wrong.
Thank you!
Facebook is filled with double standards and hypocrisy.
I’ve been saying this forever.
I cannot believe so many Facebook employees are so completely out of touch with how Facebook actually works.
Exactly!!!!
Facebook will never listen to the people whom they forget are the ones who fuel Facebook as well as any other site. Hopefully they listen to the advertisers.
http://www.twibeo.com
Twibeo is the service that allows thousands of people to see and talk about what’s happening now … using pictures and videos and even text.
Are you really this clueless when it comes to marketing? Seriously hire someone with half a brain… you just used a holocaust debate to pawn your shit.
Furthermore Facebook has always been willing to listen to its users. Have you ever tried to get an email address for google? abuse@facebook.com I have never been able to find an email address for the lovely “Do know evil” company.,. so don’t trash facebook. Mike is making this about jewish people but it really is about the age old argument, does hate speach or images lead to hateful acts.. and we all know it does.. WW2, the holocaust was an example of this… every suicide bomber is an example of this.. the problem is how do we stop it without sacrificing our fundemental freedoms we died to protect in WW2…
You DO know that Dominoes is a bigoted pro-life company that gives money to the organizations that are responsible for inciting these very abortion doctor killings, right?
yes, Tom Monaghan isn’t someone i’d look to as a beacon for free speech
LOL that’s the irony of the Cuban movement — Monaghan’s support isn’t the best of signals.
@the JIDF people, you are probably being ignored as you come across very non inclusive. Very anti-dem, anti-Palestine, anti-Obama and anti-Muslim etc.
A quick look through your site and twitter shows a link to a Facebook anti-creation of Palestine on Google Earth group, photo of Obama with Palestine’s flag, tons of pro Israel and far right wing links and your Twitter feed is, well, interesting isn’t it.
Plus this charming comment on twitter to an African American…
“People like you make us wonder why Jews bothered marching with Martin Luther King Jr. for your civil rights.”
The Facebook groups, Holocaust denial and hatred for Jewish people disgusts me. However, I dislike all racism and hate…
well put
the so called “moderate” leadership of Palestine are in fact Holocaust deniers. It isn’t wrong to point that out especially in reference to this issue.
One thing that no one in the comments section has mentioned: In some states, Hate Speech is NOT protected and there are penalties for it under the law, so this is not, as Michael has accurately put it, about freedom of speech and censorship because there is already a standard out there about policing this sort of behavior.
Facebook is totally in the wrong on this one, and I hope they lose enough advertisers to convince them to change their policy.
@bjmendelson
“In some states, Hate Speech is NOT protected and there are penalties for it under the law”
in some states it might be more clear. but the precedence for this is federal
I don’t understand how one can rationalize censorship, no matter how wrong or evil the message. It’s not the place of government, news media or communication platforms to tell anyone what they can or cannot say.
I’m a Facebook employee and speaking for myself, not as a representative of the company.
so then you believe your employer acted incorrectly in shutting this KKK page down.
http://www.tele...-Klan-page.html
and you also disagree with facebook’s policy of deleting really hateful wall posts attacking jews.
There’s a huge difference between presenting a point that follows your beliefs and attacking individuals. Ultimately it is down to facebook and their terms of service, they can ban the use of “cake” if they really wanted and we’d have to accept it.
The point is, if I create a page for the KKK it’s to represent my opinion – assuming I’m a member – it doesn’t attack anyone personally. Being part of most religions encourages contempt towards other none religious people, so where is the difference between that and the KKK? Attacking people personally, saying “I’m going to murder your family because you’re a jew” is obviously unacceptable, but saying “I don’t like jews” shouldn’t be, it’s an opinion, whether or not we agree with it.
Censorship that prevents people voicing their opinion based upon the ‘niceness’ of it is wrong and it’s undeniable, there are people offended by the talk of sex, there are people offended by dieting, there are people offended by white supremacy, where is the difference besides the amount of people offended?
The KKK is a terrorist organization which pose an active threat to the safety of others. Hateful messages to Jews are personal attacks which violate the rights and safety of victims. Denying the Holocaust is ridiculous and deplorable, but forming a group to talk about it isn’t an affront on anyone’s safety.
Implying that the senseless murder of a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC means that all people with similar beliefs pose a threat to the safety of the others is not only irrational, but is also an offensive abuse of a tragedy to further a policy agenda that pays no respect to the victim or his family.
you didn’t answer the question. you said “I don’t understand how one can rationalize censorship, no matter how wrong or evil the message. ” but you support the takedown of the KKK page. can you explain that without attacking me personally as “offensive”?
at the end of the day you just want to fit in with your colleagues. you care, but you also support free speech. you’re proud that your employer is willing to take such a courageous stand. etc. which is all good until the next time a holocaust denier kills someone. and then, once again, you call it “offensive” if someone brings it up and questions facebook’s policy.
I believe that censoring someone because you disagree with them is wrong, but I acknowledge our obligation to the safety of our users trumps free speech. Taking down the KKK page, which contained specific threads, was necessary.
You’re saying that these Holocaust denial groups, none of which seems to have more than 140 members, are presenting a threat to the safety of other people, and I’m disagreeing. These groups are not responsible for the actions of the murderer in DC, and you’re implying otherwise.
Undermine my opinion all you like, call me a sheep if you like, but I was open about the fact that I’m an employee – which, incidentally, doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to my own opinion.
Full disclosure – Also a Facebook employee, simply expressing my own opinion.
I find your apparent inability to accept that people at the company genuinely disagree with you remarkable.
We all totally get that you hold your belief that Facebook’s stance on this issue is the wrong one in good faith. But if you want to seriously claim some sort of moral high ground you should, at minimum, do those who disagree with you the courtesy of returning the favor.
The stance the company is taking essentially aligns with the Constitutional restrictions on the US Government’s ability to criminalize speech. Before anyone raises the canard, I totally understand and completely accept that Facebook is not bound by those restrictions.
However, I also don’t think that fact is relevant to the moral force of the arguments underpinning the argument. Either using coercive power to censor others except in cases of direct threats to violence is morally dubious or it isn’t. If it is, then Facebook’s policy here is the right one. If it’s not, then the America’s radical free speech protections are wrong.
