Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases • Hacker News Board

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#91

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:47 PM UTC

sbilstein wrote: post #73

MattGaiser wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but is clear as day dog whistling. I think it is dog whistling, but if you aren't familiar with anti-Semitic arguments and angles of attack, I don't think it is clear at all, which is probably the point. On the surface it just seems like a list of facts and some are even seemingly laudatory, such as helping to end apartheid. The bad stuff is subtle or lower down the page. If I were a moderator and just doing a quic…

Yea I agree... the winky face emojis and comment sections tell you the audience knows exactly what they're looking at though.

The problem is, even if you could develop a moderation system which can give individual reports this level of consideration, I don't think there's anyway to remove this kind of content without also removing a ton of legitimate discussions that happen to be used as dogwhistles in some specific subculture.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#92

Post by pydry » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:47 PM UTC

sbilstein wrote: post #85

JohnWhigham wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people can't criticize Israel's actions as a country without being labeled anti-Semitic, then nothing is going to get solved.

I think you missed the point of my message. Of course plenty of criticism of Israel is valid and not anti-Semitic. It is also true that plenty of anti-Semites love to criticize Israel.

Of course plenty of accusations of anti semitism are valid.

It's also true that a vast number of them are false accusations used by Israeli racists to quash criticism of the apartheid system within Israel.

Politicians who criticize Israel legitimately are always subjected to this.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#93

Post by cryptica » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

connorgutman wrote: post #63

Jew here, Being Jewish != supporting Israel. I have never been to Israel, I do not identify as Israeli, nor do I support Israel. I fully support a free and independent Palestinian state and believe Israel is commiting genocide. Only 30% of Jews live in Israel and the rest are scattered across the world. Much of the Antisemitism discussed in this article is occuring in America and across Europe. I challenge everyone t…

I think the real problem here is the tendency that people have to label and categorize everyone and everything.

It's completely wrong to assume that there is a box and everyone in that box shares the exact same attributes. Society even tries to convince and manipulate people into adopting behaviors and values which are not their own; just so that they could 'fit in' (in the box). This is the root of 'peer pressure' which I take is a big problem in the US school system (go figure).

Maybe this agenda serves social media and advertising companies (and corporations overall)? It's convenient for advertisers if people in any given category share exactly the same attributes. It seems to be an extension to the goals of the factory model of education; to produce people who are optimized for participating in society whilst questioning things as little as possible.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#94

Post by mattigames » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #83

mattigames wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That report doesn't explicitly states omitting criticism against Israel, any report about anti-semitism that isnt explicitly stating when are Israel/Palestinian conflict comments considered anti-semitism (and when are not) is lacking depth.

It wisely steers clear of a topic which would derail its point.

Not really, nothing wise given that if you are trying to measure something you need to clearly define it first, and given the amount of controversy around (some or all) criticism against Israel being anti-semitism you need to first clearly define what you are considering is anti-semitism and what is not.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#95

Post by pydry » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #45

This is sad because they were apparently better at taking down non anti-semitic pro-palestinian posts. https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-palestinians-socialme...

This is probably what Israeli advocacy groups that lobby against antisemitism would prefer.

They are typically happy to forgo criticism of anti semitism from, say, pro zionist southern baptist groups or hungary's orban.

They are usually much more concerned with completely nonracist criticism of Israel from the likes of UK's jeremy corbyn.

State comes first.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#96

Post by opsecweather » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #57

liorben-david wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the flagged comment?

Allow me to revive the destroyed comment for the sake of the argument: > > Hate speech doesn't exist, they made up the term to shut you up. Sort of, it is difficult to draw the line somewhere because some people will disagree on the 'rules' and definition of what 'hate speech' is. > Comment was of course flagged. Because this website (like most of the internet), is controlled by the far left. Which seem to sympathize…

I read the concept of 'hate speech' was invented after the Seargent's Affair. The British public was incensed at Jews after the murder of four British soldiers in Palestine, so the powerful Jewish lobby in Britain agitated that one shouldn't be able to target "religious" groups. These posts are mostly trash, since Jews have a huge animosity towards the West which they call Edom and Christianity in particular, as they consider it the source of anti-semitism, but we never see posts about that on the orange site.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/05/20/king-of-kin...

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/08/02/review-of-r...

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#97

Post by mattigames » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #72

djohnston wrote: post #23

Does this include all the legitimate criticisms of Israel that people try to lazily deflect with accusations of antisemitism? Who is doing the counting?

