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

51–60 of 903 posts

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

#51

Post by whats_a_quasar »

deadbabe wrote: post #5

[flagged]

> Frankly, given that there have been actual genocides in the recent past that have gone largely ignored, the over representation of Palestinian views in today’s media is likely the work of bad faith actors ...

This argument is made often on the internet, but the Occam's Razor explanation is that people are paying attention to Gaza because it's much easier to do reporting from Israel than from other conflict zones. Israel is a developed country with functioning airports, communications, roads, and legal protections. It's quite a bit harder to report from the Tigray region of Ethiopia, Shan State in Myanmar, or Darfur in Sudan

I read a post a few weeks ago on the Sudan subreddit where an OP asked if people were frustrated with how much attention Gaza was getting compared to the Sudanese civil war. The Sudanese diaspora responses were overwhelmingly happy to see the coverage of Gaza, and they wished they had the same level of information out of Sudan. It's almost impossible to tell what's happening on the ground.

Additionally, people care because America is a party to the conflict by backing the Israeli government. So the conflict in Gaza matters to the international world in a way that other internal civil wars just don't, unfortunately.

The devastation in Gaza is staggering. It is quite a stretch to say that people are paying attention because of bad faith actors instead of genuine concerns. Of course people will care when a war of this size, supported by the U.S., happens in plain view.

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

#52

Post by sterlind »

deadbabe wrote: post #5

[flagged]

You can't dismiss "think of the children" as a talking point when children are actually dying. This isn't FOSTA, this is an actual war with bullets and bombs and dead children on both sides. You should be thinking about the children.

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

#54

Post by mort96 »

black6 wrote: post #50
mort96 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly are you trying to say

That war is a racket where children's lives are acceptable collateral.

No I'm pretty sure that there's some deeper meaning, but I'm not sure exactly what. For example, what exactly is meant by "Viral content? Fuck this"? Is this Guardian article the "viral content"? Or the Human Rights Watch posts? Or what? What exactly is being criticized?

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

#55

Post by djohnston »

g8oz wrote: post #7
djohnston wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, everyone is full of shit and self interested. Accepting that makes it easy to tune out weak rhetoric from all sides.

You could try paying attention to human rights reports instead of assuming a false equivalence.

[flagged]

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

#56

Post by Xelbair »

deadbabe wrote: post #30
sschueller wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a “genocide”" Per UN definition[1]: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members…

The target is Hamas. Some innocents are dying, but the intent isn’t to deliberately kill them. And there is no evidence any of those other criteria are even happening.

[flagged]

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

#58

Post by sschueller »

irishloop wrote: post #25
sschueller wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a “genocide”" Per UN definition[1]: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members…

Surely there's a scale? Technically, any "killing a member of a group" would be a genocide under this definition. Even if someone commits a mass murder against a group, we typically call it mass murder or a hate crime -- not genocide. So there has to be some idea of what genocide is -- what is the scale, what is the intent? Is it to wipe out a people? Or is it something else? 25,000 death is a lot. I'd say its a war…

There is a very high risk of famine[1] and there is already an extreme food shortage. If the Israelis don't allow more food to enter and open more borders/allow see access a famine is guaranteed. The UN resolution that passed yesterday should prevent that but we have to wait and see if Israel accepts it. IMO starving a population is a genocide.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67799527

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

#59

Post by deadbabe »

sterlind wrote: post #52
deadbabe wrote: post #5

[flagged]

You can't dismiss "think of the children" as a talking point when children are actually dying. This isn't FOSTA, this is an actual war with bullets and bombs and dead children on both sides. You should be thinking about the children.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN