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

671–680 of 903 posts

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

#671

Post by krembo »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #573
tety wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what makes it an apartheid state? palestinians have no voting rights in all the neighboring arab states, yet a large amount of them do in israel. and if they don’t in Israel they have voting rights for the palestinian authority

I don't know if this is intentionally obtuse but its TRIVIALLY easy to find examples and journalistic documentaries demonstrating the apartheid going back years just of the top of my head, there are already seperate roads that palestinians are not allowed to go on. palestinians have to go through multiple checkpoints just to travel within their own territory. palestinians are tried in a separate military court with a…

If they need to go thru checkpoints then they are not trespassing their territory. If that's the definition for apartheid then the US border control with Mexico should be taken down for second thoughts.

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

#672

Post by Qiu_Zhanxuan »

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…

Seems you haven't read the actual report, HRW clearly points inconsistencies in the application of Meta's policies that amounts to censorship of any support to Palestine.

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

#673

Post by Qiu_Zhanxuan »

reissbaker wrote: post #474
abeppu wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the actual report, I really disagree with your assessment. It sounds like there's a bunch of nonsense in there where Meta is _not_ living up to its own policies, and is flagging stuff disingenuously. > Human Rights Watch also found repeated inaccurate application of the “adult nudity and sexual activity” policy for content related to Palestine. In every one of the cases, we reviewed where this policy was i…

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,…

To be honest, anybody professionally well versed in the question of apartheid and human's right would be in favor of a BDS campaign against an apartheid state.

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

#674

Post by Chris2048 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #570
Chris2048 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mechanism of downvoting is supposed to remove low quality posts. If someone if uncivil, downvote or flag them. Soon enough they'll get the hint or be warned. > others don't want all that flame war here That doesn't make sense. If you don't want to participate, then ignore the post. actively preventing others participating is something else - I think "censor" is more appropriate in that case.

Well, the space on the front page is limited. And there are lots of other controversial topics - potentially taking all the space. And some want only technical topics or mainly technical. So "curating" is more appropriate I think. (But personally I did participate ... so much that I am rate limited again)

the front page isn't limited. Hit "next" and you see as many more posts as you like. Most front-page posts are tech related, we are far from being overrun with controversial posts.

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

#675

Post by cogman10 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #650
cogman10 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, so do you have examples of what I should be watching out for? (Preferably with links)

If you can’t see bad behavior on both sides when it’s pretty obvious here, I’m not sure it’s worth my time providing specifics. I suspect it’ll just be explained away. “From the River to the Sea,” for example. Just wink nod “that’s not what it means”

> If you can’t see bad behavior on both sides when it’s pretty obvious here

You are making a positive claim that I don't see as obvious. I don't even doubt that there's some calls for genocide, I just doubt it's every pro Palestinian post with more than 20 comments.

> From the River to the Sea

This is actually a good example of a non-genocidal statement being portrayed as one in bad faith. It's true that Hamas adopted this as their official slogan, but ultimately it's meaning goes beyond what Hamas adopts.

Quiet literally, the call is for Palestinians to have a say in government. Or a one state solution. Claiming it means "kill all the Jews" is an extreme stretch. Even in the most extreme views of this, it's a call for the end of the current state of Israel. That does not mean genocide for Jews any more than calling for the end of Hamas is a call to genocide Palestinians.

> Just wink nod “that’s not what it means”

That's the problem, any negative sentiment towards the current state of Israel is portrayed as "this is anti-Semitic". Israel is not jews and jews are not israel. Calling for a system where Palestinians have some say in their own governance is not anti-Semitic.

Further, as you can imagine just because a terrorist organization adopts a phrase does not mean the original or current meaning is what that terrorist organization is implying by it.

So I'll ask again, do you have examples of calls for genocide? Or is this the main one? If you asked 100 people who chant "from the river to the sea" would they all, most, or even many claim they are calling for the death of jews or genocide? I think not. That's a uncharitable view of what that phrase means. [1]

Do you think that when the Jewish voices for peace use the same slogan they are calling for genocide? [2]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-prote...

[2] https://twitter.com/JvpAction/status/1721368469428482523

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

#676

Post by Thuggery »

tarunupaday wrote: post #533
krembo wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

no i do not. as an example, it’s okay for a native american to argue that usa (my country) should not exist as long as that person is not advocating physical violence to do so.

Side debate: the USA "ceasing to exist" from the view of a native American, in a manner analogous to Palestinians, would be the status quo that already exists today. In opposition to a racially exclusive "white supremacy" manifest dystenity.

The USA already functions as a de facto One State solution where natives have both full rights and a negotiated sub-nationality too. The manifest destiny USA's "right to exist" was settled definitively against as early as 1865.

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

#677

Post by chaps »

reissbaker wrote: post #596
selcuka wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And please refrain from personal attacks. You are right. I had already edited my post before you posted your response. > I referenced the three Palestinian flags, not the heart emojis > members of Hamas can be deceased too. Maybe the girl is also fully-clothed These sound highly nitpicky and like hypotheses that are hard to justify (a Hamas terrorist raping and killing a woman, then getting killed himself and taken…

IDK — I just find it hard to believe that Instagram is intentionally censoring pro-Palestine posts that do not otherwise violate their policies, and the accusation is coming from an actor that is fairly biased and isn't releasing their underlying data. No doubt sometimes things get flagged incorrectly, e.g. the heart emojis — I didn't dispute those ones. But having personally seen the abuse of random Jewish accounts…

"Human Rights Watch solicited cases of any type of online censorship and of any type of viewpoint related to Israel and Palestine. Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 cases documented involved examples of online censorship and suppression of content in support of Palestine, while one case contained an example of removal of content in support of Israel."

Even ignoring the self-selection sampling issues here, .01% is not exactly something to just wave off.

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

#678

Post by boston_clone »

rightbyte wrote: post #655
boston_clone wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who professionally dealt in mis- and dis-information, I strongly disagree. It sounds as though you’re bending the definition to your own dystopian ideas.

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

#679

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

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…

The irony of banning the phrase, "From the river to the sea" is that in almost every Israeli school, there are maps on the wall that show Israel extending from the river to the sea.[0]

Greater Israel, extending from the river to the sea, with the Palestinians as stateless people with no rights, is a de facto reality, and has been for 56 years now.

0. This is a typical map. The only indication that there is any Palestinian territory at all is that the tiny "Area A" regions are in a different color. East Jerusalem and the vast majority of the West Bank are simply shown as belonging to Israel. https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9fb3beb756529713386cc...

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

#680

Post by drawkward »

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.

It isnt hateful in isolation. It could be hateful, it could also just represent a statement of solidarity with Palestinians or support for a two state solution.
Post reply on HN