The problem with banging the drum about "legitimate criticisms of Israel" is that they're co-occurent with illegitimate criticisms and anti-semitism. There's also a very special kind of monomania. Some big account will post on Twitter or Facebook lamenting violence. "This synagogue in London got vandalized!" for instance, or perhaps "this US citizen living in the state of New York was beaten and there's security came…

Ok, true for replies on unrelated subjects, but stand-alone posts with criticism against Israel also attract that kind of people so then what is the solution, to not post criticism against Israel because it attracts antisemitic people? To not create groups on FB about it for the same reason?

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#98

Post by salawat » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:18 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #74

afpx wrote: post #39

Unless people are inciting violence or organizing systematic discrimination, I think people should be free to say whatever they want. I understand why some people want to ban such speech, and there will always be those people, and there will always be ignorance and bigotry. It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said. Maybe someone will point out my ignorance, too.

> It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said. Hate speech is also a slippery slope, as the Rwandan genocide and many other genocides/massacres attest to. For those arguing for unfettered speech on social media, if you're going to convince me of your argument, you at least need to acknowledge that this history exists. If you're focused only on the risks associated with cla…

The Rwandan genocide happened in 1994. What makes you think the Internet or unconstrained speech on the Web had anything to do with it? Social Media wasn't even a thing by that point. You're still in pervasive dial-up and chatroom territory.

If you're talking one of the more recent ones, (last decade or so) that Facebook shoulders some of the blame for, you'd literally have to surveill Every. Last. Communique. Which everyone with any sense should recognize as an Orwellian Dystopian nightmare, and a fruitless moving target, because as soon as groups of interest realize they are being monitored, arms races and coded communique come into play.

So it isn't moving goalposts. It's a simple statement that the individual's desire for a hate-speech free Internet is not so great it warrants laying the technical foundation and infrastructure which in the wrong hands will absolutely be abused. Certainty factor of 1.

Technology empowers everyone equally, especially those already in a position of power that we really don't want to make exercising control practical for. That's the people problem that no application of technology can fundamentally solve for.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#99

Post by fighterpilot » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #98

fighterpilot wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said. Hate speech is also a slippery slope, as the Rwandan genocide and many other genocides/massacres attest to. For those arguing for unfettered speech on social media, if you're going to convince me of your argument, you at least need to acknowledge that this history exists. If you're focused only on the risks associated with cla…

The Rwandan genocide happened in 1994. What makes you think the Internet or unconstrained speech on the Web had anything to do with it? Social Media wasn't even a thing by that point. You're still in pervasive dial-up and chatroom territory. If you're talking one of the more recent ones, (last decade or so) that Facebook shoulders some of the blame for, you'd literally have to surveill Every. Last. Communique. Which…

> What makes you think the Internet or unconstrained speech on the Web had anything to do with it?

That is not what I think. Hate speech is the causal factor that I'm talking about, not the medium. People used the most effective tools that were available to them at the time. Before it was radio, print or film. Now it's social media.

> Orwellian Dystopian nightmare

I agree that speech restrictions can progress into an Orwellian nightmare.

But, again, you've ignored the flip side. Hate speech can also progress into an Orwellian nightmare. It's happened throughout history.

So we have two opposing things that can each potentially lead to an Orwellian nightmare. Yet in your argument you've ignored the latter, only focusing on the risks of the former. That's why I am unconvinced by this line of argumentation. It is ahistorical in the way that it downplays the causal factors that lead to genocides and massacres.

To convince me, you'll have to explain why the former is more likely to lead to a bad outcome than the latter, while keeping true to history.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#100

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

fighterpilot wrote: post #99

salawat wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rwandan genocide happened in 1994. What makes you think the Internet or unconstrained speech on the Web had anything to do with it? Social Media wasn't even a thing by that point. You're still in pervasive dial-up and chatroom territory. If you're talking one of the more recent ones, (last decade or so) that Facebook shoulders some of the blame for, you'd literally have to surveill Every. Last. Communique. Which…

> What makes you think the Internet or unconstrained speech on the Web had anything to do with it? That is not what I think. Hate speech is the causal factor that I'm talking about, not the medium. People used the most effective tools that were available to them at the time. Before it was radio, print or film. Now it's social media. > Orwellian Dystopian nightmare I agree that speech restrictions can progress into an…

I believe strong language can escalate things, but there is no causal relationship to conflicts as it was believed for the longest time. Especially if you look at different online communities, vulgar language doesn't even seem to have an effect on conflicts. Sometime people even calm down after having had the ability to vent.

Wars happen for different reason. I wouldn't know of any war started by strong language.

One point of the conflict was that speech was restricted too much as far as I know, that can easily escalate a conflict.