I just threw a quarter into the wishing well.  I usually do not “wish and tell” but I will make an exception.

I wish former eBay CEO  Meg Whitman,(1998-2008) would take on the role of a Jewish mother for an afternoon.  I wish she would  pick up the  phone and place a motherly call to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. I wish she would take Mark to lunch.  I wish she would give Mark  the  benefit of her much more extensive experience in the business and corporate world.  I wish she would  talk with him  about the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility.  Talk about how this responsibility goes beyond the X’s and O’s of the First Amendment.  It goes beyond free speech. It goes beyond canned corporate-speak and lawyer-speak.  It goes beyond the bottom line.

I wish she would explain to Mark that some things are just wrong.  Explain that some things can not be supported on any level regardless of the public backlash and financial bottom line.

I wish Meg would sit down and talk to Mark Zuckerberg  about why eBay banned the buying and selling of Nazi memorabilia world wide even though it is not illegal in the United States.   I wish she would educate him on the historical concept and context of social responsibility that Mr. Zuckerberg and Facebook seem to be lacking.

Let’s talk history.  As outlined by Michael Arrington in his Tech Crunch blog,   eBay’s total ban on the buying and selling of Nazi memorabilia was instituted in 2001 in response to concerns by anti-hate groups. Why did they do this?  The buying and selling of such items is not illegal in the United States.  I would be first to admit that there are probably many pure collectors of Nazi memorabilia with no animus towards Jews or who deny the Holocaust.  It would certainly affect their bottom line negatively. The outcry was substantial.  Yahoo followed suit.  So why do it?

The answer can be found in the eBay Terms Of Service. I will quote from Michael Arrington’s article:

“Part of the balancing act eBay uses when making a decision on a listing is is to ban items which “lack substantial social, artistic, or political value.” It goes on to state “this includes items that may be deemed inappropriate or insensitive to victims of natural disasters or human tragedies.”

Meg, if you read this, please take Mark under your wing.  Please explain that being sensitive to the victims of  human tragedies such as the Holocaust is not a 1st Amendment issue.  Its not a  free speech issue.  It is  not an open discourse issue. It is  not a financial bottom line issue. It is not a  platform dependent issue.

It is a moral issue.  It is compasssion issue.  It is a human issue.  It is just the right thing to do.  For Facebook to ban groups that deny the Holocaust is also the right thing to do.

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

©2009 Brian Cuban

Enjoy this piece?  Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant

President Barack Obama recently spoke at a Holocaust Remembrance Day event. The event was put on by the National Holocaust Memorial Museum. He stated that he was committed to battling those who deny the atrocities of World War II.

“To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened, who perpetrate every form of intolerance,… “We have an opportunity as well as an obligation to confront these scourges… That is my commitment as president.”

The ugly face of Holocaust Denial is still smiling across the globe over 63 years after the last concentration camp was liberated at the end of World War II. It has become especially virulent in the area of social media where anonymity protects deniers like a white sheet.

Facebook is a prime example. The following groups promoting Holocaust Denial are currently active on Facebook (as of the writing of this article).

“Based on the facts….There was no Holocaust”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2452587161

“Holocaust: A series of Lies”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80565100143

“Holocaust is a Holohoax”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18701411294

“Holohoax”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9371162562

“Holocaust is a Myth”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15631489021

Holocaust Denial is not against the law in the United States. It is also important to note that there is no such thing as a 1st Amendment private right of free speech in the United States. The belief that the 1st amendment protects speech in the private social media arena or at your place of employment is a common misconception. The 1st Amendment only applies where there is federal government or state action.(there are situations in which the government can regulate speech if a compelling interest is shown.) Private companies such as Facebook are free to regulate speech however they see fit.

How do private social media/networking companies such as Facebook regulate various types of speech within their vast, relatively unguarded international borders? What types of speech do they regulate? As we traverse the social media universe, stopping at blogs and popular social media sites such as MySpace, Digg, Facebook and YouTube we are bombarded with unpopular opinions. Opinions on subjects such as the Holocaust that fly in the face of all accepted historical research. Should we care? Facebook certainly has the right to allow diverse points of view on politically and historically sensitive issues. Facebook also has Terms Of Service(TOS) in place that dictate the limitations on such content. Facebook’s TOS contains the following limitation on the types of content that may not be posted on its site:

“upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.”

This is an important Term Of Service as it relates to Holocaust Denial because Holocaust Denial does not enjoy the same protection in other countries that it does in the United States. The advocation of Holocaust Denial is a crime in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Israel, Slovakia and Switzerland.

Do the existence of Facebook groups that advocate beliefs that are crimes in other countries violate Facebook TOS? Seems to be a straightforward question that Facebook representatives are capable of answering. Here is the argument for removal of Holocaust Denial groups:

Holocaust Denial is a crime in countries in which Facebook as an active presence. Germany is an example. Facebook in fact, has an independent presence/platform in Germany. Facebook TOS would seem to prohibit content that violate the laws of the countries in which Facebook has a presence. There are some simple questions Facebook could answer to address this issue.

Why does Facebook allow groups that promote Holocaust Denial?

Does the Facebook TOS referenced above apply to Holocaust Denial groups? Why or why not?

I recently sent Facebook the following email:

Alex:

The article I am writing is regarding Facebook TOS and Facebook Groups that support Holocaust Denial. You may or may not know that Holocaust Denial is a crime in many European countries including countries where Facebook seeks to establish a presence such as Germany. Facebook TOS specifically prohibit such groups from:

“upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.”

I am specifically referring to the following Facebook Groups:

Based on the facts….There was no Holocaust
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2452587161

Holocaust: A series of Lies
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80565100143

Holocaust is a Holohoax
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18701411294

Holohoax
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9371162562

Holocaust is a Myth
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15631489021

Is there anyone at Facebook I can ask for a comment on why these groups are permitted and/or do not violate Facebook TOS before I write the article?

Sincerely,

Brian Cuban

To date I have received no response to my email from anyone at Facebook. No action of any kind has been taken even if that action would be to simply explain the Facebook TOS to me and how it applies to such groups. There appears to be a humorous irony in Facebook’s discretionary enforcement of its TOS. Upload a copyrighted video. Remove it or you are gone. Post someone’s Facebook profile on a blog. You are gone. Deny the Holocaust. Have a field day. It reminds me of a quote that is often seen in the context of the Holocaust:

All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing”

To Facebook: Thank you for doing nothing.