The Facebook Holocaust denial debate rages on. Facebook’s position is clear, Holocaust denial groups and content is fine (nipples aren’t): “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”
Facebook has also said “we have a lot of internal debate” about the issue. And based on what we’ve seen from public comments by Facebook employees, they remain proud of their company’s position on the issue.
The first statement came from Ezra Callahan, currently on the PR team, who wrote “You do not combat ignorance by trying to cover up that ignorance exists. You confront it head on. Facebook will do the world no good by trying to become its thought police.” Facebook Spokesperson Randi Zuckerberg supported Ezra, saying “Really well-written, articulate, and insightful note by Facebook employee Ezra Callahan on being a Jewish employee and supporting Facebook’s policy to not remove groups that deny the Holocaust.”
Over the weekend Facebook employees really got fired up over the issue. Six current and former employees commented on a post I wrote about advertisers starting to balk at their ads being shown around this content. Robert Scoble noticed the debate and started his own over on MobFeed.
There is a common theme – that protection of free speech outweighs any damage caused by the existence of this content. That’s an argument that both eBay and MySpace have thrown out the window, by the way.
I think it’s important that we force our government to stay out of deciding what’s permissible and not as speech, as much as possible. But private companies don’t have the luxury of a Constitution to force their hand, and free speech experts clearly think that private companies can and should make their own decisions on this type of content. They have the freedom to make subjective choices between right and wrong. To lean on the Constitution and argue a misguided notion that they are pursuing a higher cause isn’t just intellectual dishonesty, it’s irresponsible. To see this kind of hateful content with a Facebook logo sitting right next to it makes me embarrassed to be a member. Apparently, most Facebook employees are far from embarrassed. Those willing to speak out are uniformly in favor of keeping the content.
The lone exception, Net Jacobsson, is no longer with the company. That’s a scary signal – one one that isn’t lost on current Facebook employees. The company has a policy and can use the Constitution to make its case. Stand with us or stand apart. Is there really not one single current Facebook employee who thinks this policy is wrong?
The comments are below:
Blake Ross: “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.”
Blake Ross: “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.”
Adam Mosseri: “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.”
Adam Mosseri (responding to me pointing out that he supports all speech, no matter how hateful): “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.”
Ddam Mosseri (continues): “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.”
Dave Willner: “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.”
Dave Willner (responding to another commenter): “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.”
Blake Ross: “> 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.”
Andrew Bosworth: “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.”
Dave Willner: “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 Willner: “@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.”
Dave Willner: “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.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2201212877 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=150174035284 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=87767017523 “
Dave Willner: “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.”
Net Jacobsson (former employee): “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.”
Mark Slee: “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.”
Update: comment screenshots taken from Holocaust denial groups on Facebook today:
Hey Mike, are you Jewish? Why do you care so much about Holocaust?
Shouldn’t the freedom of speech cover all those who deny Holocaust? Why should there be special rules about Holocaust?
Facebook employees, please please please read and think about the comment above. This is some techcrunch reader. He seems to think that only Jews would care about the Holocaust. He’s literate, at least. People like this are so susceptible to hate messages. Having this content on your site gives it credibility it wouldn’t otherwise have. Is no one there willing to do the right thing?
Mike -
I seriously could not agree with you more. Just because it sounds good (FREE SPEECH) doesn’t mean people must ignore the logic associated with what you are saying.
Facebook, guys, I know none of you WANT those groups there. I sure as hell don’t think any of you NEED those groups there. What’s the deal? Isn’t a website like Stormfront.org fair warning for what the internet can do to empower these neo-nazis? Give it a second thought, please.
Difference between “free speech” culture and autonomy: US and Canada. Guess which country has people saying “Good God! I’ve never ever experienced in-your-face racism like that before!”? Surprise surprise. There has to be limits. Remove the group. “Free speech” is an excuse.
Mike, what “right” thing? (If that is hyperbole then I apologize)
I don’t have a public opinion on the issue, other than that this is really an issue sentiments. There is no objective “right” in this case. This is your feelings + bias, as it only can be, and building your argument from that point would be more comfortable for me at least.
I know your stuff is intentionally mis-interpreted by…. most people who care to comment, but this time the troll gates may have been opened by you.
there’s a lot of us out there who believe that right/wrong are not random things. absolute moralism is a fairly popular thing actually…
for example, is premeditated murder right or wrong?
how about stealing a car?
for some (like myself), there’s not much ambiguity about right and wrong. antisemitism, for example, is wrong. and since holocaust denial is an act of antisemitism, it is wrong.
But at what point do you become any different than the hardcore christians that want to force everyone else to be a hardcore christian? You are saying “I think this is right/wrong, and I’m going to force my view onto the world.”
With the attitude that you seem to have, I would call you hypocritical if you are annoyed by Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking at your door every Sunday to try and convert you…
so you believe that because I have absolute values I will be going out and forcing others to … ? huh?
and i totally don’t understand the second part. i am not allowed to be annoyed by something because of my values? what?
> for example, is premeditated murder right or wrong? how about stealing a car?
What’s right or wrong is not the action, but the intention.
What if you premeditate the murder of someone who is holding your family hostage and threatening to kill them any minute? Everyone would agree that in this case, any sensible human being would defend themselves by figuring out a way to stop that someone.
What if you steal a car to help someone escape from a raging mob about to lynch them?
Morality is not absolute. We can agree on “most of the time” cases when looking at specific actions, but ultimately what matters is not just what you do, but also why you do it. Of course, then we get to the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions – many did horrible things in the name of good.
So, the unfortunate result is that ethical relativism is the only viable solution. We must examine things case by case. There is no certainty in ethical rulings. It’s one of those “I couldn’t define it for you, but I know it when I see it” kinds of things. Sorry if that doesn’t satisfy your need for moral absolutes.
PS: For the record, I think holocaust denial is, as Michael points out, a thin front for antisemitism and thus deeply wrong and completely unacceptable on any medium.
+1 Clayton. Very difficult to define right in this kind of debate. But, kind of strange that FB is censoring some content (breast feeding) and not others. IMO.
Mike, I know more about Holocaust than you. I visited Auschwitz and Dachau. And yet I am a proud member of ACLU and I think that holocaust deniers, no matter how repulsive that may seem, do have the right to express it!
You haven’t answered my question and just trolled me. Why should there be special rules about Holocaust? Why is it that you can research and question anything but the Holocaust?
that most certainly wasn’t trolling.And I too have visited Dachau.
The problem with Holocaust denial is that it’s code for “kill the Jews.” This group of people have been systematically attacked for as far back as we’ve recorded history. How long does Israel really have before they are pushed into the sea? Forgetting the Holocaust is the first step towards the next time a group of people tries to exterminate them as a race, and the world turning their back when the “final solution” comes.
The Holocaust is clearly different. And Holocaust denial is clearly just another way of spreading hatred against Jews. That’s why so many countries have banned Holocaust denial as hate speech.
Excellent Answer. No one could’ve said better.
I think it should at least be stated that Holocaust Denial isn’t just code for ‘killing Jews’ as millions of others died in the holocaust who weren’t Jewish. And the Nazis specifically targeted other ‘groups’ like Roma and homosexuals, but the Jewish group was the most prominent and targeted group.
I am disappointed that you don’t take up for other groups that ‘hate groups’ on Facebook might be targeting like KKK groups focused on African-Americans, Turkish groups denying the Armenian genocide, and numerous others. The question shouldn’t just be about holocaust denial, but about hate speech and it’s limits.
Holocaust denial is code for “Let’s kill the rest of the Jews.”
I think you’ve nailed it here. People don’t really understand the big picture and the ugly history around holocaust denial.
I bet I’m a bit older (and likely more educated) than most of your readers but I’ve always learned to read “holocaust denier” as someone who just hates Jews.
Also, I want to go out on a limb and say that not only is this newsworthy, its on the forefront of a pretty important issue that isn’t going away anytime soon. And also, given the recent wave of domestic terrorism, its even more important.
Mike,
Just to be clear, my mother is Jewish and I had a Bar Mitzvah and I am considered Jewish under Rabbinical law. I’m saying this just to make it clear that I am not a Holocaust denier and I know it happened since it affected one side of my family.
Now, I do not agree that denying Holocaust is any different from KKK calling for lynching of blacks. What about anti-gay hatred? Should that also be disallowed? Hate is hate and it should either all be banned or it should be allowed under the freedom of speech. I don’t think that Jews should have any special privilege than blacks or gays.
I am of the opinion that free speech should trump it all and that if the government or corporations start curtailing and policing things you can or cannot talk about, we’ll end up under a dictatorship.
Steve.
Michael, if Holocaust denial is code for “kill the Jews”, then “how long does Israel really have before they are pushed into the sea” is code for “support Israel’s occupation and violence no matter what, they’re surrounded by Arabs”.
Frankly, I thought this whole thing was just a stunt to generate more pageviews/debate on techcrunch.
Holocaust denial is stupid, but so is censoring it.
No, the Holocaust is not clearly different. You are making this way to personal rather than having a valid point with any substance. This group may hit a sore point for you, and although I do not agree with the group’s message at all, I think there are just as bad hate groups on facebook that no one is challenging because they simply don’t care. Do you really think the Jews are the only ones that have suffered and been attacked in this world? Frankly, I think you need to wake up. And how did Israel get pulled into this? I think you need to stick to comments on tech instead of political ones because you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
its not code for that. thats how you interpret it.
Wow, it feels like if someone says “let’s establish Palestinian country” then you’d answer back the same phrase. I mean, it’s the same logic, don’t you think?
Ok… why does the Holocaust and Jews specifically need to get so much attention? Muslims have also been persecuted for a long time. There are genocides that happen in modern times. Just look at Sudan… but you seem to have this “Us vs Them” mentality.
The Jewish people with the “Jews vs. the Rest of the World… woe is us” mentality are just providing fuel for the anti-semitism. The way that I see it there are a lot of vocal Jewish people that go to great lengths to try and segregate themselves from the rest of the world’s population. But then they are surprised when people treat them differently than everyone else.