Getting a private company to do the censorship doesn’t change the moral calculus.
Adam Mosseri said:
//You’re saying that these Holocaust denial groups, none of which seems to have more than 140 members…//
As a Facebook employee, wouldn’t it help if you actually had a clue as to what you’re talking about?
All the groups in the photo have between 300 and over 1000 members.
Furthermore, there are groups with 10’s of thousands of members espousing the same Holocaust denial material, hatred, promoting genocide and Islamic terrorism.
What is WITH you people? SERIOUSLY!
Does Zuckerberg have you all brainwashed to the point where you’re just not thinking anymore?
I’ve never seen so much intellectual laziness about important issues in my life.
Try looking at the screencaps the JIDF provided (above) the largest groups
Adam Mosseri said:
//You’re saying that these Holocaust denial groups, none of which seems to have more than 140 members…//
As a Facebook employee, wouldn’t it help if you actually had a clue as to what you’re talking about?
Try looking at the photos the JIDF (uncredited) provided (above)
All the groups in the photo have between 300 and over 1000 members.
Furthermore, there are groups with 10’s of thousands of members espousing the same Holocaust denial material, hatred, promoting genocide and Islamic terrorism.
What is WITH you people? SERIOUSLY!
Does Zuckerberg have you all brainwashed to the point where you’re just not thinking anymore?
I’ve never seen so much intellectual laziness about important issues in my life.
Dave Willner
Enough w/ your mental gymnastics.
The stance the Facebook is taking is not in line with its own TERMS OF SERVICE.
On Ezra Callahan’s note I provided multiple instances of clear TOS violations in which several Facebook employees were made aware.
Action was rarely taken.
Facebook claims to have some sort of system in place to report material and individuals who are breaking the TOS, but provides no information about how this system works precisely.
I know of people who are promoting Hezbollah on Facebook. Facebook does nothing. Groups with 10’s of thousands of people are promoting terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and Facebook rarely takes action.
When does Facebook take action? Against academic threads which are critical of Islam or of Facebook itself…..or of course, when Facebook gets enough bad publicity.
Thinking carefully and in detail about an issue that affects more than 200 million people isn’t “mental gymnastics”, it a duty.
Stop avoiding the question with ad hominems and false assertions. Argue against the argument.
If protecting the Freedom of Speech except in cases of direct threat is a moral imperative, then it’s a moral imperative. If you think that it isn’t, please explain why.
I am willing to be convinced…but only by actual reasoning, not by assertions of fact, accusations of bad faith, and the statement of simple equivalences.
There is no complication beyond the fact that facebook is arbitrary and only reacts in a punitive fashion. They have written terms and they refuse to follow them. Why do they have them in the first place? It’d be one thing if facebook were altruistic and let people join local self policed communities. but facebook wants full control, and therefor they are accountable. When facebook doesn’t follow their own terms they aren’t on a slippery slope, they are on a mudslide. It is agreed that decency and the profane are subjective, but like SCOTUS said about pornography: “they know it when they see it”. Pornography and hate speech are not the only concepts in law that follow the parameters of ’self evident’ as opposed to ‘objectively proven’: http://en.wikip...of_Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
> at the end of the day you just want to fit in with your colleagues.
I’m baffled by these odd rationalizations. Facebook is an extremely outspoken and heterogeneous group of people. Employees disagree with each other and the company all day every day, and quite loudly. I’ll be the first to say that we really fuck things up from time to time, but fortunately this isn’t one of them. We’re disagreeing with you because we believe you are wrong. We have the same debates internally.
glad to see most people who word at facebook are more rational than some blogger who studied law
Facebook can believe we are wrong all they want.
Its employees like Dave Willner can continue to speak with this florid, empty rhetoric all they please. Any debater or polished rhetorician can use reason to rationalize just about anything to the point of absurdity.
Hitler and Goebbels used rhetoric and an appeal to logos to convince masses to exterminate Jews, gypies, midgets, gays, quadriplegics, dissidents,etc. So what?
Enough with these semantic games already.
Spewing hate like Holocaust denial has real implications in the lives of real people in the real world. Own your part in enabling it, and if you can’t, maybe it’s time you all took some sensitivity training. What you are doing is morally wrong.
We will continue to ratchet up the heat on this issue.
Jessica – I’m pretty sure you just accused Dave Willner of empty rhetoric in the same post you compare him to a Nazi.
Ironically, he is making a valid point and you are doing nothing but spewing hate. Don’t you realize that has real implications in the lives of real people in the world? You aren’t just enabling it, you’re part of it!
This argument is a microcosm of the issue in general, at what point is the judgment on hate speech just the majority enforcing its views on the minority? Yelling fire in a crowded building isn’t protected (legally or morally) because it directly infringes on the physical safety of others, something they have a right to in our moral judgement. I think it is pretty clear that these groups pose no such imminent threat. They are distasteful and ignorant to all of us, but they should not be shut down unless they pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others, such as through threats of violence.
Andrew, these groups DO indeed pose a threat — and what’s so frustrating is that no one at Facebook seems to understand the threat.
By not removing Holocaust denial groups, Facebook is tacitly making antisemitism socially acceptable which has major implications for the future generations of our society and has immediate ramifications for today’s youth.
Desensitizing people to antisemitism or any type of hate is a major step of the genocidal process http://www.geno...org/8stages.htm
While I don’t think FB employees are Nazis, I certainly think that in their own well-intentioned but misguided ways they have indeed become bystanders tacitly legitimizing the hate being spread through these groups. I think FB needs to start understanding the consequences of their silence and refusal to act.
I have explained this at length to certain FB employees, but I don’t think they’re listening. This is the tip of the iceberg. If you are truly interested in hearing more about this, I will certainly provide more information.
“Today, the Internet is a powerful and virulent platform for anti-Semitism � hate towards Jews that has a direct link to violence, terrorism and the deterioration of civil society. Hitler and the Nazis could never have dreamed of such an engine of hate.
Indeed, the Internet is the new propaganda machine for anti-Semites. But instead of being under central control of a political party or group, its power is in its viral nature. Everyone can be a publisher, even the most vicious anti-Semite.
Hate begets hate, and its common appearance makes it seem acceptable and normal.
