Facebook's Holocaust Controversy

By Douglas MacMillan

Facebook is under fire for allowing Holocaust denial groups to remain on the site, claiming they don't violate the social network's terms of service

Facebook is under pressure to take a stand on groups that want to use its pages to air views that are at best controversial and at worst hateful.
A series of blogs brought the issue to light when they decried the proliferation of groups on Facebook that endorse the idea that the Holocaust didn't occur. "The Holocaust denial movement is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like-minded individuals to do the same," Dallas attorney Brian Cuban wrote in a May 10 "Open Letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg."

HATE SPEECH ONLINE

The presence of Holocaust deniers on Facebook underscores the challenge faced by social media in cases where content is offensive but may not overtly violate laws or a site's terms of service. Facebook and other social networking sites, for example, prohibit pornography and hate speech but are reluctant to ban groups simply because their views are inflammatory. "All of the fault lines of society and all of the hatemongering that existed long before Facebook was ever even conceived have now moved front and center to their corporate reality," says Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international human-rights organization.

After extensive internal debate, Facebook opted not to remove the groups. "The mere statement of denying the Holocaust does not constitute a violation of our policies," says Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt, noting that users are forbidden from posting material that is "hateful" or "threatening." It later removed two of the groups identified as offensive by Cuban after users posted comments to those pages that did violate service terms. Cuban is the brother of investor, blogger, and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

Controversy surrounding speech on Facebook won't end with the removal of a handful of offensive groups. A report slated for a May 13 release by the Simon Wiesenthal Center will shine added light on hate speech on the Web. The number of Web pages and shared online documents promoting racism or other forms of hatred has surged to 10,000, a 25% increase from last year, according to the report. Cooper estimates that Facebook is the biggest venue, accounting for about 30% of all these online instances of hate.

CRITICS PRESS FOR TOUGHER RULES

David Ardia, an attorney and director of the Citizen Law Project at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society, says that by allowing controversial groups, Facebook is acting well within its rights. "Facebook can decide what's appropriate for its users," Ardia says. The social network was lambasted by bloggers who said its reluctance to ban the groups was cowardly. "If Facebook doesn't want to take a moral or ethical stand on the issue, they can easily make a case that the groups violate their terms of service," tech blogger Michael Arrington wrote on May 10. Unlike other forms of speech, Holocaust denial has been outlawed in several countries, including France.
Facebook has come under attack in the past for hosting anti-Gypsy groups. The site currently contains several groups defending "white pride."

In February, Cooper met with Chris Kelly, Facebook's chief privacy officer, to discuss the existence of offensive content. He brought along a PowerPoint presentation filled with examples of potentially hateful material on the site. "The scope of it at this point may be overwhelming them somewhat," Cooper says.

FACEBOOK POLICY REVIEW

Facebook's Schnitt says the company does not actively patrol for such content; instead, Facebook relies on users to flag objectionable material. That list goes before a team that is trained to "use their judgment" to delete or permit each item based on guidelines drafted by the company's lawyers and communications staff, Schnitt says. In exceptional cases, including Holocaust denial groups, the operations staff escalates content for the higher-ups to debate.
At the same time, the company seeks outside counsel. "We don't pretend to know everything," Schnitt says. The company regularly meets with groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center, as well as government agencies such as the State Dept., to help inform its view of what should and shouldn't be permitted.

Cooper says he disagrees with Facebook's view that the Holocaust denial groups on its site are not threatening. "Holocaust denial in the Muslim world is a way to express hatred for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to call a group of people a bunch of liars, and it is a threat," Cooper says.

Of course, Facebook isn't alone in having to deal with controversial or offensive groups and other content. It and other companies, including Twitter and News Corp.'s (NWS) MySpace, may have to get more explicit about their policies, rather than continue to debate what can be considered "hateful." "As we see in the [Facebook] terms of service, they have very broad discretion," says Harvard's Ardia. "They can describe other things which are far less hateful. So far, Facebook has been very circumspect in exercising that control but they don't have to be."
Douglas MacMillan is a staff writer for BusinessWeek in New York.


Open Letter To Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

May 10, 2009
Mark:
The last 7 days have seen much debate on the issue of Holocaust Denial Groups on Facebook. There has been a lot of focus on the issues of free speech, open discussion of controversial issues and Facebook Terms Of Service(TOS).

While I have made it clear that I would like to see these groups removed, I have done a poor job in articulating why. I attempted to take a short-sighted, back door “lawyer’s approach” with Facebook by alleging that Holocaust Denial was illegal in other countries and, therefore, a violation of Facebook TOS. While at the time, these were legitimate issues, I should have focused on the real issue. The issue of the proliferation of Facebook groups that promote hatred of religious and ethnics groups and the hate speech those groups perpetrate. While you may have your doubts, I submit that this includes those who promote the fringe revisionist theory of Holocaust Denial.

The Holocaust Denial movement is nothing more than a pretext to allow the preaching of hatred against Jews and to recruit other like minded individuals to do the same. Allowing these groups to flourish on Facebook under the guise of “open discussion” does nothing more than help spread their message of hate. Is this the kind of open discussion that Facebook wants to encourage? Is this really where you want to draw your line?

