31–40 of 115 posts
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 article doesn't mention anything like that and gives a good idea of the examples. Did anyone even read the article?
It'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.
Back then someone could have created an offensive blog and it wouldn’t have been taken down. But people would have to link to it, seek it out. Now we have social media sites algorithmically pushing content in our faces, IMO it’s only fair that they’re asked to consider what they’re pushing when they do it.
>It said they included Holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories with false claims about Jews "controlling" governments and banks, or orchestrating world events. - >It said that those it tagged as Holocaust denial remained online 80% of the time, while for neo-Nazi content it was 71%. I'm glad to see they were somewhat specific on the content. On the internet things get muddy and I've been on a forum that was tied to…
A report came out in the UK claiming widespread anti-semitism on University campuses and made the headlines. They had failed to distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism in the report, which was very disappointing. There certainly was some clear cases of anti-semitism, but they bundled criticism of Israel and accusations of Israel running an apartheid regime as "anti-semitism".
As you point out, this is not the case here.
Does this include all the legitimate criticisms of Israel that people try to lazily deflect with accusations of antisemitism? Who is doing the counting?
However, it is against the law in plenty of other countries, and likely against the TOS of most sites.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
I'm curious about the success rate for other forms of hate speech
I'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 tak…
Did you read the report? They did give many concrete examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't mention anything like that and gives a good idea of the examples. Did anyone even read the article?
I mean they give some high level examples but it's mostly non-specific and at the discretion of a group whose missions is to report this stuff... In other words... show me the data!
And there's a link to the actual report in the story.
I 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.
The dog whistle cuts both ways. I've heard more than enough anti-semitic stuff thinly veiled as criticism of Israel and I am a Jew firmly against the occupation.
I've also been personally called anti-Semitic merely for criticizing the treatment of Palestinians and advocating for Israel to pull out of the west bank and broker a deal to allow palestinians to self govern and coexist.
also note: its been less than 5 min since posting and already 5 downvotes! also apparently flagged... well I expected that.