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

401–410 of 903 posts

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

#401

Post by porkbeer »

api wrote: post #397
rayiner wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

> there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism Never got that one. Nothing like the flag of a breakaway state founded to preserve chattel slavery as a symbol of… anti-authoritarianism?

It's known as the 'Rebel Flag' in the united states, and has indeed stood for being a rebel with none of the modern racist associations attaced to it. Many of your favorite antiracist rock stars of the 60s sported the flag. People under 40 mostly just know the culture-war version where its akin to a swastika, which itself originally had a different meaning. Symbols change, you have to view them through the lens of history and culture before recoiling to modern interpretations,

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

#402

Post by riku_iki »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #350
riku_iki wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of your links say that data came from Hamas: "The Hamas-run health ministry is Gaza's official source for death numbers"

The article continues to explain that Gaza health ministry casualty counts for past conflicts have been confirmed after the fact by third party international organizations, like the WHO. The records they release include names, genders, ages and ID numbers of deceased people. If you claim the data is fake then you should be able to identify some made-up deaths in it.

> past conflicts have been confirmed after the fact by third party international organizations, like the WHO.

This is not my reading that WHO or any other org confirmed anything. They say in 2014 both Israel and Palestinians agreed on number of casualties, but this time discrepancy is 10x.

> If you claim the data is fake then you should be able to identify some made-up deaths in it.

say they made up some ID, name, gender and age. How exactly I could identify this?

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

#403

Post by wernercd »

pydry wrote: post #314
wernercd wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"creatively misinterpreted" It's not a misinterpretation to take the meaning of the phrase as it's stated and understood. That's like saying "blood and soil" doesn't mean what it means. Or Intifada. "Oh don't be silly... they don't REALLY mean that." They absolutely mean it. You're being disingenuous to deny the commonly understood meaning of a clearly genocidal phrase while defending it. Then you complain of others…

Will be free != will be genocided. As I said, it's a creative misinterpretation. If you want to see what a call for genocide looks like, listen to the prime minister of israel: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/netanyahu-openly-calls-... This just scratches the surface of the extreme levels of racism permeating every level of Israeli society and the foreign racists who support it.

I love that you call "from the river to the sea" a creative misinterpretation... then push something that's way more of a creative interpretation of "genocide".

Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't?

Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you seem to be.

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/05/the-s...

"I recently asked one of his advisers to gauge for me the depth of Mr. Netanyahu’s anxiety about Iran. His answer: “Think Amalek.” “Amalek,” in essence, is Hebrew for “existential threat.” Tradition holds that the Amalekites are the undying enemy of the Jews. They appear in Deuteronomy, attacking the rear columns of the Israelites on their escape from Egypt. The rabbis teach that successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront the Amalekites: Nebuchadnezzar, the Crusaders, Torquemada, Hitler and Stalin are all manifestations of Amalek’s malevolent spirit."

So Netty says that hamAss is an existential threat? no shit. hamAss needs to be removed? Definitely. No peace as long as hamAss exists. Can't have peace with terrorists.

But is Netty saying to remove ALL Palestinians? remember... Net (as well as others) have tried to negotiate peace with "Palestinians" and have been denied over the years (since recreation of Israel). So Israel has been willing to negotiate while "Palestine" has only been open to solutions that are "from the river to the sea" (read: Genocide).

Infitada and Sea comments are absolutely, unequivocally and undeniably calls to remove Jews from the area.

I love the parallels from 2009 to today... the "overreaction" (read: disproportionate reaction by Israel to a terrorist action of oct 7th) in response to an "existential threat" caused by terrorists killing innocents, hiding like cowards and using human shields.

But I digress. Don't be expected to be taken seriously in your attack on "genocidal" Israel while downplaying and ignoring genocidal hamAss. The war sucks but was started by terrorists and Israel has the right to defend itself from existential threats. No peace as long as hamAss exists.

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

#404

Post by slim »

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…

removal of content is really like 10% of the cases. the most worrisome type of suppression of speech is what they call "shadow banning" which is really "reach limiting". to the extent people now refrain from using the word "Palestine" to avoid metas algirithms. I experienced this myself. We have a draft law in parliament concerning boyocott of israel. I posted a status about the law (notice it's unrelated to war or anything in the news rights now) and it got almost zero reach. it's not subtil. It's like two orders of magnitude less reach. I know it because I'm a political activist and I always comment on draft laws.

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

#405

Post by sudosysgen »

Aeolun wrote: post #347
sudosysgen wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would guidance systems increase the destruction? If anything, history has shown that precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties - there isn't much of a point building a single precision guided missile, instead of 100 imprecise dumb rockets, when your goal is terror bombing (the calculus is slightly different for bombs, however). > Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem p…

> the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank have been tolerating repeated attacks for decades now I’m fairly certain it’s more an inability to respond in any effective way.

Hamas doesn't have an ability to respond in an effective way either, yet here we are. If anything, it's far easier to get supplies and engage in terrorism in the West Bank than it is in Gaza.

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

#406

Post by rayiner »

api wrote: post #397
rayiner wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

> there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism Never got that one. Nothing like the flag of a breakaway state founded to preserve chattel slavery as a symbol of… anti-authoritarianism?

Part of that effort was to reframe the reasons why the Confederacy was “founded,” at least in part as a way of saving face (which is very important in southern culture).

Their narrative glossed over slavery, and focused on the other aspects of the conflict: the industrialized north, with its big banks and big corporations, versus the agrarian south. Do you remember the scene in Hamilton where they negotiate about where to put the capital? And the Hamilton says something along the lines of “let the south have the capital, we’ll have the bank where the real power will be.” It’s not hard to make the south look like the good guys if you ignore the Confederate elites’ actual reasons for the war.

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

#407

Post by cscurmudgeon »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #306
mc32 wrote: post #2

What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? The fact is people are unprincipled and will either complain about free speech or will clamor for it, or complain about censorship or clamor for it depending on point of view. I wish people were principled and stood on principle and not what dog they have in a fight.

> What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? Yes, and it's absolutely still their platform and their rules. And people also have every right to criticize that platform and its rules, as they're doing. What Meta is doing is wrong, but it should emphatically not be illegal .

> What Meta is doing is wrong

The very first example in the report is "river to the sea" which is arguably a dog whistle for genocide. Parts of liberal Europe have banned this slogan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Lega...

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

#408

Post by canadiantim »

Aeolun wrote: post #389
canadiantim wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m fairly certain this was found to be true by various sources. Of course if you are already disinclined to accept that because it doesn’t align with your view of reality, there’s not much I can say to change it.

If you provided the sources it would help to atleast have a productive discussion of the merits of that point of view. Without the sources it just sounds like you don't like right-wing politicians.

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

#409

Post by zarzavat »

api wrote: post #397
rayiner wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

> there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism Never got that one. Nothing like the flag of a breakaway state founded to preserve chattel slavery as a symbol of… anti-authoritarianism?

If the US had not been founded then slavery would have been abolished much sooner, so I don’t think the US flag gets a pass either.

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

#410

Post by busymom0 »

eganist wrote: post #371
neonsunset wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You mean pg? Or am I out of loop on who GP is?
Post reply on HN