Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 903 posts

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#371

Post by eganist »

neonsunset wrote: post #325
dang wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar. Your account has a long history of doing this, and we've warned you many times. To continue doing it is not ok, and on this topic least of all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460722 (Jan 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209948 (Oct 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32922335 (Sept 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010834 (Apri…

It's only a flamewar when you and PG, as it happens on a weekly basis, disagree with the comment :)

No, they generally stand down heated topics even when it's something the hive mind would agree with. There are delicate ways of talking about these things that GP and plenty of others have a history of having a hard time employing.

At this point I've been entrenched enough in discussion long enough to appreciate how this place is moderated by dang etc

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#372

Post by kahnclusions »

fourseventy wrote: post #346
Aeolun wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with the right wing politicians was that they were presenting their warped view of reality as fact?

As if the left wing politicians dont also present warped facts.

Not to the same degree or extent… the departure from reality and rejection of any facts they don’t like, rejection of scientific thinking, is waaaaay way more of a right wing problem.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#373

Post by [deleted] »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #317

This 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…

[deleted]

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#374

Post by wslh »

zardo wrote: post #369
mgraczyk wrote: post #336

Interestingly 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]

[flagged]

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#375

Post by karim79 »

wslh wrote: post #282

On another news, the UN, which is a political international organization, and not a company or an "app", have a large blind spot for many attrocities around the world. It is important to criticize those apps but most important to look at the reality you really face, like "Denmark and Germany arrest terror suspects planning attacks in Europe" [1]. Also, you can follow by the HRW 2023 report [2]. I think they forgot to…

Whataboutism[0] at its finest.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#376

Post by oefrha »

arp242 wrote: post #322
dang wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't looked closely, but based on what I have looked at, plus prior experience, I believe that flags of this kind are a coalition between two subgroups of user: those who dislike the content of an article for political or ideological reasons, and those who are more concerned about the content being bad for HN (e.g. because they're worried about flamewars).

> because they're worried about flamewars Huh? I've never seen a flamewar on this topic? I wish HN was more granular about measures for users, e.g. by marking these highly contested topics and just giving people topic-bans. Some people just completely lose their shit, and then other people lose their shit in response, and these people post a million messages by the time the rest of us managed to actually read the art…

> I've never seen a flamewar on this topic?

What? Do you have showdead on?

I flagged this one, because “discussions” on this topic are mostly hot garbage, they are dominated by extremely motivated people shitting canned flamebait all over the place, especially early on. Indeed by the time I saw and flagged this there were already like four or five people doing exactly that, and by keeping it up, more of this type of users are invited. They are largely flagged by now, leaving an entire page of flagged stuff and more interwoven in the somewhat visible page; must be one of, if not the lowest signal-to-flag stories on HN. I can only see like 20% of 352 comments so far without showdead.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#377

Post by canadiantim »

Aeolun wrote: post #341
ThinkBeat wrote: post #317

This 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…

I think the problem with the right wing politicians was that they were presenting their warped view of reality as fact?

That's what everyone says when they want to censor someone they don't like

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#378

Post by myth_drannon »

mgraczyk wrote: post #336

Interestingly 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

#379

Post by [deleted] »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #317

This 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…

[deleted]

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#380

Post by rayiner »

mgraczyk wrote: post #336

Interestingly 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…

> For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many

The phrase has its origins in Arab nationalism. It was coined in 1960 by the PLO to refer to the goal of an Arab state that occupies the entirety of what was Mandatory Palestine. If you ignore the subtext of “what happens to the Jews in that situation” I suppose you can make a case for it.

It’s like the confederate flag. In the 20th century there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism. And that’s the only connotation lots of people have of it. But it has a pretty unpleasant historical context.

At the very least it’s a dog whistle to the large fraction of the Muslim world that hates Jews: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/adls-global-100-survey-wh.... Americans who use this phrase should really travel to the Muslim world to understand the antisemitism that’s just in the air. You can’t travel to my “moderate Muslim” country with an Israeli passport. Guess why that is?

Post reply on HN