A (probably horrible) analogy would be to say it would be like a group of black people in the Old South separating themselves into their own community and purposely trying to keep white people out, but then trying to say that white people shouldn’t be able to do the same…
Yeah, but….Are you okay with people denying the Armenian genocide? Should those deniers be banned? Really I think laws against Holocaust deniers in Europe are there because of the collective guilt of some European countries for colloborating with Hitler. There have been lots of genocides in the world, I’m not sure that the Holocaust should have special laws surrounding it with respect to free speech that other historical genocides don’t have. It becomes a very slippery slope. Not to mention, I would rather know these morons are out there so I can attack their words, than to have them lurking out there where I can’t find them. Lots of gypsies and gays were killed under Nazi Germany too but I bet there are no laws protecting those groups from people who claim they weren’t targeted. The thing about free speech, is that it is a fundamental building block of democracy. You can’t pick and choose. And frankly, it’s very similar to the Republicans saying they are more patriotic than Democrats while saying that our constitution is not very good when fighting terrorists. So yes, denying the Holocaust is wrong, but defending free speech is not. It may be a bad business decision but I don’t think it’s as black and white as you are making it out to be.
+1 Mike.
Michael is 100% right, Facebook is providing a platform and distribution channel for disgusting low creatures who could not care for the millions of human beings tortured and killed during the holocaust, all in the name of B*S politically correct “free speech”. How can you fools compare Christians trying to convert you with conversation in a peaceful country, to the mass murder and torture of millions of human beings during the holocaust??
The day of reckoning will come for Facebook for being a partner to the spread of sickness and hate in the world.
“How long does Israel really have before they are pushed into the sea? ”
What a silly comment
@steven – It’s interesting to say ‘I know more about the holocaust than you’. Are you a professor of World War 2 studies? Going to Auschwitz and Dachau, while enlightening experiences, doesn’t mean you are more informed on the matter than Mr. Arrington or others posting for that matter nor does that have any relevance to the conversation on whether hate speech or holocaust denial should be allowed on Facebook.
In the end, Mr. Arrington states it best – Facebook is a private company and can do what it wants. If anyone feels strongly against what they are doing, then stop using the product.
@Facebook User:
I’ve read about dozen books on Holocaust and have talked to 4 survivors. Also, my grandmother was a survivor.
So yeah, I’d say that I probably know more than Mike, or you for that matter.
Banning any form of free speech leads to thought control and eventual dictatorship. Go read 1984 for an example of how things chain together.
Steve, you sound like a one-upper.
If I’ve been to one camp, you’ve been to two. If I’ve read 11 books, you’ve read 12.
That doesn’t mean you know more than anyone; it just means you’re throwing around your personal milestones without any contribution to your argument.
There is, and will probably always be a debate like this (see also a previous posting where I said “might not agree but defend your right…” etc, and in general I also agree with that principle, but it gets to a point, and I think this is it, or very close to it) where it becomes utterly indefensible to remain using the claim of “free speech” when such hatred is being spewed out by uneducated (in some cases maybe not) teenagers and undergraduates.
At this point it then becomes a responsibility for content administrators of sites like this to take down this content, explain why they have and boot out the users, based on terms of service. I’ve heard of people booted off Facebook for 100x lesser offences.
Zuckerberg is Jewish name and by allowing such hateful content to remain in his company’s pages [i.e. the facebook social network] Mark Z is demonstrating that he is a self-loathing Jew who doesn’t give a damn, and if true is a damning indictment in his personality and character, but allowing this… he of all people should know better.
researching the Holocaust for the truth is a noble endeavor, researching it to ferment hate is illegal…
show me one group who want to research to prove it was a myth and I’ll show you a begot who hate Jews.
that is the bottom line and that is the debate…
You’re saying that it should be illegal for someone who comes into a Holocaust existence debate from a completely neutral stance to do research and come to their own conclusions?
It should be legally mandated that that person *has* to reach the conclusion that the Holocaust happened. It’s starting to sound lot like you want to control what people are allowed to think, but you think that it’s ok because you’re a benevolent dictator…
+1
mike –
i dont believe in the holocaust either. Look now your comments have a holocaust denial section.
boo hoo
Mike,
I’m with you 100% !
Its very sad that a company like FB which have such a big group of creative and intelligent people on the team are so wrong and ignorant.
Social media should not be a place of hatred or racism!
Social media reflects the world.
If it’s a problem to you, fix the world.
You can’t mandate social change by making it illegal to think a certain way, or just to express certain ideas…
all you need to know…
http://counterk...locaust-denial/
no way this should be tolerated on Facebook. the fact that it is only show the issues with having a kid run a large company.
Yes, we are all entitled to speak, and air our views, even if they born of ignorance, and are insensitive to those who suffered, and endured.
If they had lost family during that dark time, when dawn threatend never to break, they would certainly see the matter in a different light, show compassion, and sing another tune.
It should not be wiped from the school’s history lessons, but be brought forward to show our future generations how far man can fall.
It’s soo funny but the fact is Arrington i agree that there shouldn’t be any hostile pages or publications of any sort towards anyone race/religion- but at the same time i can see u have an enormous double standard as you didnt voice your discomfort when it came to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad
Ya, another of arrington’s ploys to attract attention. How about reporting some news for a change?
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
When you build a website from the ground up and generate millions of pageviews, you get the privilege of writing about what you want. It’s as simple as that. You don’t let people force you to tweet about certain things do you?
Calm down, @dklicker (dick licker? wha??), everyone’s allowed to express their opinions.
That’s the whole point.
Free speech is free speech. Thank goodness people like Blake Ross are speaking out with some common sense. If we start censoring content, the line gets blurred as to what should be accepted and what shouldn’t be, and before you know it we’re China.
It’s better that these ignorant efftards speak their words, let it be recorded on the Internet for all how ignorant and stupid they are.
Don’t like them, fine, just don’t censor them. It’s called a constitutional amendment. It’s kind of important.
Hey man, tell us about what is happening these days, you are taking back 60 years back, how about the holocaust that is happening right now? the Palestinian holocaust done by the Israelis? do you care that?
I would argue you leave these things behind and talk about tech in here, although saying the holocaust was beautiful thing is hatred and foolish but i guess the sentiment is being fueled by the hatred of people in Israel that brutalize Palestinians…If you wish holocaust never happens again, stop the one that is happening right now.
COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MJ
You have to be a complete idiot to compare the deliberate attempted extermination of the whole jewish people, to the necessary security enforcements against the palestenians. the arabs could have had a real functional country for the last 60 years. instead they used the billions of dollars to promote hate and militancy. all they have to do is lay down their weapons and everything will change in a single moment.
you do realize that israel can literally wipe out everyone in gaza within 1 hour? so If they are perpetuating a “holocaust” against the palestenian arabs, they are sure doing a bad job of it. The palestenians seem to be growing faster than any other people. Some holocaust…
Just to set the story straight, Israel is currently responsible for a large amount of war crimes.
http://www.goog...j3ja8AD98N3A280
This is pretty undeniable, from the use of cluster bombs on civilian areas to an unjustified force invasion of a soveriegn country.
Please remember that Palestine is disfunctional because it was invaded by the UN 60 years ago and ripped apart. You cannot expect the people who lost their country to lay down their weapons and accept Israel as their new leader.
All issues have multiple view points, it is not for Facebook to decide which viewpoint is correct.
Just because a view point is not the same as yours does not give you any right to prevent other people from having an opposing view, despite the topic.
There is a lot of hate in this campaign being run by Michael. It may cause suffering to those at Facebook by the very fact that people like Michael can get such large exposure to voice their negative opinions. But ultimately we are a better place because we have thought about the issue and debated it openly.
there are so many things wrong with the article you quoted as “proof” of israel’s hate crimes, that i don’t know where to begin.
1) the HRCouncil which is sponsoring this “fact finding” mission, is a very sad offspring of the UNHRCommission which was made irrelevant by their rabid anti-israel bias. while genocide and real human rights abuses are happening in egypt, sudan, iraq, and other fun parts of the world, they are focusing on the only democracy in an otherwise insane region. no wonder israel is not going to allow them entry or take them seriously. these people tend to listen to all sides, then write a report completely disregarding the facts from israeli side.
2) i’ve seen videos of palestenians carrying a dead man to his funeral. then when he’s accidentally dropped, he somehow climbs back into the cloth so he can be carried again. so a beduin man said his mother was shot while waving a white flag? i’m inclined to not believe him. palestenians often use dead children as props, it’s disgusting. they also pose for pictures as “casulaties” and then pose for other pictures as the “grieving family”.
3) they describe a “shrapnel-peppered” mosque. was the damage from the inside or outside? Because i clearly remember hearing about a weapons cache inside mosque and a hospital. whose fault is it that palestenians fire from these places?
4) my favorite: ‘A Hamas official, Ahmed Yousef, said he hoped the group’s report would be “like ammunition in the hands of the people who are willing to sue Israeli war criminals.”‘ yes, this guy would know a lot about both, ammunition and war criminals. he is clearly a type of independent person who the HRC should be listening to.
there are a few more things that i could go into but it would derail my point.
not all issues have multiple viewpoints. Some issues are very cut and dry, right and wrong. in this case facebook is totally out of line for censoring one type of hate but leaving this one alone to reach some kind of a mythical “high ground.” The moral thing to do is to disallow these people and kick them the hell out.
This is exactly Mike Arringtons point. Posts like this show peoples Holocaust ignorance. They brazenly compare Israels defense of its own to country to the systematic – read systematic – killing of 6,000,000+ men, women, and children.
Israel may happen to kill some women and children but that is done
a) in self defense, against insidious terrorists who make a concentrated effort to instill fear into the lives of regular Israeli civilians. This being done even after Israel has made strong efforts to make peace with the Arabs.
b) after making a concentrated effort to spare the lives of the women and children as their Muslim families use them as human shields in order to attract the worlds sympathy and further their own agenda.
They are not comparable AT ALL. It is akin to comparing a stone to a human, and even further.
what this guy doesnt understand is that most people joke about this stuff, sure it is wrong to joke about these things, but honestly if you cant laugh about something then it will own you i know the guy that wrote the die jews die and he is a nice guy and he is funny, it is alright to make a joke, so long as you dont have any malicious intent behind it, at the end of the day, you cant change a person, it annoys me how people can blame something just because of a comment or two on the actual site, the problem is the person and as i said, it was just a joke
It is all very silly, but Mike, please just drop this its a very stupid issue, people hate people natural way of life, however most poeple joke about hating people, very simple
Steven, it doesn’t matter whether Mike is Jewish or not. This should not have to be explained. For example, I’m not part of a group that the KKK victimized but at the same time I can completely understand why people of all kinds would care that this kind of hatred not be allowed.
