Zuckerberg in Holocaust denial row

I think the line he is trying to draw is this:<p>Scenario 1: I am a facebook user that wants to say something that people find offensive. I may write or share an article I found online to &quot;support&quot; my views. This is allowed under the idea of Free Speech.<p>Scenario 2: I am some entity that wants to generate controversy and polarization by gaming recommendation algorithms, and thus flood the space of discourse with offensive material. I don&#x27;t care about the material itself less so than the vitriol and outrage. AKA &quot;Fake News&quot;. This is what they want to ban.<p>What trolls have done is essentially &quot;hacked&quot; the idea of Free Speech. The original idea behind Free speech was that people would at the very least earnestly believe what they were saying, or at the very least were engaging in satire. Trolling is satire on a whole new level, and it does seem truly difficult to separate the two without being too draconian.

&gt; Editor of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight Gerry Gable told the BBC: &quot;Zuckerberg could kill much of this dangerous material getting worldwide distribution - but he is a like a spoilt teenager.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s a strange world when the &quot;antifascists&quot; want control of speech.

To be clear, he said that the words of Holocaust deniers are allowed on Facebook. I guess what you think shouldn&#x27;t be allowed on Facebook depends on what your definition of free speech is (if you accept that Facebook should allow free speech).<p>He also added: <i>&quot;I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don&#x27;t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don&#x27;t think that they&#x27;re intentionally getting it wrong.</i><p>That strikes me as naïve. Some, no doubt, are intentionally getting it wrong. Others have their heads so deep in the conspiracy sand that no polite discourse on Facebook is going to resolve it. Either way, this doesn&#x27;t seem like a huge deal. Zuck says Facebook allows freedom of speech, even in muddy waters.

While I do take a strong stance against flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, etc.. I can sympathize with Zuckerberg here a little bit, because just banning Holocaust deniers is on a big slippery slope, that could lead to larger issues like &quot;Do we ban religious speak against homosexuality due to instruction from an invisible man in the sky?&quot; since we only deal in materialistic fact here and all controversial opinions are unwelcome. Where do we draw the line?

Ethics vs free speech. A company whose bottom line relies on ad dollars should probably lean towards ethics.

I don&#x27;t run a huge company or have any influence whatsoever, so I am probably being very naive - but I believe the Holocaust happened and if I were in his position I would not remove Denier rhetoric either.

Publisher vs Platform. They&#x27;re still trying to have it both ways.

Zuckerberg demonstrates an alarming tendency to appear inhuman sometimes.

&gt; &quot;I&#x27;m Jewish and there&#x27;s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened,&quot; he told reporter Kara Swisher.<p>&quot;BARBARA. Sorry, I&#x27;m sure. By the way, papa, what is your religion--in case I have to introduce you again?<p>UNDERSHAFT. My religion? Well, my dear, I am a Millionaire. That is my religion.&quot;<p>- Major Barbara [0]<p>[0]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fullbooks.com&#x2F;MAJOR-BARBARA1.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fullbooks.com&#x2F;MAJOR-BARBARA1.html</a>