It is undisputed that as a collective , Holocaust Deniers are overwhelmingly antisemitic. One cannot be separated from the other. They use a fringe, discredited historical theory as a pretext and rallying point to perpetrate and promote their message of hate using Facebook as recruiting ground. By allowing these groups whether they number 1 or 1000, Facebook is not promoting open discussion of a controversial issue. It is promoting and encouraging hatred towards ethnic and religious groups, nothing more.

By claiming open discussion as the rationale for allowing these groups to exist, Facebook is playing games with semantics. Facebook is taking form over substance to protect their imaginary subjective corporate line in the sand they have drawn.

If Facebook is serious about encouraging open discourse on controversial subjects, let’s start with Facebook itself. Let’s talk about the controversial decision to allow Holocaust Denial groups. Let’s talk about transparency. Sending out canned email answers or spouting canned corporate-speak in an interview is not transparent. I would like to see transparency on the specifics of how Facebook went about arriving at this controversial decision. I would like you to address the following questions:

In a CNN interview, Facebook representative Barry Schnitt stated:
“It’s a difficult decision to make. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk about it,” Schnitt said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it taken off Facebook. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss all kinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”

Mark, I would like to know who at Facebook was involved in the “internal debate” that resulted in the decision that Holocaust Denial does not constitute hate speech. Were you involved? Do you offer any input in these types of discussions? How does Facebook define “internal debate”? How many people were involved? What was their expertise to discuss this issue? Did they bring their personal beliefs to the table? What safeguards were employed to ensure objectivity in a decision that is innately subjective? Were attorneys consulted that have experience in such matters or was it general counsel? Do you agree that something can be legal but still constitute hate speech? Was the final decision yours? Did the buck stop with you?

I would also like to know what experts were consulted on this issue. Were any Holocaust Denial experts consulted? Were any experts on antisemitism consulted? Were any hate speech experts in general consulted? If so, I would appreciate it if you would identify these experts spoken of by Barry Schnitt in his CNN interview.

Finally, Mark, in an interview for the CNET blog “Technically Incorrect”, Barry Schnitt stated:
“One thing to consider that someone actually mentioned in the thread was the idea that there may be a benefit to having these ideas discussed in the open. Would we rather Holocaust denial was discussed behind closed doors or quietly propagated by anonymous sources? Or would we rather it was discussed in the open on Facebook where people’s real names and their photo is associated with it for their friends, peers, and colleagues to see?”

Is this an official corporate statement from Facebook on how Holocaust Denial should be addressed in society? What kind of open discussion was Mr. Schnitt talking about? How was he defining “open discussion”? How does Facebook define “open discussion”? What experts did Facebook consult in coming to the conclusion that “open discussion” was the most appropriate way to deal with this subject? Are you aware of the Jewish/Holocaust historical significance of such a statement Mark? I sent an email to Facebook asking for clarification of his statement but received no response other than the canned ,”we received your email”.

Mark, I hope you will take the time to respond to these important questions and issues, not just with regards to the Holocaust Denial issue, but with regards to transparency in how Facebook subjectively comes to these types of decisions in general.

Sincerely,
Brian Cuban

On the side of this site is a quiz entitled "Facebook Holocaust." Click on the quiz and answer the questions. Provide you name when answering the quiz.

You can also click this link to take the quiz. Leave a comment on the comment box of this post after answering the quiz to let us know how you did. Any reaction will be greatly appreciated.

http://www.quizyourfriends.com/take-quiz.php?id=0910141519419930&a=1&

Thank You :)


QUIZ QUESTIONS:


Q.1) What is the globalsocial networking website that is under pressure to take a stand on groupsthat want to use its pages to air views that are at best controversial and atworst hateful.


facebook
friendster
twitter
facebuko
flicker

2) What group placed that networkingwebsite under fire for remaining on the site, claiming they don't violatethe social network's terms of service?

A
The House for Sale
B
The Hole in the Wall
C
The Hall of Fame Denial Group
D
The Hologram Denial group
E
The Holocaust Denial Group

3. Who wrote an open letter to that website's CEO Mark Zuckerberg?

A
Attorney Rey Cubano
B
Director Bobby Syjacu
C
Judge Luisa Boyleto
D
Dallas attorney Brian Cuban
E
Mayor Sunny Belmonto



Q.4) Who said that allowing controversial issues like this would benefit other people to discuss and clear the issue without violating the terms and services of the website?


A
Harvard's school for Internet hackers
B
Society for Special purposes
C
Philippine Society of Internet Criminals
D
Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society
E
National Society for Culture and the Press

Q.5) Who was the website's representative who said the following:
“It’s a difficult decision tomake. We have a lot of internal debate and we bring in experts to talk aboutit,” He said. “Just being offensive or objectionable doesn’t get it takenoff [The site]. We want it [the site] to be a place where people can discuss allkinds of ideas, including controversial ones.”


A
Drew Barrymore
B
Barry Schnitt
C
Barry Boiles
D
Barry Much
E
Schint Zo Phrenic

SCOREBOARD
Facebook Holocaust

RANK NAME SCORE
1 jessica davila 100
2 JOHN REY L. ATIENZA 100
3 Reynald R. 100
4 alyssaborromeo 100
5 april celis 100
6 TOLENTINO, J. K. R. 100
7 Joren G. Paulino 100
8 Maria Nerizza Acero 80