And about Freedom of speech — facebook is a private company so this has nothing to do with it. Its pointed out above if you read carefully. For example, Apple can censor whatever apps it deems necessary.
The Holocaust is an historic fact. Sure there are idiots (at least they are idiots in my opinion) that think otherwise and I am not saying that they should be denied to have such opinions and not be able to debate the issue. However, a lot of the groups and comments on Facebook centering on Holocaust Denial are not constructive in anyway whatsoever. They do not present facts or present opinions. They attack and verbally abuse the Jewish religion, culture and nation. This to me is totally unacceptable and any company that is willing to support this has no morals at all.
Facebook should allow Holocaust Denial groups as long as they keep within the guidelines set forth by the TOS. If that is too hard to enforce, then Holocaust Denial groups should be banned. Period.
What I find more disturbing than those who deny the holocaust, are those who deny EVERYTHING GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY.
I mean, come on people. History. Ignore. Repeat. These words ringing any bells?
As a non-denier who gets irked by the amount of attention this is getting, I think the button that is getting pressed here is “when and how did the holocaust become a security blanket?” Deniers have a weird sort of strength here – they might say something like, “if the holocaust really happened, how come the Jews aren’t all packing their rifles and heading to Darfur?”
And, yeah, to a lesser extent, you have an interesting niche product, service, or religion, putting up with the haters and nay-sayers is just the cost of doing business. If you can’t just know the deniers are wrong, and move on, then that’s something YOU need to deal with, not them.
Facebook is right on with their stance… And just knowing that I can search to see if my friends are in a denier group on FB (and then be able to block them for it – or if I’m a company, not hire them) is infinitely more valuable than killing the groups, and letting the members effectively “hide” that belief from me.
Do you think the ACLU has “no morals”?
I think the ACLU has lost its way. It has gone so far of its original mission that I think the only purpose it now serves is its own. It’s certainly not what it used to be.
im glad facebook doesnt delete those groups. At least theres 1 company which allows expression.
Halls of Justice Painted Green
Money Talking
Power Wolves Beset Your Door
Hear Them Stalking
Soon You’ll Please Their Appetite
They Devour
Hammer of Justice Crushes You
Overpower
The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can’t Believe the Things You Say
I Can’t Believe
I Can’t Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You
Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real
Apathy Their Stepping Stone
So Unfeeling
Hidden Deep Animosity
So Deceiving
Through Your Eyes Their Light Burns
Hoping to Find
Inquisition Sinking You
With Prying Minds
The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can’t Believe the Things You Say
I Can’t Believe
I Can’t Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You
Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real
Lady Justice Has Been Raped
Truth Assassin
Rolls of Red Tape Seal Your Lips
Now You’re Done in
Their Money Tips Her Scales Again
Make Your Deal
Just What Is Truth? I Cannot Tell
Cannot Feel
The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can’t Believe the Things You Say
I Can’t Believe
I Can’t Believe the Price We Pay
Nothing Can Save Us
Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real
and michael, nipples arent allowed because there are kids on the site.
Right. Kids can’t handle nipples (which they can find on their own freaking bodies!!!) but they’re perfectly well-equipped to evaluate the legitimacy of race-hate groups?
Grow a goddamn brain, anonymous.
anonymous is troll from 4chan, so not gonna happen
Because they’d open themselves up to liability for providing “pornography” to children. Not because the kids can or cannot handle it. If you want to assert that there’s an equivalency there, you’d need to reform the way US and EU law deals with the issue. As it stands, that’s entirely out of FB’s hands.
Banning nipples lets FB have an easy and clear method to prevent the proliferation of content that can get them in legal trouble. If they didn’t, they probably wouldn’t be able to continue to exist.
Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. Homosexuals and Gypsies, among other groups, were slaughtered as well. This isn’t a Jewish issue. It’s a human being issue.
Merrymaking, drug taking,
at my place, baby, at my place
merrymaking,
Come in to my house,
you’re invited into my house,
entering the back of my house,
welcoming you into my house, x2
I’ve invited loads to my house,
loads of people come to my house,
They take stuff inside of my house,
And smoke chuff outside of my house,
Merrymaking, sure I can take it,
at my place, baby, at my place
merrymaking,
I’ve seen them before,
lots of people at my front door,
lots of people in my front door,
trying to get into my house,
Well I’ve seen them before,
lots of people in my front door,
lots of people at my front door,
trying to get into my house,
Merrymaking, sure I can take it,
at my place, baby, at my place
Find More lyrics at http://www.sweetslyrics.com
merrymaking, x2
We’re merrymaking,
all the stuff that you’ve being taking,
all the stuff that I’ve being taking,
all the stuff that we’ve being taking,
We’re merrymaking,
all the stuff that we’ve being taking,
all the stuff that I’ve being taking,
all the stuff that you’ve being taking,
Merrymaking, sure I can take it,
at my place, baby, at my place. x3
Merrymaking, sure I can take it,
Merrymaking, sure I can take it,
at my place, baby at my place, x3
Facebook 6 – TechCrunch 0
Actually Tech Crunch 10 – Facebook 0
We need more Mike Arringtons in the world.
World would implode if we had more MA
.
Last time I checked, FB still allows denial groups and TC hasn’t changed that. So how can you claim that TC is at 10? That just makes you sound stupid.
Did everyone read those quoted comments by the facebook crew?
Very intelligent and rational reasoning. Basically each of them addresses the inconsistency of free speech vs some censorship or free speech governmental policy vs free speech civic policy.
Facebook is so right on this one.
The new scarlet letter: F
hey mike, you know there are believers of flying pigs on facebook too
since you dont believe in flying pigs, facebook MUST delete those groups right?
http://en.wikip.../wiki/Straw_man
Facebook is on a tightrope.
Pro-violence propaganda allowed http://www.yout...h?v=rcJjxOqgANM
which enabled namkind to look the other way until the holocaust was well underway, which enabled the next wave of sickos the annihilate their populations.
OT: Does Randi Z think anyone takes her seriously? o.O
Yawwwwwwwwwwwn. So tired of reading about this. I believe the Internet should be a place where you can talk about whatever you want. This is the last place where you can do that. Don’t take it away.
Agreed
No no, we’re all here to join the crusade; don’t let Arrington down now! Freedoms of Beach!
Agreed, this is covered by first amendment and as famous phrase puts it:
‘I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’
This is a simple case of http://www.thef.../sensationalism
this seems to be a simple case of none of you understanding the first amendment. private actors can do whatever they want.
here you go:
http://en.wikip...es_Constitution
Facebook is not a government, and laws regarding freedom of speech do not (and should not) apply. This is a case of a privately held company giving racists a platform to spread their ideas.
Existence and life itself are a platforms to spread ideas.
Should people we don’t agree with be removed from the platform?
it is frightening how it’s completely socially acceptable to hate Jews.
*agrees*
Dumbledore made and Draco and I follow him. He kept shouting at us angrily.
“You ludacris fools!” he shouted.
I started to cry tears of blood down my pallid face. Draco comforted me. When we went back to the castle Dumbledore took us to Professor Snape and Professor McGonagall who were both looking very angry.
“They were having sexual intercourse in the Forbidden Forest!” he yelled in a furious voice.
“Why did you do such a thing, you mediocre dunces?” asked Professor McGonagall.
“How dare you?” demanded Professor Snape.
And then Draco shrieked. “BECAUSE I LOVE HER!”
Everyone was quiet. Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall still looked mad but Professor Snape said. “Fine. Very well. You may go up to your rooms.”
Draco and I went upstairs while the teachers glared at us.
“Are you okay, Ebony?” Draco asked me gently.
“Yeah I guess.” I lied. I went to the girl’s dorm and brushed my teeth and my hair and changed into a low-cut black floor-length dress with red lace all around it and black high heels. When I came out….
Draco was standing in front of the bathroom, and he started to sing ‘I just wanna live’ by Good Charlotte. I was so flattered, even though he wasn’t supposed to be there. We hugged and kissed. After that, we said goodnight and he reluctantly went back into his room.
I agree…and it’s also frightening how it spans the globe, not just concentrated in certain countries or regions. How could such a small group (population wise) be hated by so many people is sad and disappointing.
Its not that it is socially acceptable, it is simply that some people really believe that sites should not be censored…I think FB employees gave great justifications. This is simply your own personal quarrel.
As I’ve stated before Mr. Arrington and you STILL HAVEN’T ANSWERED: Given your logic shouldn’t FB close groups supporting the US Military as after WWII they have been the biggest ASSASINS in the world of all people who do not conform with what they want. It really sounds pretty similar to your personal war that “rages on” only because you fuel it.
Totally Agree!
Totally Agree!
lemming.
In BIID, or apotemnophilia, individuals say that a limb, or part of it, feels “intrusive” or “over-present.” They usually report that they have had the desire to remove the limb since early childhood, but do not understand why. This desire can be so strong that they sometimes resort to damaging the limb irreparably, thus forcing doctors to amputate it. Almost all BIID sufferers have no other psychological disturbances, and almost always say that they feel much happier when the limb is eventually amputated.
As it is socially acceptable to hate Gays? Hate black people? Hate Asians? Hate successful people?
You make it like Jews are the only group of people that are subject to hate, yet there are so many other groups that have withstood and endured it to a point that we should have been broken a long time ago.
So why make it personal unless it HAS become personal in your life? Facebook didn’t offend you. The fact that there are Holocaust Denial groups offends you. Do not make it so that the entire company’s sentiment is aligned with supporting the preposterous notion that the Holocaust never happened. Most of the thinking population are smarter than that. Or have you yourself lost faith in the intelligent nature of humans to differentiate between fact and fiction? Do you subject your TechCrunch readers to this notion that they only hang on your every word that you publish here and are simply lemmings?
Seriously….this is the most ignorant debate I have seen in a *LONG* time….name ONE other group of people that has been systematically killed over the past 2 thousand years…
DONT YOU IGNORANT PEOPLE GET IT?? no one rounded up blacks or homesexuals and gassed them! And please dont point to the homosexuals killed in the Holocaust….last time I checked, high ranking Nazis didnt get together to plot THEIR destruction….then unleash special “deaths head” brigades to make it happen.
And yes, THERE ARE 500 MILLION ARABS/MUSLIMS surrounding Israel that already tried THRICE to push them into the sea….it was their stated objective then and remains the same now. The fact that they dont openly say it is because of Israels military superiority…the only one stupid enough to do so is Iran which will probably get them a spanking if they proceed much further…
PEOPLE – what would you have said in 1935 if you were in Germany and everyone wanted to excercise their free speech to discuss the evil, sinister Jews….dont you understand where HATE SPEECH leads???
