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

701–710 of 903 posts

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

#701

Post by ignoramous »

reissbaker wrote: post #565
ignoramous wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. That was 2004. By 2017, their asks, for all intents and purposes, were the same as the PA: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...

Even their updated 2017 demands did not include peace with Israel if met. They offered only a ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders, not a permanent peace deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas Anyway, they've shown their true colors at this point; very different statements recently: > Since the shocking Hamas attack on Oct. 7, in which Israel says about 1,400 people were killed — most of them civilians — and mor…

> Even their updated 2017 demands did not include peace with Israel if met.

India doesn't have peace with Pakistan. Doesn't mean the 2 nuclear powers (similarly partitioned up by the British) are at perpetual war.

Hamas like PA accepts 2SS. It is expantionists in Israel that reject it. In fact, PA concedes to have a state on merely 19% of historic Palestine.

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

#702

Post by cool_dude85 »

dang wrote: post #521
selcuka wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Please make your substantive points without swipes such as "Again, you are making up things". This is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . When someone else's information is wrong, you're of course welcome to correct it, but please do so by providing correct information and omit swipes and other flamebait, which only degrade discussion and evoke worse from others. I know tha…

But it's not that the guy's "information is wrong", it's that he has produced some hypothetical examples of things that might be the case, but also might not.

"responding with a series of Palestinian flags to an Israeli hostage relative's post about their kidnapped sibling, for example, would be clear harassment and abuse."

This is a hypothetical. The poster is literally "making up things."

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

#703

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

drawkward wrote: post #687
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a principle of the ruling coalition (of which Likud is the leading party), and Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that he will never allow any Palestinian state between the river and the sea.

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

#705

Post by bjourne »

tety wrote: post #544
bjourne wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From what I've read about the American civil war is that all historians agree that the rebellion was about the right to hold slaves. The argument about federalisim is a narrative constructed afterwards to evoke sympathy for the rebels.

If not those who use the phase - and have been using it in exactly the same way for decades - can decide what it means, then who can? Should we apply the same argument to "pro choice" and agreee that that it is a call for premediated murder of infants because that is what the "pro life" crowd thinks?

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

#706

Post by bjourne »

ajmurmann wrote: post #475
bjourne wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the rules aren't applied fairly or evenly. See this example from twitter: https://twitter.com/PalestineNW/status/1738711045265392028

Three of those are religions and one of those is an ethnicity as well. One of those also has seen almost constant persecution during history. It's concerning that this needs to be pointed out

That's a lame excuse as if one writes "Fuck Druze" or "Fuck Yazids" Twitter does not add a warning. Besides, Christians have certainly been persecuted in Muslim countries and Muslims are certainly persecuted in Western countries.

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

#707

Post by BobaFloutist »

smt88 wrote: post #509
hipadev23 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The atmosphere is way to aligned to be real. I think it’s identical here on HN. Upvoting, downvoting, and using flagging to suppress contrary opinions is rampant and has a huge negative impact toward discussion. I think it’s just the topic du jour on HN is less escalated (usually opinions of tech choices) so it doesn’t seem as extreme.

> using flagging to suppress contrary opinions is rampant and has a huge negative impact toward discussion I've had showdead turned on for years and have rarely seen contrary opinions flagged, if ever. The main things I see flagged are personal attacks, open bigotry, flaming, etc. Occasionally I used to see anti-CCP comments flagged, but I haven't seen that in a while. I'd be interested to see some examples where you…

By that same token, the vast majority of downvoted comments I see are just...irritating. They're not usually overly bigoted, they're not more contrary than other, less irritating comments that aren't downvoted, they're just really annoying to read and engage with.

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

#708

Post by alternative_a »

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…

> For example, the phrase "from the river to the [sea]" is considered hateful by many, so it was taken down.

That’s convenient. Zionism, the ideology and its propaganda, “is considered hateful by many” too. Actually, that happy slogan of “from this body of water to that other body of water is all our precious” is shared by both parties. Israel’s flag even has it diagrammed in case you missed the slogans. The two blue lines are RIVERS. One in Egypt the other in Iraq. Believe me that many many find that “ambition” harboring “violent intent” one way or another and don’t like it.

So, Is Facebook really concerned about sensitive feelings of “many”?

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

#709

Post by [deleted] »

mvuijlst wrote: post #689
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?

[deleted]

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

#710

Post by canadiantim »

Aeolun wrote: post #498
canadiantim wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you provided the sources it would help to atleast have a productive discussion of the merits of that point of view. Without the sources it just sounds like you don't like right-wing politicians.

While that is true, I have found that quoting sources doesn’t particularly help unless people are already inclined to believe me, so it just wastes my time to find them every time. Might be cynical, but ultimately I don’t really believe I can change any minds just with a comment. If you ask why I make the comment in the first place then, that’s a good question.

That is quite understandable. I don't think you not wanting to waste your time finding sources is cynical. The part about not believing minds can be changed might be a bit cynical, but probably warranted given the state of online discourse today. I'd suggest tho not looking at it as trying to change anyone's mind so much as having just a productive discussion where all parties involved learn something, e.g. with sources being explicit there's prly details that would be learned on both sides. Anyway, happy holidays
Post reply on HN