11–20 of 22 posts
An awful lot of what comes out of Palestinian journalists is incitement. Is it any surprise that something is being done about it?
That's a nice site your have there Mr Zuckerberg it would be a shame if something were to happen to it... Block a few "trouble makers" or risk being being blocked nationwide. Random guess. Facebook got put in a position where if they didn't allow Israeli to close down accounts due to "incitement" they ran the risk of being labelled as an "incitement website" and having access blocked completely. So they chose what wa…
> though they only filter on a country wide basis and not remove content for everyone else) And that is a very critical difference. Censorship happens on many platforms, but when that censorship is being done to journalists the violations are particularly egregious.
I would hate to be in this position. Do you comply and block accounts and those with a loud enough voice will shout loudly enough that they can get back in or run the risk of upsetting the people that hold the keys to your market?
An awful lot of what comes out of Palestinian journalists is incitement. Is it any surprise that something is being done about it?
Boy, that's quite a loaded statement considering many Israeli politicians have also repeatedly called for the genocide of Palestinians ( http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-governm... ). I'm quite surprised nothing is being done about that.
While many Israeli politicians are terrible, I don't think that single endorsement substantiates your claim that "many Israeli politicans have repeatedly called ...". Even that single endorsement was deleted by Shaked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boy, that's quite a loaded statement considering many Israeli politicians have also repeatedly called for the genocide of Palestinians ( http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-governm... ). I'm quite surprised nothing is being done about that.
Shaked (an Israeli minister) posted (and thus endorsed) a text that calls for genocide. While many Israeli politicians are terrible, I don't think that single endorsement substantiates your claim that "many Israeli politicans have repeatedly called ...". Even that single endorsement was deleted by Shaked.
That's a nice site your have there Mr Zuckerberg it would be a shame if something were to happen to it... Block a few "trouble makers" or risk being being blocked nationwide. Random guess. Facebook got put in a position where if they didn't allow Israeli to close down accounts due to "incitement" they ran the risk of being labelled as an "incitement website" and having access blocked completely. So they chose what wa…
That's a nice site your have there Mr Zuckerberg it would be a shame if something were to happen to it... Block a few "trouble makers" or risk being being blocked nationwide. Random guess. Facebook got put in a position where if they didn't allow Israeli to close down accounts due to "incitement" they ran the risk of being labelled as an "incitement website" and having access blocked completely. So they chose what wa…
What's the point of posting a 'random guess' and then writing out a conspiracy theory involving Israel and Facebook? Pure BS.
An awful lot of what comes out of Palestinian journalists is incitement. Is it any surprise that something is being done about it?
Boy, that's quite a loaded statement considering many Israeli politicians have also repeatedly called for the genocide of Palestinians ( http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-governm... ). I'm quite surprised nothing is being done about that.
This could have been an honest mistake (IMHO highly unlikely), Israel-suggested (quite possibly), executed against policy by an internal employee with an agenda (IMHO possibly, but too easy a PR response), or is/was Facebook's official policy from management to support an Israeli agenda? (The scariest option) ... I guess we'll never know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"blocks" and "suspends" accounts are the same thing. Nothing you said or that the article said contradicts the headline.
To be absolutely fair, the italicised parts are important. There is no proof, only accusation. Edit: The article also does not prove that Facebook unblocked them (as no block was proved), nor reached out to Facebook on if they did indeed respond saying it was accidental.
Facebook replied on Saturday with an apology, saying the suspension had been "accidental".
That means it happened - Al Jazeera is one of the more reliable networks according to my journalist friends, and aren't usually known to publish something without fact checking or couching it in 'unconfirmed'.
The reason is that unlike prior art in information warfare (altering versions of history textbooks, encyclopedias, newsprint, etc) where control for narrative and shading of facts was done on a very coarse level - the mode of surveilling social media and targetting individual news feeds and people with high connectivity and influence - is tailored and specific.
This combined with the new way that information is injested and the new ways that digital records have become an integral piece of regular thinking and problem solving make these elements of every country's information warfare programs uniquely dangerous.