Sometimes, I hate this planet….
Agreed
So the murder 1 person (whether gay, black, etc) in a hate crime versus attempted genocide of a race is somehow worth LESS in our society?
If you have to put a scale to everything, then a small nation like Tibet or the Darfur region genocides, not to mention the massacre of millions of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge regime is somehow diminished compared to Holocaust Deniers simply voicing their ignorant and stupid (for those of us smart enough to see through their hypocrisy) opinions and viewpoints?
If you (and MA) give the human intellect some form of credit, not all of us are lemmings.
I can’t believe I even try to convince you lemmings of the failed nature of THIS argument that was stirred initially by Michael Arrington and his overzealous nature of attacking one company because he feels it supports Holocaust Deniers. Human beings, as a whole, need to use more constructive means than Techcrunch or Facebook to drive peace.
>So the murder 1 person (whether gay, black, etc)
> in a hate crime versus attempted genocide of
> a race is somehow worth LESS in our society?
Are you out of your mind? OF COURSE A GENOCIDE OF A WHOLE NATION IS DIFFERENT THAN ACTION AGAINST A SINGLE PERSON.
“name ONE other group of people that has been systematically killed over the past 2 thousand years…”
Laos (japanese invasion, north vietnam invasion, US, china)
Cambodians (thai invasion, vietnam invasion, kymer rouge)
Arabs (british invasion, 6 day war, gulf war, afganistan war)
Incas (spanish invasion)
Native Americans
Australian Aborigines
These are just the from countries I have visited. There is probably many more, I have yet to visit Africa. Perhaps like yourself these holocaust deniers are not really bad people speading hate, they are just uneducated.
Are you joking?
and it hates you.
Dave,
No one ever said that the above massacres are not horrific. And if someone put up a group saying the genocide in Darfur is a lie, I think many would agree that Facebook should delete it.
This is not about which group has suffered more. This is not a competition.
MA is one hundred percent correct for going after Facebook for not enforcing their own ToS in stopping the spreading of hate. By extension, this argument does not only apply to Holocaust deniars but to gay bashers and all racists on Facebook. No one has ever said or intimated otherwise.
Of course, we should use every means at our disposal to drive peace forward and not just rely on the internet. But don’t underestimate the power of the internet to be used as a medium for good or for evil. At least Michael chooses to use it to raise awareness for a good cause. What is everyone else who’s bitching and moaning on this thread doing to better the world? Probably not much. It’s so easy to criticize.
How many articles has MA written for TechCrunch in total? What percentage of them have been about this very significant issue? Probably less than one percent, and yet, he catches flak from so many because they just don’t care about antisemitism in particular and they probably don’t care about the other hate groups on Facebook either. This is a very sad state of affairs indeed.
All I know is that remaining silent is not an option. History has already taught us the high price Jews have paid for their silence. Unfortunately, we do not need to search too far back into history to realize that allowing the spread of antisemitism has a real cost in terms of human lives.
I don’t think you can fault anyone for that. We all have a moral responsibility to speak out on behalf of what we believe is right.
good morning man
wha… it is? I never thought that…. they are just people.. Genetically speaking we are all pretty much the same..
It’s not socially acceptable. But people are allowed to have their own opinions. At this point all the inflammatory comments you’re making like this are just you trying to ’stir the pot’ to drum up more page hits.
I mean the guy said “I think we should be able to talk about whatever we want on the internet” and your response was: “why is it socially acceptable to hate Jews”? Huh? That’s not even responding to his question, that’s just blurting out a statement that is meant to get people on both sides of the issue to line up and start firing…
>it is frightening how it’s completely socially acceptable to hate Jews.
@MA: whats even more scary is how the jews themselves are to blame for allowing this to go on by trying to appear “open-minded” and “fair”. i could never imagine a company being run by a black person would ever put up with white supremacy groups for the sake of open-mindedness.
Good point. At the end of the day, the buck stops with Mark Zuckerberg. Unfortunately, sometimes Jews are their own worst enemies, and in this case this particular Jew is allowing all kinds of hate to be spread on his site–not just against Jews either. It’s downright shameful.
Oy. If hate is being spread the correct response is to educate, inform, foster a sense of openness and understanding, and that’s done not by rejecting people but by breaking down barriers that prevent people from understanding each other. Talking, demonstrating, showing.
Shove the hate underground and it doesn’t go away. It just festers and grows stronger. Let it wither when exposed to the light, rather than trying to lock it away.
Don’t hate the hater, undermine his ability to hate by denying him access to fallacy and justification.
@Eolirin
That sounds nice and poetic, but i dont’ think its realistic. Sometimes you just have to suppress the pain to allow the body to heal.
Um. Or perhaps some of us would rather have an avenue in which we can actually foster communication and thus maybe, maybe just be able to change the minds of some of the people who hate. If you push it underground it becomes invisible, but no less prevalent. At that point it’s intractable.
If you want to fight things like this, it needs to be in the open, and the counter arguments need to be direct and forceful, tearing apart the arguments point by point in a reasoned fashion. But dialog needs to exist or you get no where; if you cannot see the argument, you cannot fight against it. It remains closed and there’s no way to defend against it. Shut down the debate, shut down the discussion, and nothing changes.
There is no legitimate discourse or debate taking place in this groups. There’s just a bunch of ranting and raving antisemites screaming “Die Jews die.”
I see it all the time.
Yes, we must educate, and many of us do. And yes, we must delete these calls for violence against Jews right now.
I know, it should be law!
Facebook != ‘The Internet’ ™
Facebook isn’t “the internet” – that alone is enough reason for me to stop using it.
Great, Soupytwist, stop using Facebook. We’ll miss you. Something tells me you’ll come crawling back sooner than later.
“The Facebook Holocaust denial debate rages on” (At techcrunch where this dead horse is kicked at least once a week)
facebook, have some sense of moral responsibility. private companies should take a stance on issues like this. not censoring this issue makes facebook look pretty ridiculous. get off your freedom of speech crap and just do what is right and get rid of these groups.
@Todd – Facebook is taking a stand. They’re just not taking the stand you want them too. Don’t like it? Piss off, or go start your own 300-million user-strong social network and see how well you do, juggling that number.
Arrington, why aren’t you on a tangent on every FB hate group? Please, tell me, what makes these Holocaust denials any worse or better than the current hate on FB?
I think FB is doing the right thing by allowing this. They are not doing anything wrong and by what I have seen no direct threats have been made from these groups.
I’ve answered this extensively in my previous posts.
Hate is hate arrington. The Facebook employees cannot just take down the holocaust groups and leave other hate sites up. Plus, why would Facebook listen to you? You never listen to anyone else.
http://www.tech...funny-any-more/
Holden,
You’re right. Facebook needs to start eliminating all the token hate groups it allows to remain — from the token Anti-gay groups to the token Holocaust denial groups. And they need to do it right NOW.
@Jessica – I think you misunderstand Holden. What you’re describing is exactly what Facebook needs to NOT do. We use Facebook because we have the freedom to say what we want to – even if that makes us hateful assholes.
Do you hate anything? Do you hate donuts? Or Saturdays? Because if we start at holocaust groups, we end with donuts and Saturdays.
Don’t see it that way? Too bad – I do, and the nice thing about freedom of speech and opinion is that I have it. Take it away and you take away the one thing that makes humanity special – we have the power to choose.
I live in CHINA – where people do not have these freedoms. I’ve seen firsthand what happens when the powers that be take a stand on history by removing any reference to the parts they don’t like. But I’ve also seen what happens when people’s ability to choose is removed – they become mindless, infantile shells with nothing on the inside.
Have a little faith in humanity and recognize that we all consider these groups and their opinions to be loathsome.
I disagree with their views, but I would fight to the death to defend their right to hold them. On Facebook.
@Zombiephile “Do you hate anything? Do you hate donuts? Or Saturdays? Because if we start at holocaust groups, we end with donuts and Saturdays.”
http://en.wikip.../Slippery_slope
I think you make your own point when you qualify that the threats are not direct. The point is here that this is indirect hatred of a racial group, and its the same sort of hatred that allowed the group to become victimized in the first place.
I would think of it this way – imagine the group were called “I hate black people” or “I hate Mexicans.” The same sort of racial animus drives these groups in question yet they are allowed.
To me a holocaust denial group is no different than a KKK denial group. Both are dangerous and clearly hateful, even if not directly so.
Well said, htsh!!
Does removing the facebook group make those groups go away?
I mean, what you seem to be arguing is “I don’t want these groups in places where I frequent”, and that’s understandable and all, but it doesn’t actually solve anything, and it doesn’t reduce the amount of hate, it just makes it just pushes it out of sight even though it remains. Does that actually do anything other than allow you to stop thinking about it?
Are they less dangerous just because they’re not on Facebook? I think that’s where the “direct” line is getting drawn. Because I’d argue that unless they’re using FB to coordinate attacks they’re really not any less dangerous if you ban them. If they’re there, at least you can try to do something about changing their opinions, at least you can expose them to alternate points of view. If they’re not, they’ll do exactly the same thing somewhere else.
Micheal,I think you need to employ some sort of crowd-sourced system that can allow comments to move up and down based on votes by readers. Or something that allows comments like the first one above to be greyed out (a la HN).
I bet if you needed technical help with this many of us over at HN would assist you with setting something like that up.
Its impossible to take on the trolls yourself without this sort of thing when you’re getting the kind of traffic you’re getting.
Mike there is no answer to this question. You are not right and you are not wrong, just as Facebook is not right and not wrong. A social site tries to emulate real human interaction. A reality of being human is some of us have been taught to hate. Hate is very profitable. Can you imagine if people didn’t hate in this world? It would put the job losses in the car industry to shame.
Now your previous article about the killing and relating it to a Facebook group was as silly as a parent saying Marilyn Manson caused my kid to kill himself. No one factor causes a person to take a drastic action, however the question of hate speech in social sites is a valid one.
Now I don’t get why you picked a anti-Jewish group instead of targeting hate on black or hate on Asain, or hate on Muslim which trolls spew forth in far larger numbers on Facebook. I have never once seen or heard of these groups on Facebook until you made it your personal quest.
Maybe it is because you have these Jewish internet armies lobbying you about the issue which makes me laugh cause how are you different than politicians. Get mad at that just as the guy got mad at you for your pre question. It is a valid question. Why does this matter so much to you when there is a ton more hate spewed to other races of people?