The Internet allows anti-Semites to communicate, collaborate and plot in ways simply not possible in the off-line world.
The Internet inspires and facilitates real-world violence.
Today, following the Israeli operation in Gaza, assaults against Jews around the world are on the rise. In Europe and South America, Jews have been threatened and beaten on the street and synagogues firebombed.
It is more than likely that the instant coordination and planning by the gangs responsible for the attacks were done with the assistance of all of the communication tools of the Internet, from e-mail, to text messages, to so-called meet-ups.
Beyond the Internet facilitating instant violence toward Jews, the Web sites and other online messages of anti-Semitic hate serve to victimize those especially vulnerable to hurtful words and images, especially the young and survivors of the Holocaust and their families.
And perhaps most distressing, Internet hate speech serves to mislead and even recruit young people to become the next generation of anti-Semites.
A few years back, we might have dismissed the crass and blatant web sites of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semitic groups as outliers � fringe elements not worth taking seriously or worthy of response. But today, we also are in the world of what is called “Web 2.0,” which has transformed the way the Internet is being used. Now, everyone can be an Internet publisher (or propagandist).
And with the users of Web 2.0 comprised largely of younger people, the impact of the information contained there may persist for generations to come.”
http://www.adl...._Conference.htm
More info here:
http://tinyurl....om/hateontheweb
http://tinyurl.com/oboler
Dave Willner says:
//Thinking carefully and in detail about an issue that affects more than 200 million people isn’t “mental gymnastics”, it a duty//
Then do your duty and enforce your TOS with regard to hatred.
You keep talking about “freedom of speech.” However, Facebook is a private company, on private servers, with private rules (TOS).
Furthermore, Facebook is not about “Freedom of Speech” as you arbitrarily have removed academic threads which were critical of Islam. Furthermore, Facebook has removed content which has been critical of Facebook itself!
Is Randi Zuckerberg showing her love of “free speech” when she threatens to arbitrarily pull down people’s pages because she doesn’t like a bar or bartender? (See: http://www.thej...-sister-of.html)
Who are you kidding? What about all my Jewish activist friends who get deactivated for no good reason whatsoever? What about the many months I’d get deactivated at a rate of twice a month?
To claim that Facebook cares about Freedom of speech is a complete joke to the many of us who use it to discuss anything the slightest bit controversial, so I’m not sure who you, or the company think you’re fooling. Randi Zuckerberg’s tweet/threat to arbitrarily remove Facebook content shows just how abusive and cavalier the company is with its members’ content.
Dave Willner, you continue to go on and on about “free speech” about Facebook, but I thought I’d bring this group to your attention:
Account Deactivated for Criticizing Islam
http://www.face...7026&ref=mf
Also please note my own personal history with Facebook:
05.13.08 – Disabled
05.15.08 – Reinstated
09.15.08 – Disabled
09.15.08 – Reinstated
12.16.08 – Disabled
12.16.08 – Reinstated
01.11.09 – Disabled
01.13.09 – Reinstated
01.14.09 – Disabled
01.14.09 – Reinstated
02.18.09 – Disabled
02.19.09 – Reinstated
02.19.09 – Disabled
02.20.09 – Reinstated – 4 pm
02.20.09 – Disabled – 8 pm
02.22.09 – Reinstated – 1pm
02.22.09 – Disabled – 3pm
02.23.09 – Reactivated!
03.30.09 – DISABLED YET AGAIN
Which “coincidentally” tied into any time the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) was in the press highlighting the many issues on Facebbook.
Here is a group which went up to document the issues with my account:
FACEBOOK: BRING DAVID APPLETREE BACK AND LEAVE HIS ACCOUNT ALONE!
http://www.face...1818&ref=ts
Again, I lose about 2-5 good Jewish activist friends per week for no good reason whatsoever. Facebook, although it’s a company that always claims “transparency” rarely provides any reasons for these deactivations – sometimes it takes up to two-weeks before people can even get their accounts back.
Again, is it right that Facebook claims both “transparency” and to value “free speech” and “community” and all that jazz, when you pull so much of this crap with some of your most active members?
Why don’t you focus on the REAL problems on Facebook and stop messing with accounts of people with whom you disagree.
Please advance an argument against the idea that protecting free expression except to prevent direct harm is a moral imperative.
Thus far, the collective response has consisted entirely of false equivalences, attacks on the idea of reasoning, ad hominems, incorrect/incomplete/misinformed assertions, and accusations of bad faith on the part of Facebook. I will not answer these in detail, since they simply are not arguments.
However, since we are now in the business of quoting others, let me add some passages of my own:
“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
- John Stewart Mill, “On Liberty”
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
- John F. Kennedy
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
- Noam Chomsky
“Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.”
- Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959
Dave, You really are in denial about the harm that allowing antisemitism to become socially acceptable causes. If you refuse to accept the premise that allowing antisemitism to fester creates a climate for hateful people to think it’s okay to vilify Jews and even attack them or even G-d forbid to repeat another Holocaust, there’s nothing anyone can say to convince you.
You don’t want to accept what all the researchers in genocide and Holocaust studies have indicated.
All of your quotations above would be wonderful if Facebook actually allowed free speech for everyone it despises — but it doesn’t.
I hate to repeat a post on the thread here but I think this bears repeating:
Free speech is limited on Facebook. I have personally witnessed Facebook censor material on numerous occasions. I have seen them delete Robert Chapin’s group and discussion threads stating that Facebook did not do enough to make users aware of the voting on ToS and that they should extend the window for voting. I saw them delete threads that Jason Kulas posted critiquing the new layout. I saw them delete threads of archives that I had put up cataloging hundreds of hate posts that were ubiquitous throughout the numerous hate groups on Facebook while the actual original hate posts remained. I saw them delete threads entitled “The Jewish Nakba: Plight of nearly 1 million Jewish refugees from Arab countries” while threads about the Arabic Nakba remained in several anti-Israel groups.
Facebook engages in a hypocritical double standards when it comes to censoring free speech.
Clearly, they hit the delete button when they feel like censoring free speech, but for some odd reason they are adamant that Holocaust denial must remain.
The fact that we have a Facebook employee, Dave Willner, quoting Noam Chomsky, says it all.
