[emiliobumachar]

Total control of information is the best way to differentiate ourselves from the Nazis?

[daseiner1]

banning holocaust denial == “total control of information” ?

[adamcw]

Not allowing information to exist, regardless of intent or how it's perceived as "good", is an authoritarian act in and of itself. It will only polarize those that feed on it.

It's the "let's burn books" mindset, which is just a bad tactic. Misinformation in the modern(or any) age can't be fought that way. The internet is good at amplifying that which people seek to censor. I hope we can agree this is good for positive ideas, but the mechanism employed doesn't care how "good" you find the idea.

And to be entirely clear: I think the subject matter at hand is abhorrent. Fascism feeds on censorship. It doesn't hurt that side, it helps them control the narrative.

[rjvbk]

Banning the spreading of ideas requires control of information, yes.

[zaarn]

It does not require total control or even partial control of information.

There is a ban but it doesn't mean the german government goes out of it's way to remove any piece of such material before it even hits the internet.

It's largely post-factum, when the piece is already on the internet and spread elsewhere when the original author of the information is punished.

[salvar]

Sure, but is it a binary thing? Either zero control of information or total control of information and nothing in between? That seems wrong.

[adamcw]

Not a binary thing, no. But who gets to be in charge of that speech? Do you trust them? Do you trust who will follow them in power?

Where I live, I'm vastly outnumbered by people who have vastly different values than me. Their party is in control now. Pretty scary to think they could shut off my voice at whim, or worse.