I believe its relevant to mention that this doesnt have to be ill intent on part of Meta. Israeli intelligence is spending a lot of resources on influencing narratives. Its not surprising that this would include exploiting and influencing moderation. And its not like social media sites figured out perfect moderation yet, they are an easy target for such determined influences.
Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
351–360 of 903 posts
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People say "just show the posts in chronological order," but this doesn't scale for humans reading it, especially as you follow more people. I fail to see how this is a problem. Much less one that necessitates spending billions of dollars developing sorting and recommendation algorithms to solve. Unless your priority is not "show the user what they have explicitly requested to see". Users were perfectly happy when t…
I did work on ranking at Meta. The vast majority of people really do not prefer the chronological feed. We validated this by extraordinarily high powered randomized trials, including with surveys. No more than 20% of people preferred a chronological feed in any experiment I saw.
I mean, yeah, but you could also do a lot of high powered randomized trials about kinds of cookies and learn that 80% of people always prefer eating the cookies with cocaine in them.
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#353This is something people have to relearn over and over again. A lot of the people who are not upset with Meta limiting opinions and content related to the war in Gaza¹. Were gloating and happy when Meta limited opinions and content from right wing politicians² not so long ago. Once you invite censorship for content you dont like, how can you expect it wont bite you in the ass later on. This is why freedom of speech i…
While I agree that one's views on censorship should not be based on whether one agrees or disagrees with the views presently impacted, I don't think your comparisons are reasonable for multiple reasons:
- Stalin and Hitler were _state_ censorship, where the state itself (and its heavy-handed use of force) were used to silence dissent. Meta is not a state, and Meta is not itself using force.
- When Niemöller says "they came for ...", he doesn't mean shadow-banning social media accounts. Silencing accounts on social media isn't _nothing_ but it's also definitely not equivalent to being sent to a prison camp.
- I think there is a legitimate broader question about what "censorship" should mean when talking about companies whose products involve communication. A requirement that user-provided messages should have equal reach irrespective of what they're saying seems to is in tension with the firm having its own freedom to not put certain things on their screens, on pages with their branding.
> One must speak out against censorship and against limiting freedom of speech, whenever it is being limited.
- I also think there's a legitimate question of whether people have a right to spread false information, including deliberate misinformation, irrespective of the platform. Claims that a chemical is medically effective in treating a specific disease need to be backed by clinical evidence. Intentionally lying to harm someone's reputation is defamation. "Censorship" in the form of "you can't criticize The Party" or "you can't publish that novel with its dangerous ideas" seems pretty different from "you can't say that your horse drug treats covid". Perhaps all viewpoints should have the same freedoms of expression, but we don't get to have our own facts. One can have principled reasons for believing that not all speech should be equally free.
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
The one thing that has worked is bombing and overwhelming them into temporary ceasefire solder exchange.
The hostages themselves have said they were most afraid of being killed by the IDF's bombing campaign.
Apparently it’s a military doctrine? The hannibal directive, or something like that.
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#355Interestingly if you read the actual report from HRW, it sounds like most of the material they are referring too was legitimately taken down because it supported violence, according to Meta's policies. For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many, so it was taken down. In other cases the content praised attacks by Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US go…
[flagged]
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#356[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#357Can someone explain how every single post about Palestine/Israel is flagged and removed the instant it hits front page? I have seen this with around 4-5 threads personally and who knows how many I missed
Because it doesn’t belong here and it’s inflammatory. Also most articles are heavily biased but claim not to be. For example, they trust numbers given by an internationally recognized terrorist organization. But tell me again how it’s not biased.
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#358Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did work on ranking at Meta. The vast majority of people really do not prefer the chronological feed. We validated this by extraordinarily high powered randomized trials, including with surveys. No more than 20% of people preferred a chronological feed in any experiment I saw.
I mean, yeah, but you could also do a lot of high powered randomized trials about kinds of cookies and learn that 80% of people always prefer eating the cookies with cocaine in them.
That's a different argument, and not one I really care about. It's no more "addictive" than tv and way less harmful
Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims
#360[flagged]