Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
1–10 of 115 posts
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#2"Center for Countering Digital Hatred"
Is this another jewish funded censorship organisation that wants to destroy the right to Freedom of Speech?
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#3Anti semitism is unique amongst other forms of racism in that there’s generally little or no action taken, even for blatant displays: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdbHft64/
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#4Actual source: [0]
Also from [0]
> Our researchers reported hundreds of racist anti-Jewish posts to social media firms using their user reporting tools. 84% were not acted upon.
The same social media cartel still housing 'hate' on their platforms with 84% of anti-semitism posts still on their sites! That's not good enough. Even Khomeini is still there violating the 'sloppy Twitter guidelines'.
Do better.
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#5I'm curious about the success rate for other forms of hate speech
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#6I'm curious about the success rate for other forms of hate speech
Hate speech doesn't exist, they made up the term to shut you up.
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#7It's pretty... interesting, that the new expected norm is that all hateful / offensive posts are taken down on the internet. 10 years ago, this would be a very confusing headline to read.
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#8Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#9I know this is probably going to cost me some downvotes on here but here goes...
I've personally stopped listening or caring about this dog whistle after seeing it used constantly to squash any discussion of the Palestinian apartheid.
Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases
#10I'm skeptical of this kind of analysis without concrete examples of the kind of content that wasn't removed. Even if you trust the researchers (I personally am not familiar with them), there are legitimate reasons why they might not categorize things the same way as social media platforms.
e: Turns out that the researchers' full report actually does contain concrete examples, which seem to be legitimately bad and take-down-able.