Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

541–550 of 903 posts

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

#541
post #525
post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No not neccessarily. There are many examples of peoples who have wished their lands to become liberated from current rulers. I am for example thinking of Finland or the Baltics. It wasn't hateful of them to wish for that, and I never heard anyone even express that idea. There are ways to express hate, but this is not one of them.

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

#542
post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peacefully: https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-israelis-are-refugees-from... Name one Arab-majority country where Jews live openly as equal citizens. The suggestion that “freeing Palestine from the river to the sea” would just mean a secular multi-ethnic state where Jews life peacefully among an Arab majority is willful blindness.

Jews aren't treated worst than others in Muslim countries by these standards. They don't treat Hindus and Shintoism better.

That's not true, it's much worse being jews. Christians are the most tolerated, followed by everyone else and then at last it's jews

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

#543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties Yes, but normally the user is targeting military assets and trying to minimize collateral damage. I think it's clear that Hamas has the opposite goal, since they typically lob unguided rockets in the general direction of population centers.

If all you have are unguided rockets, you're going to point them wherever they're most likely to hit something. If/when you have guidance systems, you can afford to be selective and concentrate on high value targets. That's how it goes in asymmetric warfare.

>high value targets

Such as places with a lot of civilians yes

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

#544

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…

Comparing the chant "from the river to the sea" with the confederate flag is completely preposterous. The chant is a call for liberation . Anyone who has a problem with someone's freedom is themselves a racist and probably has a lot of views in common with what the confederate flag stands for. Fwiw, the phrase was coined by Jewish settlers in the 1930's ( https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2018-12-16/ty-artic..…

isn’t the original context of the confederate flag liberation from federalism?

don’t think just the fact someone believes they are liberating something makes it right, as in their eyes the russians in the current war are liberating ukraine

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

#545
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

From my first hand experience designing these algorithms at Meta and running experiments, and listening to feedback from accounts, I would guess that you are not getting reach because your followers do not interact with what you post. In almost every case people call "shadow ban", the cause was occasionally an actual bug (code doing something undesired and unexpected) or far more often people posting bad content. The…

I feel a deep discomfort with algorithms optimizing for “engaging” content like this. It feels to me like a form of algorithmic brainwashing, capturing people in filter bubbles. I would prefer it if there were laws against platforms making visibility decisions for the user. If people choose to be in a bubble, that’s a form of personal freedom, if an unknowable algorithm chooses for them, not so much.

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

#546
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> people now refrain from using the word "Palestine" to avoid metas algirithms It wasn't algorithm, or glitch, or bug. It was a decision made by humans, including you know who. It's a form of crowd control. That's why it's important to have several channels for 'producers'. For others it's a good idea to have several sources. You'll see much more even if each source represents a single side (which is usually the case…

[deleted]

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

#547

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…

You are misquoting the source — I'm not "making up things." I referenced the three Palestinian flags, not the heart emojis:

> In another, a user posted just three Palestinian flag emojis. Another screenshot seen by The Intercept showed two hidden comments consisting only of the hashtags #Gaza, #gazaunderattack, #freepalestine, and #ceasefirenow.

The Intercept does not provide the context on the posts that the flag comments were on, or the hashtags — and visibly-Jewish people across social media have been barraged since Oct. 7th by strangers brigading their completely-unrelated posts with comments like this, and are targeted for harassment just for being Jewish; I think being suspicious of the context is fairly natural. And please refrain from personal attacks.

Re: the man holding the girl — yes, I am referring to the one in which both are deceased, but only the man is referenced as being fully-clothed; members of Hamas can be deceased too. Maybe the girl is also fully-clothed, but not releasing any of the data doesn't help build confidence.

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

#548
post #540
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I must disagree with everybody, as I moderate comments from all sides of these. Anyone who looks fairly through my posting history can see that for themselves. Everyone with strong feelings on a topic feels like the mods are secretly against their view and moderating in favor of the other side [1]. I think it's because we're all hard-wired to notice the things we dislike and to weight them much more heavily [2].…

What makes you flag something as flamewar and can you openly show how both sides are affected? Because the feeling of some seems that you are abit biased.

Mostly it's whether I see accounts breaking the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. That includes swipes, putdowns, name-calling, ideological/political/nationalistic battle rather than curious conversation, fulmination, cross examination, repeating internet tropes or talking points, and so on.

I don't know what you mean by "openly show how both sides are affected". That's a tricky business. Everyone with strong feelings feels like the mods are biased and few are persuadable otherwise. Most people (with strong feelings) would be satisfied by little less than "promote all the posts I agree with and ban all the commenters I disagree with", though they don't phrase it in those terms, presumably even to themselves. It just works out that way in practice because when strong feelings are involved, all opposing comments tend to feel false and/or trollish and/or abusive.

What I can tell you for sure is that we're moderating all sides of this topic, same as with any divisive topic, when we see the site guidelines being broken, and we do our best to be even-handed about it. That doesn't mean there's no bias (unconscious bias is a thing, and total absence of bias is surely impossible), but it does mean that we work hard and consciously at it, and have many years of practice in doing so.

p.s. when you ask "What makes you flag something as flamewar", I suppose I should clarify that most [flagged] posts have been flagged by users, not moderators. Mods do flag some though.

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

#549
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't use TikTok so I don't know what you're referring to, sorry. I also don't really get convinced by comments which just say "no you're wrong" without elaboration, maybe try a different tactic.

imo just read wikipedia or watch the destiny streams where he does :)

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

#550
post #327

May it be that Meta is just doing it job by weeding out fakes? Most of the pro-Hamas/pro-Palestinian propaganda that I saw contradicts the facts to say the least (or in the best case is only single-sourced with the source being either Hamas itself or a cozy affiliate of a Hamas like those Gaza offices of UN agencies). Btw, Meta is outlawed (declared "extremist", it is somewhat like "material supporter of terrorism" s…

It might be that outside of your circles, people do have different opinions, without them being bots.

Last elections fb was spamming me with trump propaganda. I don't know anyone who voted for trump, for the simple reason that I don't live in USA. And yet I still got the propaganda… I understand the russians might not want USA propaganda and might want their own instead.

Post reply on HN