Chomsky is a man who sits down with and supports Hezbollah:
http://www.came...;x_article=1151
And whose hatred and disdain toward of America, Israel, and the Jewish people is nearly second to none.
One more thing Dave,
I agree with the quotes you’ve posted.
“…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
That’s exactly right. We are asking you to exercise your power in hitting the delete button to prevent harm –whether imminent or in the long term– that will be caused to others as a result of tacitly making hate socially acceptable.
“Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.”
We wish to be clear — we have no issues with legitimate political discourse that is contextual, comparative, and truthful. However, when it comes to encouraging the murder of Jews and purposefully disseminating misinformation to demonize Jews and to delegitimize Israel, there is a moral obligation to remove the platform of such repugnant hate-mongers. Unfortunately, we do not need to search too far back into history to realize that such evils have a real cost in terms of human lives.
Unfortunately, these groups are not ones that are engaging in legitimate inquiry and discourse. They are solely spewing hate in direct violation of FB’s own ToS.
Chomsky’s Ravenous Bugblatter Beast {seesmic_video:{”url_thumbnail”:{”value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/uGmyOD7d4j_th1.jpg”}”title”:{”value”:”Chomsky’s Ravenous Bugblatter Beast ”}”videoUri”:{”value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/G7G3ZeV8UC”}}}
@David Appletree – You’re still evading the question. The fact that you don’t like the politics of the person making a statement has no bearing on the truth of that statement. I’m not always Chomsky’s biggest fan either. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
@Jessica – While I still do not agree with your conclusions, I wanted to start by thanking you for earnestly addressing the argument directly. Quick note, I’m (still) speaking for myself here, not the company.
I do not believe that Holocaust Denial, as an idea on it’s own, inherently represents a threat to the safety of others. While despicable and untrue, it doesn’t not necessarily call for violence against anyone. Any groups which actually directly call for violence, or are so directly racist that their prejudice is a de facto call for violence are already removed….regardless of the idea underdiscussion. I understand that attempting to dispute historical violence could potentially be used to undermine the victims of that violence, but that is simply not a direct threat.
Look at the question this way – if Facebook were to remove Holocaust Denial groups, what else should the company also remove as categorically similar? Among other things, it would push the company towards removing any speech arguing that any other historical instance of wide spread violence didn’t happen/wasn’t as bad as the accepted narrative, e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theory, Armenian genocide denial, potentially groups like “Palestine is not country”, large numbers of Serbian nationalist groups that dispute whether break away states are properly countries, etc. Those examples just scratch the surface.
I think the crux of our disagreement is the notion you expressed by writing, “We wish to be clear — we have no issues with legitimate political discourse that is contextual, comparative, and truthful.” While I, personally, have pretty definite views on the truth/falsehood of these issues, Facebook as a company does not and should not attempt to judge the truth value of ideas discussed in the content we carry, provided it does not meet a number of very clear exceptions (direct threats of violence, attempts to defraud our uses via spam/phishing, etc).
Making judgements about truth value necessarily requires Facebook as a company to have an official version of the history of the world. It’s relatively straight forward to have set views on the Holocaust. But the proposition gets much much more difficult when you try to take on issues that are less well known in the English speaking world, but matter no less to the lives of those they affected. Having a set version of the truth for all events ever/anywhere involving significant violence is an unachievable proposition on it’s face. Plus, it’s clearly censorious and runs directly counter to Facebooks purpose as a communication platform.
I also do not believe it’s teneble to special case the Holocaust. First, special casing any event inherently deprioritizes other peoples suffering, which I think is pretty morally dubious. While I totally agree that it was the worst instance of industrialized mass murder in history…I’m very wary of using that as grounds because it strikes me as weak place to think from. If a similar tragedy that claimed more victims happened tomorrow would the Holocaust be any less horrifying? Clearly the answer is no but the “worst ever” logic points to an answer of yes. If we then tried to special case two events, the question becomes why only stop at those two events?
Anyway, while you’ve yet to convince me, thank for directly addressing the questions. This kind of discussion is productive for everyone, especially when we don’t agree.
I’m not evading squat. Ask me a question, and I’ll answer it. Meanwhile, why hasn’t Facebook taken action against the many TOS violations I have brought to its attention? Why are my friends losing accounts left and right? Why do you delete threads which are critical of Islam? Why do you delete threads which are critical of Facebook? Why is the sister of the CEO threatening to destroy Facebook content of individuals she does not like? Why can’t anyone explain to me the detailed process of how reported content is handled and dealt with? Why does Facebook claim transparency when it’s simply not true? Why does claim to promote free speech when it censors other content in which it subjectively doesn’t like?
I’ve asked you all these questions before. You haven’t answer them, and you claim I’m the evasive one?
@Dave Willner,
None of this is meant as a personal attack on you at all. I believe you are sincere, and if you hear my frustration coming through it’s because I’ve been cataloging hate on FB now for almost 2 years and I see no progress being made to address this very unacceptable problem.
It seems to me that you are sincerely not aware of the double standards Facebook engages in when it comes to selective censorship. If you were, you would realize why it sounds so ridiculous to so many of us when you essentially state that FB has an ethical imperative to leave up ideas it despises.
FB censors ALL the time, and that’s why none of us understand why FB has decided to take such a firm stand in allowing Holocaust denial groups to remain. It’s very curious. There are users who have stated that they believe Facebook is a company of “Nazi sympathizers.” They can’t comprehend this decision at all. Also, as was said a million times before, Freedom of Speech doesn’t even apply to a private company like FB so to invoke it here also seems moot.
I’ve already cited the ADL’s report citing all the harmful consequences of allowing these types of hate groups to remain so I’m not going to repeat all of that again, but let me address another aspect of this problem.
I am pretty confident that if someone posts a group up right now stating that the genocide in Darfur is a lie, that group will be deleted in about 3 hours flat — perhaps not so much because this statement is a historical lie –but at the very least because such a statement is so hateful and hurtful to a group of people and in essence qualifies as “Attacks individual or group” on the pull down menu to report a ToU violation.
