I think one can make the argument that, in all of those cases, the speech is not the thing being outlawed.

A threat of aggressive violence is a statement of intent to commit a crime. You're punished not for speaking what's on your mind, but for planning to commit a crime. (And I specified aggressive violence because self-defense is not a crime, and I think that stating "I intend to defend myself with violence to the extent permitted by law" isn't a crime either.)

A scam is also a statement of intent to carry out a crime—fraud, specifically.

With spambots, and also with what I'm guessing "abuse" refers to, it's more like harassment or stalking. You want to be able to say "I should be able to walk through this space without being constantly followed by people who are deliberately doing so and ignoring my requests to stop." That depends on exactly what "this space" is—if you own the space, then of course it's up to you, if your harassers own the space, then of course it's up to them, and if it's some "public" space, then it's not totally clear if it's owned by no one or by everyone or by the government, but at least in the latter two cases, it seems reasonable for "everyone" or the government to have rules against harassment and stalking (and I'm saying spam is low-level harassment). Facebook seems to be attempting to act like a "public space" in this regard, though not in all regards.

Spam, bots and scams aren't speech in any meaningful way. They don't attempt to say anything. Threats of violence and abuse may be speech in some sense but is in no way part of a dialogue.

How is spam and scams not speech?

Hate speech, scams and spam are all speech and they should all be removed and not tolerated.

I wasn't expecting this reply given your original comment.

To clarify, are you saying that when threats are censored it's not an encroachment of free speech because they aren't "part of a dialogue"? If so, then how is holocaust denial any different?

Trouble is that Holocaust denial isn't spam, bots, threats of violence, abuse, or scams. It's a different interpretation of history, something that is protected under the First Amendment. Except these sites aren't considered public forums for some reason, even though they've supplanted the public forum in modern society.

When a handful of corporations determine the Overton Window in society, that is a cause for concern.

Nothing is stopping the Holocaust deniers from posting all their "different interpretion" nonsense on Stormfront or whatever.

There are no 'first amendment' issues here, as no new law has been passed compelling Facebook to do this. It's simply Facebook saying they don't want this sort of antisemitic rubbish published and amplified via their platform.

Okay, just take a step back. Do we have to be so principled about all this? Holocaust Deniers are bad. Full stop.

We all keep going back and forth on these principled stances about how freedom of speech is some holy thing that should be protected at all costs no matter how much damage it causes.

That notion is absurd in my experience. This philosophical ideal of true freedom of speech doesn't even exist! 4Chan still has to censor child porn - and thanks God! Child pornography is horrible and no one should ever be able to hide behind the guise of "free speech" to get away with dissemination of it.

You know what else is horrible? A huge population of people were tortured, starved and gassed to death with numbers in the millions. But do you know what happened after that ended?

People tried to pretend it didn't happen at all. And they still are. Now, I'm not Jewish, but just thinking about that makes me sick. The idea that someone is out there gaslighting people into believing the holocaust doesn't exist is despicable.

If you proposed holocaust denial on this website you'd be in violation of its rules and be flagged or banned. The site is better because of these rules.

And finally, I'd like to pose a thought experiment -

If Hitler were alive today, how do you think he would gain power? Misinformation campaigns, appeals to white nationalism and racist dog whistles on one of the major social networks no doubt.

Of course, Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. are dealing with a very similar scenario right now with Donald Trump who has intentionally divided this country to its breaking point all while likely (indirectly) killing thousands of people by sending them confusing and false messaging about the coronavirus and don't let me forget he's literally stated his intent to steal the election if he loses. You know, basically just textbook fascism.

Ban them. All of them. Today.

Edit: Made things sightly less emotionally charged and rage-baiting. Apologies for the harsh (er) words. I understand it's not in the spirit of the discourse we want to encourage here.

> Holocaust Deniers are pieces of shit. Full stop.

A decent society considers even pieces of shit worthy of human dignity.

And does your unclear definition of a "decent society" and "human dignity" imply that yelling fire in a theatre (or denying the holocaust) is acceptable behavior?

I mean, we both just called them pieces of shit. My version of the word "dignity" generally precludes people who have shown they have no dignity.

At any rate, I suspect you wrote this particular argument because it lacks nuance, appeals to our sense of decency and is emotionally appealing to those who already hold the viewpoint.

Were you trying to change my mind? Or just trying to find out how many people agree with you?

It is amusing that you propose the vigorous use of force (“Ban Them. All of them. Today”) to eliminate voices you deem fascist. If you feel this strongly about the harm of holocaust denial, have you considered working to convince people the holocaust did in fact happen? It’s pretty easy—-plenty of evidence exists to suggest it happened and all attempts I’ve encountered of people make a case otherwise have been debunked. I guess it’s not worth the effort to actually talk to people though, easier to just convince someone they’re wrong by threat of force.

To be fair, social media does facilitate both social contagion and echo chamber formation, the combination of which can form very fastidious communities.

Its not a simple issue, but I don't think putting this power in the hands of a few for-profit corporations is the right solution.

I'd rather see Facebook take steps to solve this problem than to start carving out lists of topics that are forbidden. Is there a way they can change the medium to encourage deeper thought, more meaningful conversation, and less virality? Maybe that's a better way to dampen the spread of hatred

These are people who are entrenched in a theory that also suggests people who disagree with you are "the enemy".

Arguing with someone like that is risky because the moment you get through to them, their cognitive dissonance might decide to double down on the falsehood because they would have to come to terms with the notion that they believe something quite shameful.

I see this happen in other areas alot. Mostly white people who can't handle that they may have contributed to racism at one point. "I'm not a racist! You're all just social just warriors!" turns into "I'm not a racist but...[insert racism here]". Of course the deep insecurity over being actually racist is the common thread. Meanwhile there's a whole other movement of white people who are now willing to admit how privileged all of us are to have been in a system for hundreds of years that was a "democracy" for some, but a nightmarish dictatorship for black people. Was I insecure when I realized how tone deaf I had been? Sure. But I possess self reflection and have made efforts to change my behavior since then.

But yes, if I find myself in a conversation with a holocaust denier I'll do my best to convince them they're wrong. I highly doubt that winds up working though.