Still even if I disagree with your choice I think it is a valid question and I hope it stays general because this issue isn’t about Jewish people and the holocaust. It is about hate.. about should a private company that is trying to mimic real world interaction censor hate speech… and this is a much bigger question that just Jewish vs Holocaust deniers. I don’t think any sensible person would ever give a suggestion like that a the time of day. I think it is a troll line… and you all got suckered in.. someone is probably getting off each time you post on it.. no publicity is bad publicity..
“these Jewish internet armies lobbying you” – LOL
It’s unbelievable how easy conspiracionist theories spread….
yeah, actually i have a whole separate fight going on with the JIDF, which got vaguely threatening with me for not “giving them credit” for the story. The Jews aren’t happy with me either.
They made it sound like they were pressuring you… it would help people a lot if we could know your motives.. your points are valid about hate speech and websites.. I just don’t understand your passion towards this. Hate killings happen all the time.. why does it matter so much to you as a person Mike?
and I meant JIDF but I can’t remember that.. I barely can remember the names of the girls I date.. once I told a girl she looked fat in an outfit.. and then called her by my ex gf’s name when I got flustered..
It scares me when I hear of groups like JIDF… the internet should be free of political influence but it is not.. I guess I am silly to think we could drop the hate.. which I think is a political tool used to sell different agendas.. without hate who would spend 300 billion on the military.. And the JIDF, these groups, trolls, we all of us play into there hands… as long as we have hate big companies will continue to build weapons of mass destruction.. except Iraq
as long as we have hate, big companies will continue to build weapons of mass destructionJust as Arrington noted that only governments are subject to free speech laws, governments are also the only ones NOT restricted from using force.
So, saying that “big companies” build weapons of mass destruction is beyond silly. Weapons may be contracted out, but the use of such weapons are the sole jurisdiction of government.
Which ties in with this whole holocaust issue. While I agree with Arrington that Facebook can ban whoever it wants for whatever it wants, I don’t agree that it’s *important* that they do.
I think the important lessons from historical atrocities such as the holocaust is that GOVERNMENTS are the primary threat to human freedom. The holocaust was only possible because of the monopoly that governments assume on the legal use of force.
IMHO, making an issue of private companies allowing debate is a distraction. By constantly beating up a private company for arguably bad or good decisions, it chisels away at the importance of monitoring government behavior.
Do I think Facebook should ban these groups? It might be a good business decision… I don’t know. And, I don’t really care. To me, what’s really important is that we focus on the horrors that are brought about by giving too much power to government.
There are so many offensive actions by governments, the debate over Facebook is silly. Again, since governments control absolute power over the use of force towards individuals, they deserve much more scrutiny.
Michael, not sure why you censored my response to this claim, that I left 8 hours ago, (and that my Facebook friends can see still the evidence of in my profile, (screencap here: http://i44.tiny...com/1zyitch.jpg but here it is, again:
Grow up, Arrington – it was not a fight and nothing was “vaguely threatening” whatsoever. I’m not sure how many times I have to say it, but I fully appreciate you helping to get the word out about the cause, but was just annoyed that you didn’t tip your hat to my organization (which launched these campaigns a while ago). That’s all.
Now, either move on and come up with something new or stop regurgitating old material and comments to old posts.
Isn’t this supposed to be a tech blog? If you truly care about these issues, why not write about the 750 Nazi YouTube channels I told you about? What about updates from companies who are responding to our campaign? (Weight Watchers, Caeser’s Palace, LifeLock, Progressive Insurance, etc…. ) What about the new Hitler Youth Twitter account? What about all the Islamic terrorist material all over the place? Either make an attempt to cover these issues comprehensively, stick with what you know, or, at the very least, lead people to the place where they can get the most detailed and up-to-date information.
Thanks.
Jewish Internet Defense Force
http://www.thejidf.org
LEADING THE FIGHT
blocked me?
“these Jewish internet armies lobbying you” – LOL
It’s unbelievable how easy conspiracionist theories spread….
This world is really full of fools…
JIDF stands for Jewish internet defense force… an internet army.. and it is a lobby. They lobby Facebook, they lobby advertisers and they lobby whatever gives them the best result. It is genius to show an advertiser there ad next to this group. It pressures Facebook in a way that matters…
Do you really think information isn’t controlled, used, to manipulate us? Do you not think religion has become a tool of control? A whole war was fought through misinformation.. a whole people sat by too busy on Facebook, Youtube, TV’s to do anything?
It is not a conspiracy theories either.. it is the systematic indoctrination of an entire people towards some agenda. It is funny how you do not see this.. after 9/11 suddenly Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis had war movies… and it makes perfect sense to do this.. if you are a company that produces weapons you need war to sell them. It is just good business war…
Are you kidding? You buy all that hogwash about Jewish conspiracies.
I don’t speak for the JIDF but I am a huge fan.
The way I see it: The JIDF is a grassroots movement mainly comprised of Facebook and Twitter users who got tired of seeing so many hate groups about Jews cropping up — so we banded together to document the hate and pressure FB to enforce their own ToS.
We have indeed made some headway but not nearly enough. There’s no conspiracy here. There are just a bunch of determined people — Jews and non-Jews alike — who’ve decided to make a lot of noise until we get heard.
Claiming that the Jews control the media is indeed very antisemitic and doesn’t become you.
What are you talking about.. I start out withe JIDF and then expand to the world suggesting all people are controlled by the info they receive and to think it isn’t is silly..I refer to us as in all of us are controlled by the type of information we are exposed to. I site the war in Iraq as an example highlighting how because of misinformation the world stood by as a country was invaded..
You take everything out of context it was written to fit your point and then you call me antisemitic..very trollish.. you must do well in Facebook groups..
How is it antisemitic for saying we were all too busy on our youtubes and video games to care about the war in Iraq?
How am I antisemitic for saying people are controlled by the information they receive?
How am I antisemitic for saying JIDF is a lobby even though you are lobbying Facebook and its advertisers?
You Jessica Fishbein are the one who said Jews control the media..
I guess that makes you antisemitic… and maybe we could talk about your self over drinks cause you are a cuty.. is it bad forum to hit on a girl while arguing with her?
As for conspiracy theories.. have looked at our world lately.. ?
@Jessica Picking one religion to defend is close-minded and doesn’t become you. Either take a stand on the issue in general or pack up and go home – picking and choosing where to apply your lofty moral standards makes you look bad.
@Bonochromatic,
Where have am I picking or choosing? I’ve stated several times all throughout this thread that I think ALL the hate groups need to be banned. Learn to read.
@Gebadia Smith or whatever your real name is that you used to message me on Facebook with,
Your main point didn’t come through clearly at all. Sounded like you were saying that the JIDF was an internet army or lobby being used to control the way people think. If I misunderstood what you said, I apologize.
It’s laughable that you would say I think Jews control the media. Learn to read.
What the … ?
TechCrunch – Twitter, Freedom of Speech, Etc.
Great article! Thank you.
In my opinion, Facebook should allow this speech to not force it underground but also populate these pages (groups) with ads for the Holocaust Museum, books about the suffering, and other informative material to both allow free speech (even if its hate) while educating the misinformed.
Great idea.
Facebook should have a “related Groups/pages” section so the user can see other groups’ opinions about the issue.
EBay and MySpace have gone the other direction…. isn’t this a point in Facebook’s favor?
Totally support facebook’s position on this issue. There are so many groups on facebook that I personally dislike but I have no problem with their existence. They have the right to speak out their thoughts and you have the right not to listen to them.
Even when a group is being victimized because of this sort of hate speech?
I mean, say the KKK or recently resurgent white supremacist groups tried to use Facebook as a recruiting tool. Wouldn’t that be more clear?
I don’t think you see the level of nuance here. First of all, its a private actor so free speech issues are out the window. Facebook can do what it wants. Second, there’s actual harm created by this sort of language.
There’s no right or wrong answer. Michael did a good job of summarizing his argument and to his credit he posted facebook’s responses.
It will be too bad if facebook starts to judge what is right and what is wrong on those issues. There will too many things to judge. There are always groups that have different perspectives on various issues. I don’t see a holocaust denial group could bring any harm to you as long as you don’t subscribe to them and ignore their existence.
A Holocaust denial group denial group?
I don’t see what is so difficult about sorting out the hate groups from the other ones.
As many have pointed out, these are historic atrocities, not modern-day political issues. You can totally leave the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel groups alone yet get rid of the holocaust deniers and the KKK.
I’m curious as to the type of on-the-fence groups you see would be threatened by this?
Right on!
+1
I’m still denying web 2.0
Please join me and others in the Facebook Flat Earth Society. Thx.
What about groups that deny the Armenian Genocide happened? There are a whole bunch of those – http://www.face...?q=genocide+lie
Why are you so concerned about the Holocaust Denial groups. I think you’ve taken these articles too far. Frankly, I could care less.
You say that private companies don’t have the “luxury” of a constitution to force free speech principals upon them. Are you saying that unless free speech is legally forced upon anyone than it should be curtailed?
MA is talking about an issue that is obviously very personal. I think that if the Armenians really feel strongly about this, they should start talking about it in the public forum. If there is enough support maybe FB will take notice and act on it. This is how the world works.
When the cost outweighs the benefit, policies change.
and why not mention the hating of Islam, Muslims, Prophet Muhammad “pbuh”? Or talking badly about these issues is the right to express opinions??!!!!
No no, you’re overreacting. TechCrunch needs to protect Freedom of Speech, not Muslims.
I’m talking about hating!
So hating groups for Jewish, muslims etc.. are allowed on facebook?
Facebook just disabled the group “I hate Muslims in Oz” this week. http://news.cne...0262136-71.html
It’s very disturbing that they are sensitive to their Muslim users but not to their Jewish ones. They need to be sensitive to everyone.
Oh puhease! Muslims are not some tiny vulnerable group who are historically persecuted and have whole societies dedicated to their destruction.
And the muslim lobby on facebook is apparently far more effective than the jewish lobby.
Everything would be OK given that as an example, Anti-Muslim groups (which is the latest FB censorship example) could also join and discuss the issue in an “open minded” manner.
But that of course is something that too controversial for FB (or perhaps something that might hurt their increasing user base ? Or maybe reduce investments from Russia and the Middle East ?)
So if there is openness, nothing sacred, but if not, then Holocaust denial is definitely something that is offensive to most intelligent users.