What if someone wanted to post a group entitled ” Most people who are gay are homosexual due to sexual abuse” ? I have no idea whether this statement is truthful or not, but shouldn’t Facebook leave it up so we could all engage in discourse about it? Investigate it? Hash it out? What if someone put up a group called “The Bible frowns upon homosexuality” or “Gays can choose not be gay” ?
Do you really think these groups would stay up on FB? I’ll tell you right now, FB employees who have their own fan page against California Prop 8 would go nuts if they saw such groups and they’d delete them faster than your head could spin. That’s certainly a value judgment they’d be making in favor of a minority group.
We already know there’ s no Freedom of Speech on FB. And if you insist there is, I’m going to make a group right now with one of these titles just to test Facebook’s reaction. I’m pretty sure that they will hit that delete button — FAST.
It seems to me that the Jews who run Facebook and some of its Jewish employees (possibly you) try so hard to show that they are not giving their own people “special” treatment that they actually go to the extreme of allowing more hatred to be spewed towards Jews than at any other group of FB users, and make no mistake, allowing Holocaust denial groups to remain is undeniably hateful.
But as David Appletree stated earlier, Holocaust denial is just the tip of the iceberg of this problem. The rampant Jew hatred expressed in so many Facebook groups is simply unacceptable.
Here is just a tiny sampling of some of the Jew hatred being spewed on Facebook at this very moment in time. This doesn’t even scratch the surface.
I hope it’s still here by the time you read this post. I’m sure someone will delete it out of embarrassment when they see it posted on such a public forum. When is Facebook going to take proactive measure to put a stop to this already?
http://www.face...p;id=1817611519
http://www.face...&ref=search
Currently on Facebook
Topic: im a NAZI DECINDENT
Displaying all 2 posts by 2 people.
Post #1
Quinton Ringel Jr (Atlanta, GA) wrote23 hours ago
im a german named quinton ringel my great grandfather was named julius ringel he was a major general look it up he sent his wife to america when ww2 started becuase he loved her and they lived in berlin so constent bombing thats why im not living in germany but i no how to speak it Nazis wird Rize und so wird diese Gruppe, wenn ich mich!”that means nazis will rize and so will this group if i join!if you were a real german you would no that so put me on ur top and i will make the group hit 5 hundred members
Topic: Create a new SS
Displaying all 5 posts by 4 people.
Post #1
Harry Grainger wroteon June 13, 2009 at 10:21am
I think we should create a new SS.
A new revolutionary guard if you will,to start a new nation.
A nation free from blemishes. A nation that is actively against the Jews. One that has an industrial heartland that stops those fucking dinks from taking our jobs. One that believes in a new world. A nation that is has the Aryan Race in control.
Who will join me in creating this new world? This new paradise?
http://www.face...&ref=search
“What if someone wanted to post a group entitled ‘Most people who are gay are homosexual due to sexual abuse’? I have no idea whether this statement is truthful or not, but shouldn’t Facebook leave it up so we could all engage in discourse about it? Investigate it? Hash it out? What if someone put up a group called ‘The Bible frowns upon homosexuality’ or ‘Gays can choose not be gay’?….I’ll tell you right now, FB employees who have their own fan page against California Prop 8 would go nuts if they saw such groups and they’d delete them faster than your head could spin.”
http://www.face...?gid=2201212877
http://www.face...id=150174035284
http://www.face...gid=87767017523
I stand corrected. I’m pretty shocked and disappointed to discover that Facebook is allowing anti-gay groups, and obviously, I have to tell you that I think the second two groups should indeed be deleted. There’s no reason why the Facebook platform should be used to spread hate. None whatsoever. I may just start alerting some gay activists about this as this particular issue is not my personal crusade but I am pained to see this type of intolerance being allowed to flourish.
this is a message I got from a Christian Conservative group
ALERT TO MEMESHOCKERS on facebook: MemeShock is currently inaccessible. I’m unsure why but this is the second time this has happened in a week. Please file a report at: http://htxt.it/qi46 And request that they fix the problem. Also ask if it has been possibly hacked. You will also need a URL, here it is: http://htxt.it/13qA
I have no doubt that facebook leaves a few token “Conservative” groups up, but those of us online hear the stories all the time from Pro Life and Prop8 supporting groups.
also to be fair. MemeShockers are not just Christian. they identify with “Conservative” causes.
this group gets disabled all the time.
what I notice as a pattern on facebook is that a group no matter how controversial for the most part can survive if it has a robust community. in the case of MemeShock they embrace Neo-Conservatism and that seems to trigger alarm bells on facebook. a group that is simply Christian and showcases hostility to gay issues is often tolerated, but a more open minded Conservative is scrutinized. MemeShock isn’t a hate group… but they do support the war in Iraq and support ProLife ideas. they are a more complicated then most political activists online and so they are constantly suspect to the administration.
@Dave W
Hate against gays without question causes harm — sometimes imminent harm.
“Hate Against Gays and Lesbians can Lead to Murder and Suicide”http://www.suicide.org/memorials/matthew-sheppard-john-french.html
While this is not a a scholarly article, it is very easy to find several that would corroborate these findings. Oy vey. Facebook is a cesspool of hate.
it’s almost as though if you are mainstream enough with your alternative views then facebook leaves you. the essence of the problem with how facebook follows their own terms is it is completely arbitrary. I am not surprised to see anything. the sad truth is the administrators are attempting to play as *GODS*. they see themselves as above morality. the claim to be following free thought, but in essence the only free thought facebook tolerates is their own. we see this with nudity issues… and we see this with what “Conservative” value facebook deems to exist. I would not have a problem with self policing… I might not even have a problem with pure free speech. what I do have a problem is the lack of transparency. facebook tears down Anti-Gay sites all the time. the fact that they leave a few token ones up is petty. in the same respect facebook does the same thing with the Holocaust denial groups. we only want you to follow your own terms… whatever it may be
Good point, Noah. I am starting to notice that too. There are a few token Hitler groups, a few token Nazi groups, a few token anti-gay groups, a few token Holocaust denial groups, etc.
I’m really not understanding what this tokenism is all about.
There are no pictures of women breastfeeding — that’s for sure. On the other hand,a KKK group and anti-Muslim group were just taken down within these last few weeks.
