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

661–670 of 903 posts

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

#661

Post by filoleg »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #574
krembo wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's make it simpler- disrespect for Muhamad is a disrespect to a religion based on crusades and a prophet who is a declared pedophile according to their scripts (married and had sex with Aisha when she was 6yo). Calling "from the river to the sea" is a call for genocide of the Jewish people. So, can you pick a side already of which of the calls is legit and which not?

Wow, you are openly advocating for speech to be allowed in cases where it is politically good and disallowed in cases where it is politically bad? And who's going to determine which speech is good and what's bad? It's not gonna be you, it's some bureaucrat who has a completely different idea of good and bad than you do. Why do you want that?

> Wow, you are openly advocating for speech to be allowed in cases where it is politically good and disallowed in cases where it is politically bad?

Not the person you are replying to, but I think the logic is a bit different than “is it politically good or bad.” It is more like “is this speech advocating for genocide of an ethnic group or is it just critical of/disrespectful to a religion.”

I think most people agree that those two things aren’t even close to being the same. Also, I don’t think that “talking negative about islam” has been a “politically good” thing in way over a decade.

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

#662

Post by dang »

sampo wrote: post #568
dang wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! But I didn't find a clear description there of how this works. What elevates an ordinary comment to a "community note" and what determines whether a "community note" stays up as a sort of verdict on the original post? This seems like a hard thing to get right at scale. If you rely on voting (i.e. likes or whatever), you'll just end up with a parallel comment system, no more authoritative than the original one…

Be a verified (by phone number, no need to pay) twitter user. Apply to be a Community notes contributor. Wait. If accepted, you start with 0 points. Twitter will start to show you proposed (as opposed to published) community notes. You can vote yes / no. If a note you voted yes (or no) will get enough other yes (no) votes to get published (rejected), you will get 1 point. If you voted "wrong", you will lose a point.…

Thank you! That's clear and interesting.

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

#663

Post by dang »

CommanderData wrote: post #557
dang wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barring some rare bug, I can say for sure that didn't happen. Posts on HN are never removed completely, except in cases when the person who posted it asks us to, and even then usually only if there weren't replies. Other than that, the most that happens is that a post gets killed, a.k.a. [dead] status, and any user who reads HN with the 'showdead' setting turned on in their profile can see those. I'd like to know whi…

I respect that you've commented. It was something I upvoted. I checked through my upvoted submissions at the time and could no longer find it which was a first for me as either would expect it to have been flagged or deleted but shown. I remember being a little shocked when it was on the front page and shortly after was not. I've checked again from <4 months. Wonder if anyone else can recall the URL - I just remember…

I wonder if you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38036236? You'd need to turn showdead on in your profile to see that one.

I'm pretty sure that the code that decides whether or not to display a [dead] post doesn't consider whether the user had upvoted the post before it became [dead]. Maybe it would be better if it did.

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

#664

Post by filoleg »

slim wrote: post #626
coryrc wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"peacefully" House to house, Arab mobs went, bursting into every room looking for hiding Jews. Religious books and scrolls were burned or torn to shreds. The defenseless Jews were variously beheaded, castrated, their breasts and fingers sliced off, and in some cases their eyes plucked from their sockets. Infant or adult, man or woman—it mattered not. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/134601

This is after colonization

Are you sure? Here is a direct quote:

> Islam had been at war with the Jewish people since its defining inception in 627 when Mohammad exterminated the Jews of Mecca and launched the Islamic conquest that swept north and subsumed Syria-Palestina. For centuries, Jews and Christians in Arab lands were allowed to exist as dhimmis, second-class citizens with limited religious rights. These restrictions were enforced by the Turks who, until World War I, ruled the geographically undetermined region known as Palestine, which included Jerusalem.

Seems quite pre-“colonialization”, assuming we count the establishment of the current state Israel in the 20th century as the startng point for that.

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

#665

Post by mongol »

Zetobal wrote: post #583
mongol wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean it was not hateful? War is not hateful?

It is about as hateful as zionism is hateful. It is an expression for the desire of land in this region.

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

#666

Post by edanm »

sudosysgen wrote: post #184
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 is greatly complicated by the fact that Israel materially supported Hamas and saw it as useful. Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. On the other hand, Israel is not facing good geopolitical headwinds. As Yemen demonstrated, they are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. One…

> Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack.