But then again, FB is known for its publicity stunts.
What are you even arguing…?
What he’s arguing is that Facebook keeps these controversial hate groups up because they generate more clicks and attract more users — that’s their goal, isn’t it?
@And you don’t think Michael Arrington is continuing this discussion for the EXACT SAME REASON?
What’s his “goal” Jessica? To drive traffic to this site, and to make money from it. That’s right – Arrington is actually profiting from this. And THAT is why we’re having this discussion.
CENSORSHIP IS UNAMERICAN. You cannot have honest dialogue if you discourage honest expression of opinions, even the ones we find repulsive. This is the heart of the concept of “Socratic Method.” A form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer’s own point. I support Socrates. FB should absolutely allow holo-denier pages and pics of breast-feeding mommies….
Ummm… Wow… talk about ignorant. Let us just make hate-Jews and hate-blacks and hate- groups perfectly acceptable across the web! And while we’re at it, we can remove censorship of swear words and foul language! Yeah, no.
See that photo on the top of the page? The one with the guy who has his head in the sand? Think of it as your own personal vanity homage. Exactly how do you expect to eliminate hate without directly confronting it? Suggest it is you who is being ignorant?
i would take facebook’s stance on freedom of speech and censorship more seriously if they weren’t already so busy censoring users who expressing themselves by sharing links about pirate bay, and posting innocent pictures of breastfeeding.
Mike,
My main objection to your argument for shutting down the groups is simply that it’s counterproductive.
Shutting down the groups only serves to push them underground and alienate their members, further cultivating their resentment and fostering isolated silos of self reinforcing groupthink. There is one side to the coin, there is no debate. Which can become more than hateful and ignorant, but actually dangerous.
Keeping the groups in public light at least offers the opportunity for monitoring activities, for argument, for denial of the denial, for confrontation, maybe even for changing some minds.
Suppression never works. Never has and never will. It just builds up and blows up in your face.
no. you are right when it comes to government censorship. But hate groups having a presence on Facebook, with the Facebook logo sitting right on top of all that content, is just empowering them. Read this USA Today article on how groups like this can make formerly isolated racists feel empowered: “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.”
http://blogs.us...ate-within.html
Why not ban those isolated racists from using the cellphones? Cellphones give them the power to communicate with each other and make those formerly isolated racists feel empowered.
How ridiculous!
that’s not the same argument. and you’ll notice nobody is saying facebook needs to monitor private messaging for hate topics, merely prevent the public groups.
I don’t think you get it. Facebook groups are not a utility like the telephone or water.
Again – facebook provides groups as an organizing tool. By allowing for hate groups to organize, it is in effect saying “Hey its okay if you use our software to do this kind of hateful and dangerous organizing.”
How does the presence of the Facebook logo on the page have any impact on the content. Is the page suddenly more important because facebook is hosting it?
Should we be going after the hosting companies for allowing hate speech to be on their servers?
And what, pray tell, do you think shutting down these groups would do to their smoldering anger? Wouldn’t it stoke it, and the conspiracies about a Judeo controlled world order?
If the argument is that these groups should be denied the tools to congregate and organize online in general, self contained, massively populated sites like Stormfront.org and others seem to be better targets for shutdown than relatively small groups in the somewhat moderate, if not liberal leaning ocean of Facebook, where engagement is at least feasible.
But even if you could do one or both, it would only enflame the groups members, and new tools and sites would sprout. Nothing is resolved, only delayed.
Actually, these groups can spread the hate and recruit members at a much quicker rate than ever before. They are adding a lot more fuel to the fire.
Slowing down this process is actually good.
The Nazis sped it up and look where it led.
Creating a climate where hate speech is socially acceptable has very dangerous long term consequences even though many refuse to believe it.
I appreciate your posting the reactions from Facebook employees. I feel like it’s done a little to compensate for your opportunistic, irresponsible, and manipulative seizing on the holocaust museum shooting to assert your opinions on the matter.
While I wish that the holocaust deniers would have a change of heart, I must agree with the outspoken Facebook employees that they must be allowed to _peaceably_ discuss their opinions.
Please let this be the last TC post on the topic.
no. the shooter at the holocaust museum was a published holocaust denial author. it’s about as relevant as it can get. people deny the Holocaust because they want Jews dead.
Now now, stop being ridiculous. People don’t deny the holocaust just because they want Jews dead. Infact, that makes no sense at all. Wouldn’t the kind of people who want to kill Jews LOVE the fact that the Holocaust happened?
Navarr. Take a step back and really think about what’s going on in your head.
You just said that because someone who shoot a guard at a Holocaust museum wrote a Holocaust Denial book; that all Holocaust Deniers must want Jews Dead.
You need to take a step back and think about what’s going on in your head, Good Sir.
You’re stereotyping a belief (a wrong belief) but a belief on the actions of the most violent people.
Some people may just not be able to believe that such an atrocity exists.
Others may be peaceful “conspiracy theorists.”
In a way, you’re profiling Holocaust Deniers in the same way most people in the US profiled Muslims after the 9-11 attacks.
It is one think to deny something happened (even though there really is no denying it) and another to hate a particular race. Sure I agree that if these Holocaust Denial groups were just based on the idea that the Holocaust never occurred, they should be allowed. The problem is that they aren’t. They involve tons of hate speech about Jews. This, to me, is plenty of evidence for what Mike is saying.
@Navarr – no he’s not. holocaust denial is not the same as, say “who killed JFK” conspiracy theory. it’s well-documented, OVER AND OVER again that holocaust denial is directly linkable to antisemitism.
it’s not a fake moon landing…
Here are some peaceful holocaust deniers posting on the comments in this group:
http://www.face...gid=72837757518
@jtoeman But what kind of anti-semitism?
Is it “kill the jews!” antisemitism, or is it simply “Gosh, I hate jews.. they’re always ranting on about the holocaust.”
Because there is a very big difference. I’m antichristian, but I don’t want to go around killing christians.
“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
@navarr did you really say “what kind of antisemitism?”
wow. i think that pretty much wraps up the conversation, right?
What a despicable accusation to make at someone who is using his voice to prevent the spreading of hate. In *one month’s time* over 50,000 of Facebook’s own users have united in opposition to FB’s stance.
http://www.face...9983&ref=mf
Many of us feel grateful for Michael’s work.
GET A LIFE AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. COVER SOME REAL TECHNOLOGY
thank you mike
Mike, This is Ridiculous!
How can us in the tech industry complain when we fear apple or microsoft or twitter are starting to censor our speech, but then fall back on how ridiculous the freedom of such speech is when it’s content we object to?
Come on man. Facebook believes in our freedom to express ourselves via their service. Why would you fight against that?
Sometimes there is a price for expressing yourself. When the lies labeled as “free expression” are directed at an individual there is (sometimes) legal recourse available. However when the lies are merely to incite hate with no named individual target, who has standing and in what venue will justice be served? In such cases it is perhaps better to attack those who serve to give liars a soapbox and shield them from direct retribution.
Humm. Censorship.
Oh interesting, maybe start with facebook. Then censor twitter, email, phone calls!
yeah, we can even go future censor mails!
or even better build some chip inside human brain to censor some thoughts completely.
I mean, getting Facebook to do this is just the first step, it should go further until the entire world is majority thinking so there will be no hate at all and everyone think alike. awesome!
Hell, why live in US, create another country where only right ideas are allowed. Let’s call it US without freedom of speech and see how it prosper!
so I heard this is not about freedom of speech, it’s about hate.
Right. let’s stop people from hating by stop them saying things that hateful. because that will stop them from hating.
and, maybe the paper company should have a TOS saying the paper is not allowed to write hate speech.
This is *not* a constitutional issue. The purpose of our constitution is to keep the *government* from denying us our rights.
This is a corporate policy issue, not a political one. Facebook needs to decide if they are going to allow these horrid deniers the right to use Facebook property. While I morally oppose the deniers, I understand Facebook not wanting to get into the practice of scrubbing political content.
Let me bring this up again because I think it’s become lost in the shuffle; Facebook banned something as innocent as breastfeeding yet helps perpetuate the myth that the Holocaust didn’t happen. That’s not even me asking for the Holocaust groups to be banned (though it would be nice) just lift the ban on breastfeeding. It’s stupid, and when contrasted against this Holocaust debacle makes the company look ridiculous. TechCrunch: 1, Facebook: 0.
If Facebook were consistent on this issue I’d be agreeing with the employees. The problem is that Facebook removes and censors speech all the time. They removed all my photos and wall posts for a day and do that to many many many people (I get a new complaint about that every day or two).
They also remove content of mothers showing themselves breast feeding, among other content that Facebook finds objectionable.
Facebook is wrong BECAUSE they are inconsistent on this issue. The employees are way off base on this issue because of that inconsistency. They have no moral ground to stand on here.
Exactly. I too can have witnessed them delete photos and threads they’ve disagreed with on numerous occasions. Their hypocrisy on this issue is astounding.
Scoobie this is EXACTLY right.
Out of curiosity, what did the wall posts that were removed contain?
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.
You’re absolutely right, Scoble.
They are inconsistent and their policies reek of double standards and hypocrisy.
Perhaps they are doing it to drive controversy, which drives publicity, which drives clicks.
I’m really tired of seeing this on techcrunch. How about you report on news rather than ranting on subjects that people won’t agree on.
It is Facebook’s right, as a private company, to allow or disallow whatever they feel is prudent.
And what they feel they will allow has nothing, and should have nothing at all to do, with what you feel is right and proper.
Get over yourself, Mike.
It is TechCrunch’s right, as a private company, to write whatever they feel is prudent. Being an important voice in the industry, they have every right to express and impress upon their influence on the direction the industry as a whole is taking.
Well said.
Point.
I am a not jewish, But my wife is Jewish and kids are being raised in both a Jewish / Catholic household. For those in support of Freedom of Speech ignorance. Maybe we should create a group should be created in facebook “The KKK didn’t doing anything, the minorities did it to themselves”. Maybe even better, “Hilter didn’t hate people and start a war, the people hated him so he just defended himself.” Ignorance is bliss. It’s a fact the holocaust happened. To support freedom of speech is one thing, but to support plain ignorance is another. Facebook sucks, people on it act like kids so I can only expect so much. Great job Michael! My kids need people like you to keep combating ignorance.
He’s not combating ignorance. We’re all aware of the facts and he hasn’t changed any of our minds.