There’s no rhyme or reason whatsoever. There is no logical consistency. Dave W. keeps asking me to advance a logical argument. I haven’t seen any logic at all in the arbitrary inconsistent enforcement of their ToS. It’s all very, very odd indeed.
There needs to be more transparency. There needs to be a system in place with clear criteria of what constitutes a violation of ToS and what does not.
Looks like someone got Tech Crunch to bury this article.
So much for freedom of speech.
Allowing free speech on the Facebook platform makes sense. It’s descriptive of the opinions in our world. It’s incredible, for example, to wonder about the populist insurgency in Iran and search Facebook for groups as a barometer of the region and for an actual connection to the people. I agree with the point made that if you suppress anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, it will spring up in other forums on the Internet (which may–to the detriment of human rights groups–be harder to monitor).
But people like Dave Willner should not be the authority on what content should be classified as hateful and what poses a threat to the Jewish people. After all, what makes something hateful or threatening? If it affects my physical well-being, is it threatening? Yes. If it affects my psychological well-being? The answer could easily be “yes.”
But for you, Dave, to suggest that Holocaust denial is not threatening is out of your expertise and out of your control. A Holocaust denial group in the U.S. might be all talk, but how about one in Poland? Is it so unlikely that a Facebook group could spur a real life organization of boys who assault Jews, burn down synagogues or deface cemeteries? At what point in the group’s evolution would you pull the plug on it? More importantly, does Facebook even have the infrastructure to deal with such a mass of potentially hateful groups on a day-to-day basis? How many Polish speaking group monitors do you employ?
Point is, without a semantic analysis system that can identify sentiment and intention, you won’t be able to identify actionable information. Instead, you are left with a choice of allowing all speech, or creating a rule that says that Holocaust denial groups have a statistically higher chance of spurring real-life hate or online abuse, and therefore, ban Holocaust denial groups.
But for Dave, or any other Facebook employee, to take definitive policing action based on the belief that Holocaust denial does not represent a threat to personal safety, is not only lacking in insight, but harmful to members of Facebook.
Holocaust denial is a threat everywhere. It is a threat in Norway http://yidwithl...tisemitism.html like it is in Poland and Germany. there are no exceptions. If facebook wants to have free speech then I would support it. that is not the claim of facebook. facebook censors everyday. they just choose what they want to censor.
http://www.sees...ideo/G7G3ZeV8UC if the person who quoted Chomsky had read anything about Chomsky they would know there isn’t anything systematic about language according to the axioms of Chomsky. Language doesn’t have meaning through systematic method. you can’t prove or disprove semiotics. it is simply understood. to be so obtuse and dry as to pretend that meaning is a mathematical science because you quote Chomsky is an immediate sign of bias. I have asked facebook to be true to free speech for years now. Now I am humbly asking them to at least to be socially responsible with their supposed “discretion”. the fact that they are neither and are in conflict with their own terms is a good argument for AntiTrust laws to be used. I disagree with the expansive mindset of facebook, but the argument is that they are supposedly creating a better environment for communication. enabling hate speech is in conflict with their own arguments. I happen to disagree with their claim that they can censor, but now it seems even their censorship is random and hate based. we would love for facebook to have free speech! what we have instead is populism. facebook caters to the tyranny of the mob. that isn’t freedom. What has happened is Holocaust denial has become hip enough that facebook is allowing it. In the same respect nudity has become culturally taboo in a majority of circles and therefor facebook censors it. In the same respect Jewish Conservative groups go down all the time. for crying out loud! how is this free speech? if facebook wants to enact a policy of free speech I would support it, but if they are not then it is the users interest to influence facebook into responsible behavior. I was on the forefront of Cyber freedom in 1995 when I was a student at Carnegie Mellon University and we battled Marty Rimm http://en.wikip...wiki/Marty_Rimm
Throw Robert Scoble off of facebook for hacking the system and he gets to meet with Zuckerberg, but they censor people all the time. the Holocaust denial is just the tip of the iceberg. you get close enough to the SXSW crowd of cowards and traitors and you can do anything on facebook that you want. there is a double standard when it comes to expression. if you hate America’s troops then you have free reign to speak here, but Conservatives they bully. If you support Israel then you are immediately suspect.
I am disappointed that I have not seen any of the people here who claim to be invoking free speech ideas in relation to protecting violence elaborate any of their thoughts on why one is acceptable, but the expression of the body is somehow not? facebook how is this free speech?
it is bizarre that some of these facebook employees see no correlation between a page for some hate group and what happened this week in Washington at the Holocaust Museum and no correlation between the employees of facebook, their opinions and how facebook follows their own terms.
Dave Willner claims:
//Any groups which actually directly call for violence, or are so directly racist that their prejudice is a de facto call for violence are already removed//
FALSE. I have sent you groups calling for violence directly. You nor Facebook took action.
//Special casing any event inherently deprioritizes other peoples suffering, which I think is pretty morally dubious.//
Here your insecurity is showing.
The Holocaust is not a Jewish concern. It’s a human concern.
5 million non-Jew were murdered.
In any event, Holocaust denial is not the only issue. There is a plethora of other content which is in clear violation of Facebook’s TOS which is not removed, despite thousands of people reporting it.
The only thing that gets you people to take action is negative publicity, the threats of lawsuits, or government action, etc.
“If protecting the Freedom of Speech except in cases of direct threat is a moral imperative, then it’s a moral imperative. If you think that it isn’t, please explain why.”
Likewise, if you think discussion of the Holocaust can/should be handled differently than discussion of the many other incredibly horrible events in human history, please explain why.
If you instead believe that it fits into a broader category of tragedies that can/should be handle differently, please specify which events and what criteria should be used to select them.
Finally, quoting you above:
“The only thing that gets you people to take action is negative publicity, the threats of lawsuits, or government action, etc.”
If that were the case, wouldn’t we have already changed our stance? This article isn’t exactly seem favorable.
Me: “The only thing that gets you people to take action is negative publicity, the threats of lawsuits, or government action, etc.”
David Willner: If that were the case, wouldn’t we have already changed our stance? This article isn’t exactly seem favorable.
This is one only one article and the battle has just begun. I have seen Facebook finally take action in the past against other material as a direct result of negative publicity. As more negative publicity ensues, and as advertisers continue to pull ads, and once governments get involved, Facebook can choose to either take the correct stand and survive? Or most people will be moving their ads and traffic to more socially responsible sites.