While there were gigantic failures that no one denies, possibly to the level of gross incompetence, Israel is also fighting against a real enemy, not some cartoon. Hamas is also smart, is increasingly well-armed, and can wait many years until the next attack. It's not clear that Israel can defend against every conceivable attack that Hamas can mount, and staying completely vigilant all the time is very costly economically, too. (I'll note that Hamas puts a lot of money and labor into these attacks, but they are pretty freely stealing from their people; the Israeli government can't do the same.)

It's true that, on its own, Hamas can't actually conquer Israel. But it can clearly carry out massive attacks that kill thousands and completely upend all life in Israel, and it's possible that they can keep doing this every couple of years.

> So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical.

Actually, Israel is on relatively good terms with all its Arab neighbors (relative to the past), and was on the verge of formalizing those good relations with Saudi Arabia. That's one of the reasons for this Hamas attack - to try and stop the Israeli-Arab peace process, because they feel (very likely correctly) that it leaves the Palestinians in a worse situation.

> It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli.

Well, they did elect Hamas and fairly quickly start to shoot rockets at Israel. And by that token they are also at war with Egypt.

Gaza isn't a fully independent country, obviously, but it's also not under full military occupation like it was before. People insisting on one or the other usually have a point that it helps them prove, but reality is more complicated.

I do believe that it is directionally true that Gazans could've made far more of their situation once Israel withdrew, and Hamas has basically squandered that opportunity by turning to violence.

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

#667

Post by krembo »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #574
krembo wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's make it simpler- disrespect for Muhamad is a disrespect to a religion based on crusades and a prophet who is a declared pedophile according to their scripts (married and had sex with Aisha when she was 6yo). Calling "from the river to the sea" is a call for genocide of the Jewish people. So, can you pick a side already of which of the calls is legit and which not?

Wow, you are openly advocating for speech to be allowed in cases where it is politically good and disallowed in cases where it is politically bad? And who's going to determine which speech is good and what's bad? It's not gonna be you, it's some bureaucrat who has a completely different idea of good and bad than you do. Why do you want that?

Again, this should be quite simple. You can criticize a pedophile prophey. You cannot call for genocide. IDK why it's so hard for you to get that.

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

#668

Post by oa335 »

tety wrote: post #612
cultofmetatron wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although this is a common perception, just the fact a human rights group declares something doesn't make it so. ok so I guess amnesty international isn't a good source on if something is an apartheid by your logic? > Case in point, Lebanon is a country where you cannot become president by law if you're not born from a specific Christian sect. This is a country where ethnic discrimination is codified into laws (and…

Generally I'll disengage as we're going in circles. But I'll say this, if you want to claim Israel is an 'apartheid state' or that a 'systematic extermination' is going on, you can't treat these as truisms and expect everyone to follow along. You need to assert your claims and be ready to defend them, "Amnesty said so" is not enough to define a government system, and I heard it somewhere in youtube is not enough to d…

I don’t think it’s fair to say he isn’t asserting his claims or defending them, it seems that you are just avoiding engaging. He literally provided documentation and links and you repeatedly dismissed them as “anecdotal “. When he provided overviews and summaries of the data (e.g HRW) you also dismissed them without engaging. What specifically does an apartheid state look to you?

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

#669

Post by krembo »

throw310822 wrote: post #619
lelanthran wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world. Any reason other than hyperbole that you consider Israel to be an apartheid state, as compared to the rest of the Arab countries?

It's absolutely pointless for us to discuss once again why Israel is considered to be practicing apartheid. It has been established by the major human rights organisations: among which Amnesty International, Human Right Watch, and in Israel, B'Tselem. That's all we need to know, if you don't agree contest those and their findings- which you can consult online.

[flagged]

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

#670

Post by ethanbond »

bsaul wrote: post #658
ethanbond wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" poste…

Okay let’s take the protest example. There are a few possible explanations.

1. These protestors are actually pro raping Israelis

2. These protestors want a single, specific priority for the protest they organized

And you believe not just that (1) is more likely, but that there’s so little possibility of (2) that you can just discard their entire perspective and accuse them of supporting rape of Israelis without even asking them?

What if a group of men’s rights activists showed up advocating for the men under bombardment? Would the protestors have been wrong to exclude them? Maybe! Arguably! But would their excluding those men’s rights activists have indicated that they are positively “okay with” or perhaps even supportive of the men of Gaza dying? Absolutely not.

That just seems blatantly dishonest. You don’t have the information you think you have.

To be clear: there are people who have the beliefs you’re talking about. Obviously (October 7th speaks for itself). I just think those people are far fewer than you’re perceiving, and it is absolutely necessary for people to be engaging with good criticisms on complex issues like this one with so many lives at stake.

Post reply on HN