In fact, I don’t think anyone’s mind has been changed since the beginning of this debate.
“Hilter didn’t hate people and start a war, the people hated him so he just defended himself.”
-Oh hey kinda like how Israel’s just “defending itself” from innocent Palestinian women and children! Right on!
The fact remains that for every atrocity that’s come out of free speech, I can name you 5 equally/more heinous atrocities that have come out of suppression and censorship.
Case closed.
This is good work, Michael.
You said it best in an earlier comment from last month: free speech was designed to protect citizens from the government, not acts of intellectual violence from the disapproval of a moderate majority. Hate doesn’t need our help.
In Real Life, businesses know well why they must keep their establishments in order: when you have to deal with thugs and junkies eye-to-eye, you feel the looming threat in your nostrils and your bones. But these Facebook weenies are scroll-wheeling through their merry little blogosphere celebrating small-time thuggery, for what, for “freedom”? They just don’t even _know_.
Facebook has rules of conduct; why are basic human decency and a regard for dignity not among them? Sorry, I can’t resist quoting King Dahfu from _Henderson the Rain King_:
“Oh, high conduct, high conduct! There will never be anything but misery without high conduct.”
Won’t the German or French government have to censor FB because they allow this “free speech”?
Happy studivz…
Facebook bans a user just because her name is “NakedJen”. And now it wants to be the protector of freedom of speech.
Hypocrites.
All these employees who get fired up now and want to take a high ground, don’t actually bother about anything.
The oft repeated “reasons and arguments” which somehow sound convincing, get parroted everywhere by everyone when their pride is at stake.
Facebook Terms of Service clearly state that you are required to use your real name. Their censors indicated that she was, indeed, not using her actual name.
They censor material they disagree with all the time. I watch them do it. Who are they kidding? No one.
Well, it is her actual name. The name she uses everywhere.
Zekerberg is okay with a few false positives. LoL.
The boundaries of Freedom end where it starts toeing on others’ quality of life.
In “Report” option. Facebook provides an option of “Attacks Individual or Group” as reason.
Why is it needed to protect “Freedom of Speech” as per your definition of it? And why is nudity and breast feeding against freedom of expressions? All the very same arguments can be provided here…. no one is forcing anyone to watch a nude picture on facebook.. don’t like it, don’t see it.. Now why is that against it’s policy?
We’re behind you Michael, don’t give up.
Holocaust denial is the denial of past events, this is the very base of fascism: Rewrite history to control the present.
See what is happening in Iran right now, where bloggers and internet figures enable things to happen, truth to be expressed. Revisionism is an attempt to SHUT HISTORY’S MOUTH… this is the exact opposite of the freedom of speech.
TRUTH is the worst casualty of all, as it enable hate to rule countries, lies to lead people and fool the opinions.
http://www.face...?id=72837757518
MY POINT EXACTLY!
Is Elias Konitopoulos DENYING THE HOLOCAUST?
No. No s/he isn’t.
So what does that have to do with Holocaust DENIAL?
Now, people like that should be banned or warned and their comments deleted.
But it shouldn’t create an “anti-holocaust denial” standpoint on the Facebook Platform.
Get a clue.
Tell me. How is “the holocaust was a beautiful thing” denial of it’s existence?
That statement doesn’t deny its existence but basically states that it would like to see a repetition of the Holocaust.
In the same vain, most people who deny the Holocaust are also ones who would love to see it repeated.
The glorification and denial of the Holocaust are the flip side of the same coin.
But Jessica, this isn’t about Holocaust Glorification; and Facebook should (if they’re not already) work towards eliminating that on their site.
I’m saying that antisemitism and holocaust denial can be done in a peaceful way, without attacking another group. And that is what is allowed on Facebook’s Platform.
Groups that don’t abide by that should be disbanded, deleted, banned, or whatever else.
“… the point of Holocaust denial. It is not an abstract academic discussion, some esoteric bantering between scholars. It is an attempt by antisemites of various stripes to make Jews appears to be liars and manipulators, those who accept the historical truth of the Holocaust to be dupes, absolve Nazis and their active and passive accomplices of guilt, and so rehabilitate antisemitic ideologies and, ultimately, make possible the completion of Hitler’s mission. Raising the American model of freedom of expression above all else is a kind of constitutional idolatory, a lazy sloganeering which protects its worshippers from having to negotiate how to implement practical measures to prevent its abuse and, in this case, to prevent harm to life.” — Stefan Bialoguski
“Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy. It was this doctrine that was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust. What is on the surface a denial of the reality of genocide is, at its core, an appeal to genocidal hatred.” — the ADL
“antisemitism and holocaust denial can be done in a peaceful way”
Sounds like a paradox to me.
I completely agree. Saying “I hate Jews” or “Jews die” or whatever nonsense is not equatable with the statement of “the Holocaust did not happen” (albeit equally nonsense).
DENIAL groups should be allowed to exist, but groups formed with the intent of the proliferation of hate or that propagate hate through their comments should not.
Groups that propagate hatred under the guise of simply denying a well-known historical event should not be allowed to exist, which I think is an important caveat that no one seems to recognize. However, groups simply questioning the veracity of well-known historical events without clearly and recognizably inciting hatred should be LEFT ALONE.
@Jthane: You think that Holocaust denial groups aren’t spreading hate? They sure ain’t spreading love.
These groups do indeed help make hate more socially acceptable and ultimately help to incite more hate: http://www.adl...._Conference.htm
For me FB position is very much like what Google/Yahoo/MSFT said when they capitulated to the Chinese government. They said that even with all the filters they allowed, they believe that in the end they’re actually helping to change the situation.
BS.
The Chinese government only used it to gainmore control over its population.
The Olympic commitee said the Beijing games would help open up China, what a joke. They did not even allow real free reporting during the games.
You don’t deal with evil. You can’t change China by capitulating to its government and you can’t change those people mind by an open debate.
Those people are a lost cause. Don’t give them any wiggle room.
Exactly, and don’t forget Google’s compromised golden rule slogan “DO NO EVIL.”
Mike, I just want to thank you for doing this.
I think I just realized something. The world has forgotten the Holocaust. God help us. I’m done here.
the World will forget every other genocide by the time Jews are done bitching about theirs.
Attacking Facebook about Holocaust Denial is like joining an IRC channel where you don’t know the OPS and then telling them how they should run their show.
They don’t have an obligation to be fair or un-hypocritical. They don’t have any obligations towards you, and they can ban whoever they like or dislike as the case may be, for any subject, even if they find it funny.
Facebook is a private company, and as long as they break no laws, they can run their company however they like (Including with hypocrisy).
So, in redundancy…
Get over yourself Mike, and go back to reporting on tech software news.
yep. i’m going to get over myself now. done with this topic.
Thank you for all that you have done on this front, Michael.
Facebook really doesn’t care. They hope that if they ignore their users’ complaints about this long enough, they will wear us down, and we will just give up and go away. They count on that.
And yes, many do throw in the towel, but Facebook shouldn’t be so smug. This is America. The land of innovation. Who knows what type of social network service the kids of Harvard are creating in their dorm rooms as we speak?
Americans iare always looking for latest, the newest — bigger and better. And when the day arrives that a new social network better than Facebook emerges and doesn’t allow hate speech, Facebook better watch out because many of us will be leaving it en masse.
They can be smug and complacent all they want about this now. They have no competition. But that won’t last for long.
No need to get frustrated. if you step away, nobody might be here to pick up your place.
Mike — I hate to say it, but you have clearly shown you are intellectually overmatched here.
You are dealing with a false premise to begin with, which is:
Holocaust denial = Kill Jews
It is completely possible (though highly improbable) that some uneducated soul creates a group like that because they truly believe that the Holocaust didn’t exist. In this case, the group should be allowed to exist (and people can join the group to argue the intellectual question of whether it happened or not)
It is also possible (and highly probably) that people are creating groups as code for anti-semitism. In that case, it should be fairly evident early on and the group should be banned – PER FACEBOOK’S TERMS OF SERVICE.
In either case, it is NOT Facebook’s responsibility to interpret what “holocaust denial” means other than what it suggests plainly to most people. This would open up a whole other can of worms.
Your insistence on supporting this position just shows me that unfortunately, you’re IQ is not what I supposed it would be to run this blog, but then again, that was never a primary qualification, was it?
Andy Schweig,
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You stated:
1. “You are dealing with a false premise to begin with, which is: Holocaust denial = Kill Jews”
2. “It is also possible (and highly probably) that people are creating groups as code for anti-semitism.”
Which one is it? Are the people who create these groups antisemites or not? Because last I checked, antisemites would like to see Jews dead and killed. Hello??????
Facebook User — you are a moron and not worthy of a reply here, but I’ll take the bait.
The initial premise is false because even if 99% of holocaust deniers are Jew haters, this does not define an absolute relationship (e.g., holocaust deniers = jew haters). Therefore, by attempting to censor holocaust denial, you run the risk or censoring people who are not jew haters. This is a highly undesirable consequence.
Address the real problem, which is hate speech against Jews. If investigation of a group shows that its primary purpose is to hate Jews, than ban it, but not simply because it has the title “Holocaust Denial”.
Andy, There are no Holocaust deniers who aren’t antisemites. Antisemitism and Holocaust denial go hand in hand. Get a clue and stop insulting people’s IQs who are absolutely much higher than yours.
Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I didn’t realize Facebook was battling this issue.
I just deactivated my account on Facebook due to Facebook’s stance on the Holocaust.
I support the right to have Free Speech but also have the right to walk away from an organization if I am uncomfortable with the free speech taking place, in this case denial of the Holocaust.
Michael – you have hit the nail on the head….the fact that 6m people can be killed IN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION by one of the greatest countries in the world and then have it denied 50, 60 years later is the saddest commentary here…and this isnt limited to these f*cking idiots on FB….there are ‘academics’ that write lengthy books that are used by these same idiots to prove their case…its troubling and sad…
Forget the Holocaust? Hey Mike, they’ve already forgotten 9/11. Don’t let human nature get you down.
The internet is as crazy and as cruel as the real world.
Tolerance is required for surviving here. But not too much or it may fall into indifference or apathy that can corrupt one’s sense of right and wrong.
I favor a man who knows his stance for what he deems to be right, than someone who is always neutral, uncharged, dead – stands for nothing.
For me, conscience is still the best science to learn and practice in everyday life. It enables us not only to draw the line at something but hopefully, a nice straight line.