“If you think discussion of the Holocaust can/should be handled differently than discussion of the many other incredibly horrible events in human history, please explain why.
If you instead believe that it fits into a broader category of tragedies that can/should be handle differently, please specify which events and what criteria should be used to select them.”
We would gladly help come up with the criteria if we thought anyone was actually going to take it seriously.
And David A. is right about negative publicity. When there’s enough of a negative spotlight being shined on FB and when enough advertisers pull their ads, FB will change their stance. The key word though is “enough.”
If nothing else, maybe you get an Oprah appearance out of it.
Mike,
Not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK the broadcast and print media are both highly regulated – with the aim of repressing this kind of hatespeech, among other things. Your economic approach is fair, but isn’t the truth here than the market can’t effectively regulate this? Does this kind of thing make you suspect that – one of these days – there will be some kind of gvt body policing what you can or can’t say – or deleting your words once written?
Difficult questions and big issues.
Michael,
whatever you’re saying it’s ridiculous. Free speech, remember?
Continue with what you’re good at!
If you want to change Techcrunch direction, let us know so we visit other sites, and when we need news about hate or free speech we read from news sites!
As a former Facebook employee. I really disagree with their policy on this. This is not about freedom of speech – its about hate. Facebook can as a private company take a firm stance against hate on its platform. Even President Obama, said last week in Buchenwald that holocaust denial is hate..
“To this day, there are those who insist that the Holocaust never happened,” Obama said at a news conference at the gates of the camp. Such statements are “ignorant, baseless and hateful.”
Facebook is a very powerful platform for sharing, spreading information & organize people. I believe that with such a powerful tool demands a higher sense of moral responsebility.
It is never too late to change and its is never too late to say “we were wrong”.
Again – this is not about the freedom of speech – its about hate.
Many of the Holocaust denial groups I have visited aren’t hate groups per se. They are arabic in nature and have a justifiable grievance towards israel (which they use interchangeably with jews in general) and just question the evidence that the holocaust actually happened.
Forming a group to talk about a subject, whether its murder, rape, genocide, or the historical accuracy of the holocaust are all valid endeavors.
Now if these groups existed solely to attack jews, whether verbally or physically then they would be hate groups and would cross the line. Merely questioning a historical event and its supporting evidence is a totally different and acceptable matter.
if obama said then it has to be true…
You bring up Obama? Holocaust denial has not disqualified Abbas from getting Obama’s first phone call from the White House. Why then must Von Brunn stay in prison, instead of being invited to the Oval Office? It couldn’t be because Von Brunn hates Jews or tried to kill them. Von Brunn is an amateur compared to Abbas. the slippery slope is slippery only because it’s mud slide wants to contained by haters. It all leads right to the top
indeed Net, Freedom of Speech is not Anarchy of ideas. Freedom ends when the respect to live starts to be threatened.
Facebook attitude is simply wrong.
and yes I saw my typos..
Michael, you’ve crossed the line here. You are now taking advantage of the senseless murder of an innocent civilian and using it to further your own personal agenda against Facebook’s policies. This behavior is shameful and dishonest.
This murder has nothing to do with Facebook. Grow up. Rather than turning this travesty into a tool in your policy crusade, let’s all show the victim and his loved ones the respect they deserve.
i ‘d rather say “It’s a slow day for news, so let’s rant about some random controversial-but-irrelevant-to-technology-subject to attract 100 comments. Subjects like this validate Godwin’s law very early.
Basically. I’m surprised no one has hit on the sad and simple truth.
Just like Mike’s “attacks” on the NYTimes.
This is a ploy to build traffic.
… and it works
this won’t get traffic. if it did facebook would follow their own policy and ban hate speech. if any of this caught the attention of advertisers, facebook would be out of business.
Actually, the murderer also espoused these views online. Facebook provides a platform for all sorts of potential murderers to unite under the banner of hatred. THANKS FACEBOOK!
This is interesting. On the one hand Facebook should be able to do whatever it wants. Sure people can pressure them to remove these despicable Holocaust denying pages, but as a company they should have the right to let them stay if they so choose. However, they’ve just realized the costs – advertisers take notice. We’ve also got people like Arrington pressuring them in a much more public way to remove this garbage from the site. The key point to take notice of here is that there is NO government involvement. I wouldn’t allow that crap on my site, but Facebook may have a different philosophy. Arrington certainly wouldn’t, so he’s sharing his philosophy. It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
Well said, Mike. It’s good to see TechCrunch keeping up the pressure.
I think users also need to get involved in contacting advertisers and letting them know what their brands are being associated with.
I agree with other people that think this is a slippery slope, but from a different angle. If they block anti-Jew and anti-Holocaust groups, what about all the other hate groups out there? What about anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-? They’ll make just as many people angry listening to only one side as they are by listening to no sides.
Either way, Facebook is setting a precedence, whether its for freedom to hate on any religion, or freedom to hate on any religion except Judaism.
As Michael earlier pointed out, Facebook recently deleted a KKK group and just this week deleted the ‘I Hate Muslims in Oz’ group.
This course of action was the correct one. FB absolutely SHOULD BE deleting these groups along with Holocaust denial groups. It seems to me that Facebook is much more tolerant of Jew hatred than it is of hatred expressed against blacks, Muslims, and gays. I can’t seem to figure out why.
Mike,
I have been a quiet (and happy) reader for a long time — thank you for this post. Why people question your motives is a mystery to me….
I have no problem with speech of any kind and people speaking out against it. Laws against speech of any kind are shameful – pointing to them as a justification for your position makes you a fool. Advertisers that don’t like vote with their budgets.
What I have a real problem with is THE JEWISH AGENDA ON TECHCRUNCH. GTFO already.
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. ” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice.
Much hate speech out there today, on cable and the Internet, falls into the category Holmes spoke of. Stopping it is NOT abridging First Amendment Rights.
He doesn’t count. His name is not Jewish enough
By the way, where can I take a tour of the Japanese interment camps in the United States?
