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

651–660 of 903 posts

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

#651

Post by dlubarov »

sudosysgen wrote: post #559
dlubarov wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that dumb rockets are more effective. Hamas, PIJ, etc. have only managed to kill 28 after launching something like 20k dumb rockets. There are many examples of modern precision weapons causing more deaths with a single strike.

That is mostly because the rockets are small and largely intercepted. The examples you have of modern weapons causing mass casualty events are of weapons with warheads 50+ times the size of those in a Hamas rocket, and there's plenty of examples of comparable unguided weapons causing similar casualties numbers when fired at cities. Also, you need compare the deaths with the number of rockets that aren't intercepted t…

ChatGPT estimates around the total warhead sizes of rockets from Gaza to Israel at around 200,000 kg. Maybe that's off but let's say 100,000 kg, and say 10,000 kg of that wasn't intercepted. Still seems like significantly more than the 500~700 kg warhead which killed 59 in Hroza, for example.

Looking at this another way, if Hamas could target things like nightclubs, wouldn't those have something like 50x the population density of the general area?

> there's plenty of examples of comparable unguided weapons causing similar casualties numbers when fired at cities

Even when fired from distances on the order of 70km (the distance from Gaza to Tel Aviv)? Aircraft using dumb bombs tend to get a lot closer to their targets.

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

#652

Post by [deleted] »

kar5pt wrote: post #434
bawolff wrote: post #383

Kind of a click-bait headline. To quote the actual report: "This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship." They asked people to self-report instances. There is probably selection bias (maybe they advertised only to the pro-palestian crowd. Maybe the israeli crowd thinks HRW is biased and didn't want to engage. Maybe something else). There is probably also base rate fa…

HRW has a reputation for being biased against Israel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Wa... . Regardless of whether that's true, it could explain why pro-Israel folks wouldn't want to engage with them.

[deleted]

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

#653

Post by verbify »

BrookeRivers wrote: post #451
verbify wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the jews lived peacefully in Palestine for centuries alongside christians and muslims before colonization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Hebron_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Ottoman... There were periods of peace, but they were also second class citizens and occasionally the victims of massacres.

So because there were violent historic events (half of which were perpetuated colonizers/invading forces) in a region destabilized by colonization/imperialism, that means Israel has the right to genocide the Palestinians living there?

Of course not. I don't know how you got that I 'support genocide' from my post.

My point was merely not to romanticise the past.

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

#654

Post by havelhovel »

kar5pt wrote: post #434
bawolff wrote: post #383

Kind of a click-bait headline. To quote the actual report: "This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship." They asked people to self-report instances. There is probably selection bias (maybe they advertised only to the pro-palestian crowd. Maybe the israeli crowd thinks HRW is biased and didn't want to engage. Maybe something else). There is probably also base rate fa…

HRW has a reputation for being biased against Israel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Wa... . Regardless of whether that's true, it could explain why pro-Israel folks wouldn't want to engage with them.

I think this report actually demonstrates the anti-Israel bias HRW has been accused of. HRW points to the 9,500 content takedown requests that Israel has made as one of "four underlying, systemic factors that contributed to the [pro-Palestine] censorship." But knowing that a single Reddit post can receive more than 9,500 comments within a day[1], and that some percentage of the takedown requests likely relate to posts that threaten operational secrecy or the right to privacy of victimized Israelis, leads me to the exact opposite conclusion: that Israel's takedown requests are neither intended to censor pro-Palestine voices nor, if that were the intent, large enough in number to have an impact. Since the report provides no context for the numbers it reports makes me think the authors are more interested in pushing the idea that Israel controls the online narrative than they are in understanding what is actually happening on these platforms.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/news/top/?sort=top&t=year

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

#655

Post by rightbyte »

boston_clone wrote: post #642
rightbyte wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misinformation should be censored. This is such a fallacy. When the ones in power don't allign with your view, your view will be "missinformation". The Vietnam war, Iraq war all got started on made up missinformation. Guess what kind of "missinformation" any laws about it would target?

How is it a fallacy? I mean misinformation by definition; you’re correct that power structures may distort truth to achieve an objective, and that’s not good - that’s the prima facie misinformation I’m talking about here. I agree it would have been better if news outlets like the NYT didn’t regurgitate things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as factual, but that will happen when the intelligence community is…

The fallacy is that there will be no objective classification of what is considered misinformation. Rather, it will be arbitrary. So you can't censor misinformation. You will censor information.

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

#656

Post by seanmcdirmid »

uoaei wrote: post #516
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be really really surprised if some comment so brazen wasn’t auto deleted on flagging. Saying you want someone to die is very straightforward reason to delete without much thought.

So you're just going to assume the problem doesn't exist because you'd be surprised if it did? There's skepticism, and then there's sticking your head in the sand...

You or I could run this test right now on Facebook. I suggest you just post a comment somewhere you in Facebook that you want some person or some group of people to die, it doesn’t really matter who, and measure the amount of time it takes for someone to flag it and have it deleted. This is just low hanging fruit, and completely unrelated to the immediate issue at hand.

My guess is that the original poster is leaving something out in their comment and the post wasn’t as brazen as the comment suggested.

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

#657

Post by uoaei »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #656
uoaei wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're just going to assume the problem doesn't exist because you'd be surprised if it did? There's skepticism, and then there's sticking your head in the sand...

You or I could run this test right now on Facebook. I suggest you just post a comment somewhere you in Facebook that you want some person or some group of people to die, it doesn’t really matter who, and measure the amount of time it takes for someone to flag it and have it deleted. This is just low hanging fruit, and completely unrelated to the immediate issue at hand. My guess is that the original poster is leaving…

You're literally just living in a fantasy world. "Trust me bro" has no power compared to actual studies.

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

#658

Post by bsaul »

ethanbond wrote: post #623
bsaul wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your point, however in this case i think it's important to pinpoint the hypocrisy of some people. You can't blame israel for oct 7, ask them to stop their ongoing operations in gaza, not call for the release of hostages, not say a word about the women raped by hamas and gaza civilians, AND pretend to "just want to spare the civilians population". Those people are in practice siding for the hamas, even if…

At the dialogue level, I don’t think it’s practical to require people to give a full accounting of every related topic while speaking on a subject. There are infinite facts that are related to any one fact. Anyone can win any argument by including one more related fact and saying “well without stating your opinion on this I can discard your opinion on that .” We’ll all get nowhere. At the actual substance level, I al…

I think you grant protesters far too much common sense. What i'm saying isn't theoretical : as a recent example, here in paris a feminist movement protesting in support of palestinians women under bombing explicitly rejected from the march women that came to protest against the raping of israelis women ( and hostages ).

Another recent example in Paris as well is the number of people removing "free the hostages" posters in the streets.

And i won't even mention twitter..

This isn't something i've imagined, it's the sad reality. Those people are actively hostile to israelis even if that means supporting the most terrible atrocities commited by hamas.

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

#659

Post by dang »

zo1 wrote: post #602
dang wrote: 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].…

Honestly Dang, just from casual browsing and happening across your "dont do this" responses, it does seem like you chaotically jump in. I can't discern a specific pattern, other than it being a bit too quick on the draw. But that's maybe just me being more okay with flamey discussions.

This is probably because applying the site guidelines involves interpretation, both of the guidelines and of the comments they apply to. Everyone interprets these things differently.

I'm not too concerned when people disagree about particular moderation calls, since that's inevitable, especially in borderline cases. I am more concerned that people understand the underlying principles and try to abide by them.

Post reply on HN