Holocaust Denial on the Social Internet: Modern Internet Architecture and Strategies for

Countering Denial

Oliver Schantz

HIST/JWST/RLST 1830 Global History of Holocaust and Genocide

11 December 2023
 1

The information landscape of the digital age allows anyone with access to the Internet to

publish and share information. From the earliest forms of online interaction, Holocaust denialists

have used the ease of publication to communicate with each other and to attempt to convince

others of their views by publishing prolifically. In the modern internet landscape, online

platforms often have standing policies to address hate speech in some form, but many of the

early Internet’s issues around creating a platform for denial still exist. These early issues with

moderating user-generated content and the ease of spreading false information are exacerbated

by modern algorithmic recommendation systems. These systems filter content based on a user’s

previous activity, creating self-perpetuating groupings of information customized for each user.

The algorithmic recommendation systems of the modern Internet place Holocaust denialists of

varying ideologies in the same online communication spaces, creating reinforcement and

dissemination of denialist rhetoric. This necessitates new strategies for countering denial that

consider how recommendation algorithms create closed information systems. Many scholars of

Holocaust denial prior to the early 2000s pointed to equal or greater availability of factual

information as a way of countering the spread of Holocaust disinformation online, but

algorithmic recommendation of content in the modern Internet can present a challenge for

reaching people likely to be swayed by denialist talking points. In order to be effective, strategies

for countering denial on the modern Internet must take into account both the technical and social

structures that permit denial to exist online and the history of Holocaust denial in user-generated

online content.

Audiences

As a mass communication system, the Internet allows for a broad group of people to

communicate with specific audiences. The ease of publication online allows a small group of
 2

people or an individual to reach a disproportionately large audience.1 For Holocaust deniers,

these audiences consist of people likely to accept their premises either from a lack of truthful

information or support for one of a number of ideological framings for denial. Prevalent

ideological framings are explicitly antisemitic and appeal to a sense of taboo or

anti-establishment views to attract interest. These correlate with the two groups who participate

in online Holocaust denial most frequently: conspiracy theorists and the far right.2 The content

created by these groups follow formats unique to each of the prominent social media platforms;

for instance, denialist media on YouTube often appears as “documentary-style videos that

purport to reveal the ‘truth’ of the Holocaust,”3 and denialist media on Instagram is often “styled

after digital news articles, complete with headlines and pull quotes.”4 When a social media user

interacts with denialist media, the social media platform’s architecture notes its characteristics

and begins to personalize the user’s experience by presenting other media with similar

characteristics.5 Personalization of content based on a user’s prior behavior on a platform creates

communities of interaction and reinforcement around shared topics and ideologies. This is

particularly significant when the information exchange is centered on falsehoods, as in the case

of Holocaust denial; “If carefully targeted people are exposed to false information that looks real

in an environment where they are surrounded by like-minded others, they are more likely to

accept the information and share it with no doubt.”6 Through personalization algorithms, groups

1
Patrick Carmichael, “The Internet, Information Architecture and Community Memory,” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, June 23, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00208.x.
2
Nicholas H. A. Terry, “Holocaust Denial in the Age of Web 2.0,” eBook, in Holocaust and Genocide
Denial (Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 44, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315562377-4.
3
Anti-Defamation League Center for Technology and Society, “2023 Online Holocaust Denial Report
Card,” ADL, August 18, 2023,
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/2023-online-holocaust-denial-report-card.
4
Ibid.
5
Taeyoung Lee and Chenyan Jia, “Curse or Cure? The Role of Algorithms in Promoting or Countering
Information Disorder,” eBook, in Information Disorder: Algorithms and Society, ed. Michael Filimowicz
(Taylor & Francis Group, 2023), 33, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003299936.
6
Ibid.
 3

of people who have interacted with similar pieces of online content become distinct sections of

the Internet that communicate within themselves. These sections are identifiable audiences for

both Holocaust denialists and anti-denial educators looking for a foothold.

To appeal to these sections of social Internet users likely to engage with their media,

Holocaust denialists structure their messages in ways that appear benign by utilizing familiar

formats associated with humor. Presentation of Holocaust denial in formats familiar to Internet

user’s existing online information community lowers the threshold for participation in denial;

“While Holocaust denial, glorification and openly antisemitic material continues to circulate

among violent extremist online communities, there has also been a recognition within the

far-right movement that this openly racist, violent rhetoric and the use of Nazi symbology are

deeply off-putting to many that the movement would like to recruit.”7 By using the familiarity of

a media format used across sections of the Internet, Holocaust denialist recruitment seeks to

reach a wider audience that does not have a specifically antisemitic or prejudicial motivation for

denial. Denialists – by their own admission – aim to reach people who have limited existing

knowledge about the Holocaust. This is a continuity between denial in pre-Internet, early