Or the Native Americans who were exterminated in millions.
good grief, this shit is EVERYWHERE
if it upsets this much, here
http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm
http://www.fbi.gov/
contact and give them the groups
before they are run off
I don’t look in these kinds of groups, I ignore it
I’m so glad, Michael, that you are bringing attention to this very important issue and that the JIDF spearheaded this campaign to turn the heat up on Facebook. While Facebook is not responsible for the shooting that took place at the Holocaust museum, it proudly encourages Holocaust deniers and white supremacists such as von Brunn to congregate and spew their vile hatred on their platform in groups such as “Holocaust is a Myth.” Professor Dershowitz, the Pope, and the President of the US have all essentially stated that Holocaust denial is “hateful” and a form of “hate speech” thereby qualifying it as being in direct violation of FB’s ToS. Furthermore, Facebook does not take proactive measures to prevent the creation of supremacist groups such as “Born in Europe.” This particular hate group currently boasts a plethora of pictures and comments in discussion threads stating “Burn the Jews,” “Juden Raus,” etc. Often hate groups such as this remain for interminable lengths of time, and some never get deleted at all. This is a major problem that tens of thousands of Facebook users have been reporting for nearly 2 years now with no comprehensive solution in sight. If Facebook would like to be taken seriously as a socially responsible business and platform, it’s time for them to grow up!!
A few weeks ago I created a group called: Facebook Supports Rape, Murder, Genocide, and Children in Warfare
In the description i wrote: All that is posted in the title of the group is a lie. This title is as follows becasue Facebook thinks that is rightful to accept the denial of the holocaust as “free speech”, even on a privately owned site. This is a test to see if free speech is really allowed. This group does not violate any terms of use nor does it go against any facebook polices. If this group gets deleted, modified, or warned for any reason, we know that facebook follows a double standard, allowing free speech on the denial of the holocasut, but not against its own Values.
This group was deleted by facebook within 3 hours
It seems free speech is limited by facebook when it is about their company
Free speech is limited on Facebook. I have personally witnessed Facebook censor material on numerous occasions.
I have seen them delete Robert Chapin’s group and discussion threads stating that Facebook did not do enough to make users aware of the voting on ToS and that they should extend the window for voting. I saw them delete threads that Jason Kulas posted critiquing the new layout.
I saw them delete threads of archives that I had put up cataloging hundreds of hate posts that were ubiquitous throughout the numerous hate groups on Facebook while the actual original hate posts remained.
I saw them delete threads entitled “The Jewish Nakba: Plight of nearly 1 million Jewish refugees from Arab countries” while threads about the Arabic Nakba remained in several anti-Israel groups.
Facebook engages in a hypocritical double standards when it comes to censoring free speech.
Clearly, they hit the delete button when they feel like censoring free speech, but for some odd reason they are adamant that Holocaust denial must remain.
Keep up the good work and the pressure Mike.
Facebook is wrong on this one plain and simple. However, if they back down now they will loose face. So expect this to continue until this horrid decision costs them a couple million at least.
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” ~John F. Kennedy
“Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.” ~Mark Twain
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” ~Voltaire
“The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.” ~Adlai Stevenson
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” ~Noam Chomsky
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~George Washington
One piece I see missing from this puzzle is the importance of the public in regards to the advertising dollars pulled in by Facebook. Sure the companies who advertise have control over which domain will receive that revenue, but the criterion on which they choose that domain lays largely in the hands of the consumers. Companies choose domains like Facebook because of the consumer traffic that it carries. Ultimately they must please those consumers, lest they go somewhere else.
Of course the question becomes, how do we please our users? I think it’s important for social networks to have ToS agreements. In the case of Facebook they need to consider the boundaries on which they will associate with their website. If the policy set is too lenient, they will obviously offend a portion of their users as displayed in this blog. If the policy is overly strict they may see a decline in the traffic, which would have the same result. A loss of revenue and reputation.
Right now it may be the case that Facebook is too lenient and they need to strengthen their ToS. Where to draw the line though?
I enjoy exploring different aspects of the world and humanity, I choose to subject myself to myriad opinions and views in hopes that bits of enlightenment may emerge and my philosophy will come out well rounded. Holocaust denial would be the far ends of the spectrum for me. None the less I would like the freedom to listen (another important part of freedom of speech.) to the arguments posed, if not only to glimpse into a foreign perspective, then to define my own. A compromise in this diversity would probably send me looking else where. After all if my social network of friends and I can’t openly discuss controversial issues, then where would we need to go to discuss them?
As far as the incident at the Holocaust Museum goes… IMO this has little to do with Facebook. Or any other website for that matter. In fact by insinuating that a website should somehow admit connectivity is only negating from the truth of the matter. Violence, greed, dishonesty, narcissism, self righteousness, imputation are all drivers in this world of imperfection. Perhaps we should attribute the blame where it really belongs. Holocaust deniers are only responsible for fraction of the injustices in our lives. Let’s not be bogged down by the imperfections of a small group of individuals. When we ourselves our part of a much larger mechanism that poses greater threats to the inviolability of our shared future.
“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ~Soren Kierkegaard
Not believing in Holocaust doesn’t mean a person hates Jews. Stop showing them as one thing Mike. You’re making yourself look ridiculous.
Totally.
Would you label conspiracy theorists who believe no one went to the moon as haters of NASA or US?
“There are no Holocaust deniers who are not blatant antiSemites. Every Holocaust denial website also features antiSemitism. You are also right that transparency is the key. If Facebook took the position that it censors nothing,that would be one thing. But to espouse the substantive position that Holocaust denial is not hate speech is very dangerous and unacceptable.” — Alan Dershowitz
“Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve. ”
–President Obama
Unfortunately, not only does Facebook remain stubbornly proud of allowing Holocaust denial groups to remain, but it is also proud of the many “I Hate Israel” groups that exist which contain ubiquitous posts calling for Israel’s destruction.
The difference between theorists who are part of the Flat Earth Society vs. those who claim the Holocaust did not occur is *intention*–the intention of Holocaust deniers is hateful. Most deniers would like to see the Holocaust repeated and seek to spread their Jew hatred on a viral platform like a virus. Spreading hate is in direct violation of Facebook’s ToS.
Amen Jessica!
Well said!
Pretty well ..
http://www.yout...h?v=t101rO7WuAM
lol