Conservative media is typically slighted when posted or shared on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, or any of the platforms dominated by big tech.

The unanimous voice from Silicon Valley says it’s combating hate speech in an era when being offensive is just a whisper away. However, this notion comes into question as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defends the rights of its users to publish Holocaust denial posts, claiming he does not “think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”

In a report from the Guardian, Zuckerberg recently explained that his company has allowed the far-right site Infowars to continue using the social media platform, but Facebook will “reduce the distribution of that content,” but not censor the page.

At a time when Facebook is continuing to face harsh scrutiny over its role in spreading misinformation and its seemingly relaxed policies on sharing personal information of its users, Facebook has announced a new policy pledging to remove misinformation used to incite physical harm and harassment.

Nevertheless, Facebook has made it clear that it does not want to remove Holocaust denial content, even in countries where is it illegal – only in four countries where the company may face prosecution. The Guardian also reported this, wherein Facebook’s policy for Holocaust denial content states:

“Why do we IP Block content?

The content does not violate our policies.

We face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk.

When respect local laws when the government has made clear its intention to pursue its enforcement.

Holocaust denial: illegal in 14 countries.

We only consider it for the 4 countries that actively pursue this issue with us.”

The tech giant says it only actively deals with “locally illegal content” by using a process called “geo-blocking,” hiding offensive material in the countries it knows it would provoke a violent action or legal reprimand.

Though, in his most recent interview, Zuckerberg reinforced his stance for Facebook’s commitment to prohibiting “abhorrent content” on the platform, saying that Holocaust deniers were “deeply offensive,” but “I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. He added, “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong…It’s hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent. I just think, as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly.”

Zuckerberg said offensive speech can “cross a line” and “face removal” when it is harassing or endangering people. He explained, “We are moving towards the policy of misinformation that is aimed at or going to induce violence, we are going to take down…If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform.”

An similar incident occurred when Infowars was posting videos about conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting, claiming the horrific event was “staged.” That content, Zuckerberg explained, would be removed if it was abusive towards an individual: “Going to someone who is a victim of Sandy Hook and telling them, ‘Hey, no, you’re a liar’ – that is harassment, and we actually will take that down.”

Ah, but what about those claiming the Holocaust was staged, or was fake? Could that not end up leading to harassment or physical harm? See the Unite the Right rally last year in Charlottesville?

The response from Zuckerberg is confusing at best. Facebook, as a business, has a duty to its shareholders to promote content where it can to make the most return on investment off of advertising – and, of course, selling the personal information of its users, but that’s beside the fact. It seems that Facebook can pick and chose its areas of morality, rather a legal positivist view, asking the question of: “Will we get sued?”

It’s clear that Facebook’s morality is based in a gray-area understanding of the legal systems of almost 200 countries. But, if “freedom of speech” protects Holocaust deniers, should it not protect conservative news sites and posts – even those who don’t advocate for hatred and violence? Flagging the Declaration of Independence for hate speech, but not posts proclaiming that the systematic genocide of million of Jewish people was fake? Seems Zuckerberg is lost at the top.