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

681–690 of 903 posts

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

#681

Post by hutzlibu »

Chris2048 wrote: post #674
hutzlibu wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is not the frontpage by definition anymore, if one has to click "next" ..

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

#682

Post by mgraczyk »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #679
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 Palest…

That's bad too

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

#683

Post by baobabKoodaa »

krembo wrote: post #667
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need to understand that the U.S. does not own the whole world and there are other countries besides the U.S. I know it may be shocking for you to hear, but those other countries have drawn the "freedom of speech line" differently than the U.S. Calling Muhammad a pedophile (even if factually correct) is not legal in many parts of the world. Because, as I said, it is faceless bureaucrats who are drawing the line on what can be said and what can't. And that's not a good thing. Why do you place so much faith in faceless bureaucrats?

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

#684

Post by baobabKoodaa »

filoleg wrote: post #661
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The people who advocate for censorship based on political opinions never stop at "censor genocide". They also want to censor a huge list of non-genocidal things. And my point is that these people don't seem to understand that they would not personally be able to make those case by case decisions - instead it's faceless bureaucrats who tow the party line.

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

#685

Post by drawkward »

krembo wrote: post #536
sarafiq wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the phrase "from the river to the sea" is hateful to many but when it comes to disrespect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or Quran then it becomes freedom of speech no matter a vast majority of world population hates it. Hypocrisy to say the least!

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?

You do a lot of hand waving to equate "from the river to the sea" with support for genocide.

It certainly could indicate support for genocide. It also could indicate extreme disapproval for the vastly disproportionate civilian death toll among Palestinians at the hands of Isreal in the wake of Hamas' attacks.

It appears to me that Israel's goal under Netanyahu is to suppress dissent, and label all those who oppose its actions as "genocidal" to therefore justify its indiscriminate violence against the people of Gaza.

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

#686

Post by mvuijlst »

filoleg wrote: post #664
slim wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

If you feel you need to go back that far it's perhaps a good idea to compare the way Jews and Christians were treated in Muslim countries with the way Jews were treated in Europe.

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

#687

Post by drawkward »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #679
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 Palest…

Furthermore, a soverign Israel "from the river to the sea" was a founding tenet of Israel's Likud party, of which Netanyahu is a member.

It is no longer an explicit goal of Likud.

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

#688

Post by sudosysgen »

mikrotikker wrote: post #601
sudosysgen wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Iskander missile has a 1500lb warhead. Compare the number of deaths it causes to the number of deaths a single unguided Israeli bomb causes in Gaza when it hits a populated building, and you will soon realize that the guidance is not the determining factor here, it's just the mass of explosives.

24000 bombs dropped and hamas says 20000 dead. That's less than 1 bomb per death.

Because people left. Of course, if you bomb an empty building few will die. We're not looking at averages here, we're looking at single incidents that caused many deaths.

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

#689

Post by mvuijlst »

welzel wrote: post #634

Sometimes i feel that reporters should be needed to add a basic statistical analysis before they are allowed to claim something like censorship. How much content is posted every day on meta? How many content removal decisions are taken every day by meta? Hint: Over 1 billion Stories are posted every day. So even if 1049 content removals would happen on a single day - but this "evidence" is collected over a much longe…

Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_for... etc.

Does the existence of these Wikipedia articles now mean that I can call any information put out by Israel or the United States "biased content" and just disregard it?

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

#690

Post by bitcharmer »

lelanthran wrote: post #608
arnavpraneet wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, wishing for the ceasing-of-existence of an apartheid state is considered justified by most of the world.

> 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?

This is not a hyperbole. It's the current state of affairs
Post reply on HN