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

731–740 of 903 posts

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

#731

Post by anigbrowl »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #543
anigbrowl wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all you have are unguided rockets, you're going to point them wherever they're most likely to hit something. If/when you have guidance systems, you can afford to be selective and concentrate on high value targets. That's how it goes in asymmetric warfare.

>high value targets Such as places with a lot of civilians yes

No. In asymmetric warfare civilians are targeted partly for animus but mostly because of accessibility. Poorer security places extra pressure on the enemy government which makes it easier to destabilize over time, in theory. In the case of unguided missiles it's natural to point them at wherever the infrastructure is dense.

If you have the resources to be selective, it's much more attractive to hit specific targets like military facilities or political figures/institutions. Terrorist attacks are more often perpetrated against civilians nowadays because political/military targets are so hardened that assassinations are difficult.

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

#732

Post by anigbrowl »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #572
anigbrowl wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with that. Looking at a map I see plenty of room for 2 states to exist; nobody is going to get everything they want.

Plenty of room where exactly? On one side of the map is the river, on the other side of the map is the sea, and you want free Palestina to get the land "from the river to the sea".

As I said, neither side will get all that they want. Taking slogans as literal negotiation positions isn't realistic. All wars end in compromises even when one side capitulates.

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

#733

Post by incrudible »

alternative_a wrote: post #708
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…

> The two blue lines are RIVERS. One in Egypt the other in Iraq.

This sounded suspicious to me, and brief research shows it to be untrue.

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

#734

Post by baobabKoodaa »

anigbrowl wrote: post #732
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of room where exactly? On one side of the map is the river, on the other side of the map is the sea, and you want free Palestina to get the land "from the river to the sea".

As I said, neither side will get all that they want. Taking slogans as literal negotiation positions isn't realistic. All wars end in compromises even when one side capitulates.

Fair enough

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

#735

Post by dang »

aspenmayer wrote: post #714
dang wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I'd like to know which HN post you're talking about, so I can say exactly what happened. > 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. So, what happened? Edit: I can't even click the link on the post you mentioned. Is that normal? That seems especially suspect and somewhat closer to censoring opposing views than I've come to ex…

It was simply flagged by a lot of users.

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

#736

Post by dang »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #702
dang wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Ok, but it doesn't change the moderation point about swipes. Commenters here need to edit them out* because they move conversations flameward and evoke worse from others. As one can always make one's substantive points without resorting to them, this shouldn't be a problem.

* This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

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

#737

Post by bsaul »

ethanbond wrote: post #700
bsaul wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe 3/ those people are caught in their own self contradictions. They hate israel so much that they're actually sorting between women that got killed for the wrong reasons and women that got killed and raped because they somehow deserved it. Which is an absolutely horrible stance for a feminist organization. But that's where ideology leads to.

Did they say that? Or are you just assuming?

Now of course they're never going to say it out loud (hence the hypocrisy). But that's the only logical conclusion for them never organizing anything for the women that got raped and murdered on oct 7, and rejecting the ones that did.

Do you see any other explanation ?

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

#738

Post by faeriechangling »

danenania wrote: post #610
faeriechangling wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem taking down "From the river to the sea" type content so long as we also take down Greater Israel type content.

Having social media companies attempting to guess at the intention behind ambiguous phrases seems like a bad idea. Some people are certainly implying support for genocide when they say "from the river to the sea", while others are not. Same for "Greater Israel". The only sane place to draw the line imo is at explicit support for hatred or violence. Even that standard can be fuzzy, but if there's a reasonable doubt ab…

Moderation isn’t so clean-cut that elegant rules like “no EXPLICIT support”. You’ll have people who spend all day ducking around these rules to say IMPLICITLY hateful things and it’ll cause a furor over legitimate grievances with the moderation.

I recall back during the furor over drawing Mohammad peoppe an extremist Muslim group said about Matt stone/trey Parker that they "will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh". Is allowing that sort of speech, what appears to be a death threat in response to free expression, protecting free speech? Or is it enabling a culture of self-censorship due to fears of violent reprisals? Things are complicated, you must be flexible.

In this case, I want to be reasonable. I have heard people use “from the river to the sea” in hateful ways many times. People seem legitimately upset by it and are not just putting on airs. It doesn’t advance the discourse in a productive way.

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

#739

Post by ethanbond »

bsaul wrote: post #737
ethanbond wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they say that? Or are you just assuming?

Now of course they're never going to say it out loud (hence the hypocrisy). But that's the only logical conclusion for them never organizing anything for the women that got raped and murdered on oct 7, and rejecting the ones that did. Do you see any other explanation ?

What about their failure to organize a protest for the women of Ukraine? Or the women of Darfur? Or what about for the men in Gaza?

This is not a rhetorical question. I am curious what you make of this. What do you “know” about their opinions based on their failures to organize such demonstrations?

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

#740

Post by faeriechangling »

bsaul wrote: post #584
faeriechangling wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall PLENTY of "The west deserved 9/11 due to imperialism" sentiments, although not people who actually supported Osama Bin Laden. I see similar sentiments around this war all the time, "Israel deserved this terrorist attack due to imperialism" but again really not much actual support for Hamas.

It's often accompanied by cheerful comments whenever an israeli soldier dies in gaza, killed by hamas. I think it's pretty clear those people are on the terrorists side on this war.

I think the sentiment is more that Israel fucked around and found out. It’s less that Hamas is good and more that Hamas was inevitable given Israel’s conduct.

Back from that time, George W Bush literally said you are either with us or you are with the terrorists, so I feel people are pretty inoculated against allegations that they are supporting the terrorists if they don’t support the military force fighting terrorists. The “America deserved 9/11” crowd generally believes Bin Laden did 9/11 to provoke the Americans into attacking so as to create more terrorists and weaken America. This was supported by how the GWOT kept creating more terrorists after every new counter insurgency operation.

This isn’t maybe, a totally unbiased way to see things, but the point is that the sentiment generally isn’t “Hamas is great because they kill the IDF”, the sentiment is more commonly “Screw that soldier, they’re a pawn that is playing into the hands of Hamas”.

Post reply on HN