Internet, and modern Internet media. A denialist quoted in Jon Casimir’s 1995 Sydney Morning

Herald article “Dark Side of the Net” identified the organizational and communicative potential

of the Internet for spreading denial; “‘USENET offers enormous opportunity for the Aryan

resistance to disseminate our message to the unaware and the ignorant.’”8 The “unaware and

ignorant” correspond to what Holocaust scholar Israel Charny describes as the “non-bigots.”9

7
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, History Under Attack: Holocaust Denial
and Distortion on Social Media, 2022, 38, https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210019774.
8
Jon Casimir, “Dark Side of the Net”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1995 September 4,
COU:1806:05:062:0023, Harry W. Mazal Holocaust collection, COU:1806, University of Colorado Boulder
Libraries, Rare and Distinctive Collections.
9
Israel W. Charny, “A Classification of Denials of the Holocaust and Other Genocides,” eBook, in
Genocide and Human Rights (Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 522,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351157568-19.
 4

Charny analyzes Holocaust denial according to a continuum of malevolence from no

knowledge of facts to full knowledge while maintaining denial and a continuum of celebration of

violence with the furthest extreme maintaining violent antisemitism. According to Charny’s

analysis, denial on the least radicalized ends of both continua is motivated by influence or

notoriety offered by denialism, extreme free speech positions, definitionalism about the

correlation between genocide and wartime, desensitization, and/or trying to maintain a

worldview incompatible with evil.10 This structure for understanding the less conscious and

targeted forms of Holocaust denial is directly applicable to online space where deniers on many

different points on the extremism continua interact around undermining the truth of the

Holocaust. The less extreme denialists constitute a key audience for competing disinformation

and factual information shared online.

Influence of Internet Architecture

The most significant differences in the communication structure of the early social

Internet and the modern Internet are the recommendation of user-generated content and a

stronger standard for moderation policies. Online denialism is shaped by these structures because

the operational and communicative standards of the social Internet define acceptable use of the

Internet and how harmful communication should be addressed. Sophisticated algorithmic

recommendation systems establish online cultures by sorting, categorizing, and filtering types of

user-generated content.11 This leads to content recommendation algorithms reinforcing existing

interests and beliefs by influencing what kind of online media an Internet user sees based on the

types of media they have interacted with in the past; “Algorithms that further recommend

10
Charny, “A Classification of Denials of the Holocaust and Other Genocides,” 524–28.
11
Justin Grandinetti and Jeffrey Bruinsma, “The Affective Algorithms of Conspiracy TikTok,” Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media 67, no. 3 (November 10, 2022): 274–93,
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2140806.
 5

additional content based on individuals’ online history could influence their selection process by

promoting content that confirms their existing beliefs or preferences.”12 These structures are

intended to keep people interested in using social media by continually providing content, but in

cases of disinformation – like Holocaust denial – content recommendation encourages further

engagement with false information.13

Countering Denial

The reinforcement of engagement with denialist content encouraged by the operations of

algorithmic recommendation systems presents a challenge for the strategies of countering denial

proposed on the pre-2000s Internet. Prior to the early 2000s, user-generated content online was

not structured according to complex recommendation systems, meaning that most users had to

seek out a specific kind of online content in order to be exposed to it. The early 2000s were also

a significant period in legal precedents surrounding denial. In 2001, Holocaust denier David

Irving lost a libel suit against historian Deborah Lipstadt, leading the growing online denialist

presence to distance itself from several previously influential figureheads.14 At the same time that

the structure of denialist groups was changing, Internet users and Holocaust scholars were

building strategies for countering online denial.

The first resistance to online Holocaust denial was organized around the websites Nizkor

and the Holocaust History Project. The Holocaust History Project and Nizkor were predicated on

providing accurate information about the Holocaust for Internet users who may encounter

denialist websites while searching the Internet, especially young people who may not have been

educated about the Holocaust. Countering denial by amplifying correct information that ideally

12
Lee and Jia, “Curse or Cure? The Role of Algorithms in Promoting or Countering Information Disorder,”
33.
13
Grandinetti and Bruinsma, “The Affective Algorithms of Conspiracy TikTok.”
14
Terry, “Holocaust Denial in the Age of Web 2.0,” 37–38.
 6

motivates people to identify and dismiss denialist rhetoric utilizes the same ease of publication

that allows denialists to propagate; “…the ability to form communities of shared interest over the

Internet may provide new ways to combat cyber-hate without government intervention.”15

Strategies for countering hate messages on the early Internet included “...provid[ing] links to

educational and other sites designed to combat hate speech, develop[ing] e-mail lists of interest

people and provide them with periodic updates regarding cyber-hate, and engag[ing] in other

forms of education activity.”16 This approach to countering denial is still present online with sites

such as Nizkor, which is still in operation, and public history initiatives from Holocaust

museums, but it is somewhat dampened by recommendation systems discouraging users of the

social Internet from seeking information outside of their section of the Internet.

Modernized approaches to countering online Holocaust denial take the insulation of

information groups into account. Improving content reporting and removal systems is the

primary modernized method for deplatforming denialists. Maximally effective reporting and

removal systems include clear statements of a platform's policies toward hate speech and

effective removal of hateful content. Regrettably, most popular social media platforms falter in

applying their content moderation policies efficiently. Policies vary between platforms, with

some platforms like Twitter (now X) removing denialist content without a clear policy against it

and others like YouTube making content removal decisions based on the credibility of user

reports.17 These reporting systems require a complex and trusting relationship between users and

the platform hosts or operators in order to be fully effective. In order for users to reliably report

15
"Constitutional Freedoms in the Age of Cybertechnology" interim report by the Jewish Council for Public
Affairs, COU:1806:02, Box: 52, Folder: 8, Harry W. Mazal Holocaust collection, COU:1806, University of
Colorado Boulder Libraries, Rare and Distinctive Collections.
16
Ibid.
17
Anti-Defamation League Center for Technology and Society, “2023 Online Holocaust Denial Report
Card,” ADL, August 18 2023,
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/2023-online-holocaust-denial-report-card.
 7

harmful content, they have to trust that the platform they are reporting it to will take the material

seriously and take action. Platform hosts face the problems of reviewing a massive amount of

reported content, maintaining consistency in their moderation policies, and navigating

weaponized illegitimate reporting used to push Internet users off of a platform. However, the

most effective strategies for reducing the spread of Holocaust denial on the modern Internet are

dependent on website hosts enacting them. This leaves an impasse between the somewhat

reduced effectiveness of disseminating correct information and policy choices that block the

spread of Holocaust denial to a mainstream audience that will continue to evolve as education

strategies grapple with reaching people already within Holocaust disinformation sections of the

social Internet and as platforms change – or fail to change – their moderation practices.

Conclusion

As the social Internet developed into a highly influential mass communication system,

Holocaust denialists attempting to legitimize themselves and reach a broader group of people

took advantage of the Internet’s accessibility and ease of publication. In the modern Internet, the

ease of publication has larger consequences due to the growth of the social Internet and

recommendation systems that personalize users’ experiences online. Denialists have maintained

the same goal of persuading uninformed Internet users, while recommendation systems that

create cyclical information groups make reaching key audiences more challenging for countering

denial through education. Effective strategies for countering Holocaust denial on the modern

Internet are still evolving, and their efficacy depends on recognizing throughlines between the

pre-Internet, early Internet, and modern Internet communication patterns adopted by denialists

and tailoring anti-denial messages to breach the information loops created by recommendation

systems by focusing on specific audiences.

 8

Bibliography

Anti-Defamation League Center for Technology and Society. “2023 Online Holocaust Denial

Report Card.” ADL, August 18, 2023.

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/2023-online-holocaust-denial-report-card.

Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial on the Internet, 2003, COU:1806:02, Box: 52, Folder: 8.

Harry W. Mazal Holocaust collection, COU:1806. University of Colorado Boulder

Libraries, Rare and Distinctive Collections.

Carmichael, Patrick. “The Internet, Information Architecture and Community Memory.” Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, June 23, 2006.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00208.x.

Charny, Israel W. “A Classification of Denials of the Holocaust and Other Genocides.” eBook. In

Genocide and Human Rights, 517–40. Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351157568-19.

Grandinetti, Justin, and Jeffrey Bruinsma. “The Affective Algorithms of Conspiracy TikTok.”

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 67, no. 3 (November 10, 2022): 274–93.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2022.2140806.

Lee, Taeyoung, and Chenyan Jia. “Curse or Cure? The Role of Algorithms in Promoting or

Countering Information Disorder.” eBook. In Information Disorder: Algorithms and

Society, edited by Michael Filimowicz. Taylor & Francis Group, 2023.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003299936.

Research on Holocaust Deniers, COU:1806:05:062:0023. Harry W. Mazal Holocaust collection,

COU:1806. University of Colorado Boulder Libraries, Rare and Distinctive Collections.

 9

Terry, Nicholas H. A. “Holocaust Denial in the Age of Web 2.0.” eBook. In Holocaust and

Genocide Denial, 34–54. Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315562377-4.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. History Under Attack:

Holocaust Denial and Distortion on Social Media, 2022.

https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210019774.