I firmly believe in freedom of speech but I also think that there should be some form of mechanism to educate people about what’s right. For instance Bill O’ Reilly may not have murdered Dr. Tiller, but Bill’s rhetoric against abortion may have coaxed Roeder to carry out the crime. Similarly, such hate groups may have a role in the continued hatred toward the jews.
However, by repeatedly covering the facebook policies, Mike is inadvertently advertising such groups, which will eventually only fuel their growth.
I think that facebook should have some type of mechanism to educate users about the incident or personality in question. Can they simply not have a red signal at the top of the group that indicates hate speech? Can they not have some content at the top (let’s say taken from Wikipedia) that points toward the actual crime?
My point it that facebook should look at ways to leverage such hate groups to actually educate people about incidents such as the holocaust. Maybe, 1 out a 100 group members might just stop denying holocaust.
Mike – If you are being honest, do you think there is any argument that would make you change your mind, or at a minimum consider the fact that this issue is vastly more complicated than you are making it?
Just a few of the considerations built into this discussion:
Public vs. Private (re: censorship)
H. Denial vs. Other Hate Groups (importance)
What constitutes hate speech?
Who at Facebook decides which groups fit?
How does removal impact discourse?
… and many more…
All of that said, I f’ing love Jews, Israel, and the first amendment. I also think Facebook is the cat’s pajamas. I just don’t think that censoring groups is the way to deal with issues — no matter how much it makes our blood boil.
Care to address the simplification of this oh-so-complicated issue?
Oh and for the record there are over 500 Groups on Facebook with the word “N*gg*r” in the name (asteriks not included). This seems far more offensive and pertinent to me. Thoughts on this??
Clearly, the N word is hateful and has no place on FB at all. Facebook needs to start taking better measures to stop the spreading of hate.
Facebook ’s ToS policy clearly states that those who attack groups or individuals are in violation of its ToS policy. For some reason, it can’t seem to figure out what qualifies as hate.
Thus, it needs to sit with some experts and define what constitutes the spreading of hate and what does not. Then it needs to draft a transparent policy specifically stating where and how the line gets crossed. Transparency is the key.
Currently, there’s no rhyme or reason as to why one Holocaust denial or anti-Gay group gets deleted and yet another remains. Currently, there’s an arbitrary or somewhat schizophrenic enforcement of the ToS.
Would Facebook allow groups that support Al Qaeda or Islamic Terrorists?
Americans have a tendency to tolerate hate coming from fellow Americans in the name of free speech.
They used to allow terrorist groups on their site until several of us including myself and an organization called the JIDF pressured them to stop.
They have gotten much quicker at removing terrorist groups than used to be . However, there are still some terrorist groups up now that need to be taken down. Press attention really helps. Michael is doing a great thing by bringing attention to a very important issue.
Thank you Michael for keeping this important debate alive. There are so many things I could say about this matter but but I need to weight my words carefully…
maybe you should put doing what’s right before whatever is stopping you from talking.
Agreed. I believe it is important for people to speak loudly and clearly about this issue. I appreciate Michael for covering the issue and for Net’s strong stand on it as well.
I know mike you won’t respond to this, why Poor people of Palestine are paying the price of holocaust .. see i am not denying it. But i find it ironic that on the one hand you and most of the other enthusiast jews demonstrate that Jews are quite miserable since they were killed in Millions and on the other hand you don’t talk about the atrocities caused by Israel to Muslims in Palestine. If you want to defend something that is right in your mind, then please be fair.
to me Holocaust and today’s israel is mother of all ironies !
That is why people don’t tolarate them.
They get 5 billion US dollars each year foreign aid by United States and all they can do with it is to go and abuse Palestines and relocate them.
@stsss “That is why people don’t tolarate them.
They get 5 billion US dollars each year foreign aid by United States and all they can do with it is to go and abuse Palestines and relocate them.”
Are you saying that people are allowed to spread Jew hatred on Facebook and deny the Holocaust because they don’t like Israel’s handling of the midEast conflict? Huh????? What does one thing have to do with another?
I guess you really are thinking along the same lines of a typical Holocaust denier:
“On the surface, Holocaust deniers portray themselves as individuals and groups engaged in a legitimate, dispassionate quest for historical knowledge and “truth.”
The core message of the Holocaust deniers is even more insidious. They recognize the fact that most people believe that the Holocaust actually occurred. How can it be, they ask, that the great majority have come to accept as truth an historical assertion which is in actuality a gigantic falsehood?
The purpose of this Holocaust mythology, they assert, is the inculcation of a sense of guilt in the white,Western Christian world. Those who can make others feel guilty have power over them and can make them do their bidding. This power is used to advance an international Jewish agenda centered in the Zionist enterprise of the State of Israel.
Deniers argue that the manufactured guilt and shame over a mythological Holocaust led to Western, specifically United States, support for the establishment and sustenance of the Israeli state — a sustenance that costs the American taxpayer over three billion dollars per year. They assert that American taxpayers have been and continue to be swindled as well as misled and imagine that by showing the American and other Western peoples how and why they have been victimized can the power of this conspiracy be broken. Once they have been shown the “truth,” that there was never any legitimate basis for their feeling of guilt, deniers postulate that these good people will rise up in righteous anger and treat the Holocaust myth conspirators in an appropriate manner.” –the ADL
Jessica – Your posts are among the most unreasoned and one-sided posts in the whole thread. Makes it very hard to take them seriously.
For what it’s worth, I disagree with you. Jessica’s post is very well reasoned and balanced.
its answers like these that cause such deep concern to many of us. that you can somehow link holocaust denial and antisemitism to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
and if you did your real homework, you’d understand how it’s generally accepted that the leaders of the Palestinian people are the ones who have caused the greatest problems for the region. that’s not to say Israel isn’t to blame either, but to draw such parallels like you have is just plain juvenile.
oh, and it’s not irony by the way…
The creation of Isreal state is what brought these wars in the first place there. How many people have to die to justify this state in the first place?
These are your dollars. American dollars. 5 billion of them given away each year ( this is not a loan, but aid that won’t be paid back ). American taxpayers like you are part of the genocide going on in Palestine.
While you could and should use these 5 billion dollars to help your fellow countrymen who are losing their jobs and homes each day.
See the difference juvenile? Or is it irony that your Government supports relocating and building houses on forbidden territory with YOUR own money while people back in the United States are becoming jobless and homeless each day in record numbers?
>> ….hand you don’t talk about the atrocities caused by Israel to Muslims in Palestine….
oh good grief, what atrocities? By providing them food, water and electricity and free medical services? and free education? and setting up hospitals? and setting up universities?
maybe if the palestenians didn’t shoot rockets and blow up night clubs and pizza restaurants and try to kill babies and mothers with bulldozers and stab tourists in the neck and teach hate to their children in school books. maybe then they would not have to be kept behind security barriers sealed away from the innocent population that they are trying to decimate.
but i do go on. What atrocities are you talking about exactly?
maybe you should look at the original map of israel when it formed, and the map today. specifically looking at the distribution of land.
fact is its sad that the jewish people had to go through the holocaust, 6m of them died. having said that they should be the first people to fight against creating ghettos, taking over land, killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people. they should be the first to fight against it, but fact is they SUPPORT it.
maybe instead of buying into this nonsense of fair borders, you should look at facts of history and understand that they are talking about 67 borders as a step to taking away all of Israel.
Hitler demanded fairness when taking over a country or two, and the fool europeans gave it to him without a fight. that’s fairness for you
I think Mike’s point is inconsistency of FB policy, and I agree with him – FB should allow “tities” if they don’t want to be in censorship business. I also do understand FB lack of desire to define what is or is not “hate” speech – it is not always all that straight forward.
I also think that, since FB is a company and we are the customers, we can only change things by acting in accordance with our believes. FB membership or subscription is not a “necessity” of life, and if Mike, me and others decide to deactivate our account, nobody will die. On the other hand, noticeable drop in traffic may help the FB management to re-align their priorities with their business realities.
Ultimately this is the question each one of us needs to ask ourselves – do I, as a human being, want to support financially (via my eye-balls) the practices I find offensive to me.
greg, spot on. The argument seems to get continually derailed from the central issue. If facebook relies on the moral high ground of the US constitution and the right to free speech, then it must apply this policy consistently. A policy is just that, it is a guiding principle that defines an authorities reactions to events or occurrences. Given that is a ‘guiding’ principle, then it allows that authority some degree of discretion, and facebook has already taken its stance on that.
They have chosen to censor breast feeding not on the basis that it may cause direct harm to others, but on the basis that it is offensive. Forum moderators have been doing just this for as long as the internet has been around, and to think that Facebook is attaining some higher intellectual or moral status with its facebook groups is just arrogant. They have already censored some groups, and to not censor others for exactly the same reason means facebook is in fact taking sides, rather than playing the neutral, non discriminate party as they claim to be.
Photos are often taken down based on the offence they cause to others, and it requires only a single complaint from a user for the sites moderators to do so. It would appear then that facebook agrees on what ‘the right thing’ is in all other cases, except this one.
The only way that they can regain some moral high ground on this is by refusing to censor anything, and this is certainly not going to happen.
The right to free speech is a wonderful thing. Yet, one’s exercise is bounded to not infringing on the right of another.
The holocaust did not involve ONLY jews. It also involved a great many “undesirables” e.g. gypsies. Six million sounds like a lot until you learn that Russia lost TWENTY million people in the war. Entire towns were rounded up and shot, every man, woman and child. They got no chance to survive and tell their story. Go ahead and argue whether it happened or not. Just know that the jews aren’t the only group that lost millions, just the most vocal.
6 Millions is much more if you understand that that was 75% of European Jews and a 1/3 of the world Jewish population at the time.
However – free speech cannot be selective. The controversy only helps these groups. So some loser in Wales says he want Jews to die. Big deal. Get a number:
http://en.wikip...i/Anti-Semitism.
I hope Facebook will change their policy about breastfeeding images. This is an opportunity for them to contribute something meaningful.
SOME LOSER IN WALES
ooooooooooooooooooo
a’Thankyou very much.
“Smoking kills. If you’re killed, you’ve lost a very important part of your life.”
- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson for a federal anti-smoking campaign.
russians… the only people who can be proud of their great leader, stalin who killed more of their own soldiers than germans in order to win the war.
and it’s not about how you feel about the jews or how i feel about russians.
it’s about facebook policy for anti-jewish gropus being totally different than towards other groups.