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

521–530 of 903 posts

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

#521

Post by dang »

selcuka wrote: post #515
reissbaker wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think without actual access to the material it's pretty hard to say. For example, the report highlights that someone commented with nothing but a series of Palestinian flags to someone's post, and their comment was flagged and removed. However, they don't share what the original post was; responding with a series of Palestinian flags to an Israeli hostage relative's post about their kidnapped sibling, for example,…

This is a bit too much of reading between the lines, suspiciously so. > Why does the report only say that the man was fully clothed? It does not. This is misrepresenting what is written in the report, to say the least. There are two such examples in the report (not sure if they refer to the same image): The first one is "image of a Palestinian father in Gaza who was killed while he was holding his clothed daughter, w…

Please make your substantive points without swipes such as "Again, you are making up things". This is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

When someone else's information is wrong, you're of course welcome to correct it, but please do so by providing correct information and omit swipes and other flamebait, which only degrade discussion and evoke worse from others.

I know that's not easy to do when emotions are running high, but it's something we all need to work on—and it's the same for everyone, regardless of which side they're on in any conflict.

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

#522

Post by mongol »

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…

I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. Certainly some people who say it may have hateful thoughts in their minds, but wishing for palestinian land where Israel is now is not hateful in itself.

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

#523

Post by r721 »

dang wrote: post #504
r721 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some related HN discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25906672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25908439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33478845

Thanks - it sounds from https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci... (via your first link) that they have a rating system whereby community members get to vote on which notes they think are true (a.k.a. which ones they like), and some sort of reputation system to compensate for the weaknesses of relying solely on votes. Did they publish the details of these systems? Edit: this, from https://communi…

>Did they publish the details of these systems?

I didn't look into the details myself, but there is a 24-page paper linked from this page:

>Details of our methodology and past findings can be found in our paper.

https://communitynotes.twitter.com/guide/en/under-the-hood/g...

https://github.com/twitter/communitynotes/blob/main/birdwatc...

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

#524

Post by McBeige »

fourseventy wrote: post #413
kahnclusions wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#525

Post by krembo »

mongol wrote: post #522
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…

I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. Certainly some people who say it may have hateful thoughts in their minds, but wishing for palestinian land where Israel is now is not hateful in itself.

Don't you really understand why it's an hateful speech when you wish my country stop to exists?

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

#526

Post by selcuka »

dang wrote: post #521
selcuka wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit too much of reading between the lines, suspiciously so. > Why does the report only say that the man was fully clothed? It does not. This is misrepresenting what is written in the report, to say the least. There are two such examples in the report (not sure if they refer to the same image): The first one is "image of a Palestinian father in Gaza who was killed while he was holding his clothed daughter, w…

Please make your substantive points without swipes such as "Again, you are making up things". This is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . When someone else's information is wrong, you're of course welcome to correct it, but please do so by providing correct information and omit swipes and other flamebait, which only degrade discussion and evoke worse from others. I know tha…

Fair point, I think the latest edit is more civilised.

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

#527

Post by dang »

salawat wrote: post #108
aaomidi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children have always been treated differently because they are fully and absolutely dependent on their care givers. A puppy and a grown dog don’t actually apply here because we’re talking about humans and not dogs. It’s not even appropriate to make that comparison here.

You anthroprocentric chauvinist. Just because you've firmly categorized everything else as "an inferior being" with a lesser claim to remaining alive doesn't mean that's actually the case. It just means you're selfishly unconcerned with the consequences of collateral damage up until it might be something that could figure out a way to waltz over and bite back.

You've posted several flamewar comments to this thread already. Would you please stop? It's exactly what we're trying to avoid on this site, and this topic is the worst place to do it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#529

Post by krembo »

LtWorf wrote: post #494
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…

I've seen comments saying "yes please, show me more bombings, I love to see them die" not taken down, because "them" was palestinians. I wonder how long the comment would have been up, if it was referring to the other side instead. edit: I see from the downvotes that my experience doesn't fit your bias. Sorry people -_-

Maybe the "them" was referred to hamas terrorists?

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

#530

Post by dang »

dlubarov wrote: post #121

Are you saying that changes on Israel's part could cause Hamas to stop their aggression? That seems very unlikely - Hamas doesn't even pretend to be open to peaceful coexistence with Israel. Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. Or that it could lead to Gazans overthrowing Hamas? It's possible, but it would take a violent rebellion since Hamas doesn't hold elections, and realistically…

(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746496, but I detached it from there, i.e. moved it to the top level, because this subthread is better than the surrounding flamewar it was in.)
Post reply on HN