Corrupted by the enemy, always a problem with occupying forces.

The American version of this is "Your Job in Germany".[1] This was made for US occupation troops in Germany. Directed by Frank Capra and written by Theodor Geisel ("Dr. Seuss"), an unexpected collaboration that seems to work. The message: "You are in an enemy country. Take no chances. No fraternization with any of the German people."

It's become harder to view this video. The YouTube version, uploaded directly by the US National Archives [2], is now "age restricted". Of the Internet Archive versions, only the Ogg Vorbis version is still playable.

See it now, before the Thought Police delete all the copies as "hate speech".

Understanding what went wrong after WWI is helpful in understanding what went wrong in Afghanistan. It's not directly comparable, but it's important to know that the US had, in the past, changed minds and societies by military force, successfully.

[1] https://archive.org/download/YourJobInGermany1945/YourJobInG...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=821R0lGUL6A

"You can start your application when you're 15 years and 7 months"

If you can go to war, you should be able to watch war videos on YouTube.

I am not sure if this is still correct, but you could play in a porn movie but not be allowed to watch it either.

Likely not, in 2021. I believe in most states in the US, it's considered CSAM if the subject is under 18 and the material is sexual in nature.

China allowing it's students 3 or 4 years! overseas unmanaged to study is insane by comparison. No idea what they are thinking.

American warning for students - https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/newss-dont-be-a-pawn-a-...

That's because they have people on campus making sure to apply pressure even away from the mainland! [0] Or because studying is only an excuse to get a long term visa... [1]

[0] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/19/universities-confucius-...

[1] https://www.axios.com/china-spy-california-politicians-9d2df...

This was in no way propaganda since the order was about German soldiers contracting VD in Parisian brothels.

Facebook banned it/him.

He makes his own point pretty concretely...

> It must be stressed that any objective investigation of history and research of the past becomes simply impossible if quotations from primary sources are grounds for punishment. Any curtailing of documentary evidence leads not to peace in the community but to the preordained failure to learn from history. It eventually allows the tragedies of the past to be repeated anew.

With YouTube removing videos about CoVid from people who are actively working/researching the virus (because they disagree with the CDC and WHO guidelines), and FB removing historical artifacts by a Historian because such things must only happen behind paywalled journals that only large universities can afford, I worry that the internet is moving away from being a place where information is freely available.

I still think that everyone should host their own blog and have an RSS feed that people can subscribe to and have independent editorial control. But I also want to see YouTube and Facebook succeed as internet companies by enabling regular people like me listen to experts disagree about controversial topics and see how consensus slowly forms at the end of rigorous debate among experts.

That disappeared a long time ago...

Sure, as an individual, you can afford a server hardware, but not the network. ISP is as same as Facebook.

Also, it's so cheap to DoS the server single person can afford. If you relies on CDN, that's another Facebook.

There is also tech like IPFS or even Tor, which provide censor-resistant options.

This is very common in moderation and censorship. It's a problem, because you get false positives like this, and some topics becomes impossible to discuss, even for people that discuss them in a neutral manner. It also makes it very easy for people with actual Nazi sympathies and other extremist views to hide from censorship by not mention the wrong key phrases that matches the patterns.

If FB et al. are one day required to provide human moderation, they will go bankrupt. Or they will be forced to charge users money to cover the costs.

Are scientists and researchers not allowed to use Facebook to share information?

Is Facebook allergic to data or facts?

...at least not until some distributed social network becomes standard.

Having said that, I think you're right about hoping it leads to better avenues, as I think there's a real need for it.

I think a lot of research groups are still in list-servs, and I haven’t seen any social networks catering to advancing cross disciplinary research. Maybe something could be built on top of LibGen ?

That seems pretty reasonable.

The obvious speculation is that this person did not use any of those better ways because the document is a forgery. If it is a forgery, the author would be promoting neo-Nazi propaganda.

Why do you think the historical document is legitimate, other than this LiveJournal post?

Is this a good-faith accusation?

2. He questions whether the Russian Facebook mods that censored him were Nazi supporters, exactly because the document in question makes Goebbels look like an idiot. So yes, that's a good faith question to raise.

Zero interest in comprehension.

These people would do very well in any sort of cult.

That is, not giving a reason invites speculation.

Do you think this document makes the German military look good?

The very definition of extremist ideologies is that they are extremist, and that reasonable people who haven't been infected with it don't agree. But - by and large - we don't see that as a reason to allow open advocacy of extremism. Clearly Goebbels had a target audience in mind that he thought could be convinced to agree with him.

So I think a rule "You cannot post things by Goebbels that advocate Nazi ideology" makes sense, and I think a rule "You cannot post things by Goebbels that advocate Nazi ideology, unless reading and pondering that document would leave the average reader less convinced of the merits of Nazism" does not make sense.

I guess the public opinion has changed on that one by now.

Personally I think it is better if such things can be accessed and discussed, so that their arguments can be properly refuted.

(Facebook is a private company and can do what they want, of course).

It's not that simple. (in short, unedited and uncommented reprints are problematic (but not directly established as "illegal to sell" currently I'd say), pre-1945 printings are fine, commented editions exist and are fine)

Edit: pasting comment to post below here, because HN doesn't let me post

It seems this state of affairs was quite convenient for the government, and when the copyright expired, they decided to continue making it not legally available: https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/adolf-hitlers-mei...

Seems to be true that it could be sold in antique shops and offered in libraries (not sure if any did offer it).

The fact is, you can't have freedom of speech if your also not allowing people to engage in hateful speech, no matter what most "progressives" would tell you.