This issue doesn’t need a lot of exposition—I hope, at least not among this enlightened and educated readership— but it is important.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced yesterday that his platform will now block posts and inks that argue that the Holocaust didn’t happen or has been exaggerated. , Facebook is increasingly a taking action to undermine what it considers conspiracy theories and misinformation, using the approaching U.S. presidential election as justification.
It isn’t. Facebook is too powerful a platform for public discourse and communication to engage in picking and choosing which opinions and assertions are worthy of being read and heard. In addition, Facebook is not objective, unbiased or trustworthy…or competent. I know this for a fact.
It bans Ethics Alarms. Case closed.
Holocaust survivors around the world have pushed Zuckerberg this summer to remove Holocaust denial posts from the social media site. The effort was coordinated by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which used Facebook itself to promote its suppression efforts, posting one video per day urging him to remove Holocaust-denying groups, pages and posts as “hate speech.”
Once again, and this also is a fact, what is labelled “hate speech” is too often a matter of bias on the part of the hate speech accusers.
In its announcement, Facebook said that the new policy “is supported by the well-documented rise in anti-Semitism globally and the alarming level of ignorance about the Holocaust, especially among young people.” Poppycock. The policy isn’t supported by that in any way. It is not Facebook’s job to protect members of the public from their own ignorance and intellectual torpor. How stupid does someone have to be to believe anything that is posted on social media, even from reliable sources, without checking it?
I invite everyone to speculate what the next debate topic will be that Facebook will be pressured to manipulate and censor. Will Facebook users be allowed to explain why climate change models are too shaky to justify banning automobiles and fossil fuels? Can they opine that aborted embryos are human beings? Is it hate speech to point out that Black Lives Matter is a “hate group”? Is it a conspiracy theory to connect the dots showing that the “resistance” and the Democrats have been willing to abuse law, logic, ethics and the Constitution in their mad and destructive effort to get Donald Trump out of the White House?
In many parts of Europe, it’s a crime to engage in Holocaust denial, and a frightening number of “progressive” Facebook users—Psst! Hypocrites! Censorship isn’t “progressive”…would like such prohibitions here, and not just regarding the Holocaust. Broadcast journalist Keith Olbermann thinks supporting Donald Trump should be illegal. At least one of the Kennedys—they are all the same to me at this point—thinks that opposing climate change cant should be criminalized. Do you think the leadership of the organization with the deceptively cuddly name would be in full support of locking up “racists” by their definition? Is there any doubt?
Is arguing that Zuckerberg has joined the Left’s increasingly open effort to constrain freedom of speech and dissent as a key strategy in gaining permanent and oppressive power advancing a conspiracy theory?