The Blogging Gods have finally discovered a contentious issue that has relevance beyond the funky offices of the always-happy Sillicon Valley start-ups: Holocaust denial. As is to be expected, all the stupid things said and done by the likes of David Irving never registered on the radars of most Web enthusiasts until Facebook got involved.
But now there is finally a hot-enough subject to merit a loud debate about issues that are rarely (if ever) addressed in the mainstream tech news media (by this logic, we simply need to ensure that Google and Facebook take controversial positions on ALL important global issues of the day -- that should solve the problem of making geeks care about what is happening in the world that exists outside their computer station).
So, how has Facebook sinned? They have refuse to delete ALL groups that deny the Holocaust. Instead of banning all of them outright, they are actually exercising judgement. For some tech pundits, this has proved too much liberalism to swallow (could it be that most geeks are not wild libertarians at heart, after all?). Michael Arrington over at TechCrunch has emerged as one of the loudest critics of Facebook's current policy (along with Brian Cuban).
Here's a question to my readers: Who do you think is more guilty of belittling the Holocaust and not drawing any lessons from this tragedy?
Answer 1: Facebook execs who refuse to censor all groups denying the Holocaust.
Answer 2: Michael Arrington who thinks that Facebook deliberations are the new Wannsee Conference (here's a quote from his post to get you situated: "Holocaust denial is a seed. A seed that will grow into a fully bloomed second Holocaust if ever allowed to germinate. And Facebook is providing the fertile ground and watering needed to do just that.")
Call me old-fashioned, but I go for Answer 2. In my book, calls to limit free speech of any kind sound MUCH more like "providing the fertile ground and watering" for another Holocaust than posting pointless little messages on Facebook. Somebody please tell Arrington that there are some fundamental differences between planning and executing mass murder and organizing a "Pink Panty campaign"; I am not sure that seeking similarities between those two would seem any less belittline and offensive than some of the stuff posted on Facebook.
The border between stating one's views (no matter how stupid, outrageous and illiberal they might be) and encouraging others to act on these views is a very blurry one. Yet, we should try, not just shut up and abandon all efforts.
Facebook's reasonable riposte to its critics has been that they monitor the Holocaust denial groups and take action against those that promote hate or violence, allowing harmless ones to continue operating. For once, I think they are right and this is only way to protect free speech AND take measures to thwart any mobilization efforts that may be based on what has been posted to the site. Any other universal approach will inevitably result in over-censorship -- and that's one step too many towards authoritarianism.
Arrington also says that there is something wrong about Facebook's decision to ban photos of breastfeeding mothers that adhere to certain criteria while doing nothing about groups denying the Holocaust. For once, I agree with him -- there is, indeed, something strange about it -- but the way to correct this is not to ban even more free speech, but to relax the existing restrictions by allowing photos of breastfeeding.
What's worse, it's quite sad that the same pundits who love bashing American tech companies for bowing down to excessive censorship demands of authoritarian governments also insist that there is no point in having these very companies voluntarily adhere to the principles inscribed in the first amendment while operating in the U.S. (Another quote from Arrington: "The first amendment doesn’t apply to private companies. So why is Facebook so willing to take a stand when it comes to hungry babies, but won’t do a damn thing when it comes to the Holocaust?"). I thought that connection was very easy to make but let's spell it out: If this moral obligation doesn't exist for them in the U.S., it is even more arguable that it exists when they operate in China. Do we really want to enter this debate again?
Being a good corporate citizen doesn't mean doing only what's required from you by law -- that's what all companies are supposed to be doing anyway; it actually requires going beyond the boilerplate and actually helping to promote a set of common humanistic values, of which freedom of speech is certainly one. Perhaps, our Blogging Gods simply need a crash course in Western civilization.
P.S.: Micah Sifry has written a smart response to Arrington here.
Read More
(13)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE