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

741–750 of 903 posts

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

#741

Post by wernercd »

pydry wrote: post #575
wernercd wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that you call "from the river to the sea" a creative misinterpretation... then push something that's way more of a creative interpretation of "genocide". Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't? Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you se…

>I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. From the book of samuel. Not coincidentally, putting death to women, children and infants is what they are currently doing - in…

"vast numbers" if Israel wanted to kill everyone? They're doing a piss poor job of it. The number of bombs they've dropped vs kill counts are less than 1 death per bomb and they could EASILY do a "better" job if their goal was to kill all "women, children, cattle, sheep".

"they're fairly open" they also drop leaflets, tell people to leave and have given more warning than any other country would do given a remote bombing campaign.

They give more warning than the terrorists did on Oct 7th.

"on the more racist side" "aNyThInG I DiSaGrEe WiTh Is RaCiSt" /eyeroll

People like you are why the claims of "racism" and "nazi" mean nothing. When everything is LITERALLY racism then nothing is.

You're clearly unable to have a real conversation. Freedom will not happen for Palestinians until terrorists like hamAss'oles are removed.

It is clear what Israel wants - safety from terrorists - and they, unlike "Palestine" have in the past been willing to work towards a 2 state solution. We are in the situation we are currently in because "Palestine" refused previous offers and instead elected terrorists into power. No freedom is possible until those hamAss'ole terrorists are gone.

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

#742

Post by zappb »

oa335 wrote: post #668
tety wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He explained what an apartheid state looks like: South Africa during Apartheid and the US prior to the civil rights era.

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

#743

Post by mpweiher »

bsaul wrote: post #578
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…

yes the problem is most likely that a lot of people have become hamas's defenders recently for some uncomprehensible reasons. Like finding them justifications, or supporting them on the ongoing war. It's pretty insane if you think about. I remember some people in the arab world took side for ben laden on 9/11 but this time it's happening in the west too.

> a lot of people have become hamas's defenders recently for some uncomprehensible reasons

Jonathan Haidt explains:

Why Antisemitism Sprouted So Quickly on Campus

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/antisemitism-on-campus

The interesting thing is that the explanation largely preceded these events, he and Greg Lukianoff documented this in their 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind.

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

#744

Post by tmnvix »

krembo wrote: post #525
mongol wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

No hateful intention needed if the statement is interpreted as not wanting the state of Israel to exist without implying that the people governed by that state should also not exist (it's not even a contradiction to also hold the opinion that those people have a right to exist exactly where they currently do). To my mind that is actually a reasonable opinion to have given the objectively harmful behaviour of the Israeli state (not that I am willing to get on board with it).

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

#745

Post by wernercd »

oa335 wrote: post #507
wernercd wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that you call "from the river to the sea" a creative misinterpretation... then push something that's way more of a creative interpretation of "genocide". Why is "Amalek" a call to genocide (remove the others from our land) but "from the rivers to the sea" (remove the others form our land) isn't? Trying to take you at face value, I looked into what Amalek is and tried to find something more unbiased than you se…

Netanyahu’s governments coalition agreement explicitly states that the Jewish people have an exclusive right on all the land” between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. How would you interpret that? https://www.axios.com/2022/12/29/israel-netanyahu-far-right-...

I would interpret it as a stance and balance it against the fact that Israel - including Net - has been willing to negotiate a 2 state solution in the past. Solutions that "Palestine" refused. Which is why we are in the situation we are in today. Because one side has refused all attempts.

Remember... hamAss'oles were founded with a charter that denies Israel's right to exist and has been designated a terrorist organization by... well... the entire world. Oh, they are in charge of Gaza.

And just FYI... your biased article? laughable. Try something less blantatly biased.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/19/1213797712/israels-lack-of-a-...

"In a 2022 interview, Netanyahu admitted he was offering Palestinians something far short of political equality. "I don't hide that for a minute. I say it openly," he said. Palestinians are just as open that they aren't interested."

Both sides have to be willing to negotiate... and it's clear that Net has to keep the security of Israel in mind and it's also clear that Palestine isn't interested in solutions. remember - not my words. Clear history.

Also in article: Israel has been working on peace in the region without "Palestine". Was working towards peace with surrounding nations. Also was trying to bring "Palestine" prosperity and it was looking good until Oct 7th when terrorists do what terrorists do.

Now we see the consequences. Do terrorist things and get responses.

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

#746

Post by tmnvix »

ChatGTP wrote: post #587

Hamas is a terrorist organization, apparently backed by Iran, and are constantly spreading misinformation online, this is why it's censored? I sometimes open "The Guardian" and the amount of times they quote "The Gaza Health Ministry", which would be no more trust worthy than the North Korean or Chinese health ministry, is fucking ridiculous. If people thought about thing more critically then we wouldn't have to sens…

> Hamas is a terrorist organization

You seem to be making the mistake that many do and conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people. The article is not about posts in support of Hamas.

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

#747

Post by stefantalpalaru »

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?

[dead]

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

#748

Post by chiefalchemist »

paulmd wrote: post #420
chiefalchemist wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech is drastically compromised when there's a lower and lower ceiling of freedom of thought. Meta or any platform limiting speech is a 2x "win" because it also limits further proliferation of such ideas. That is, people can't think what they aren't aware of. People can't change their minds when the alternatives are limited.

Even here there are some thoughts you are not allowed to voice. And I’m not just talking about violence/etc but calling out ideas too vigorously etc will get you censored here too. “Flamewar style” is the trope used to justify it. and in general this site also has a massive trend of people who are losing a debate leaning in to rules-lawyering as a means of suppressing disagreement etc. “sorry sir you’re not allowed t…

I do agree with your synopses of HN. It's good and exceptional, until it's not. Then it drops of the cliff of being sound and reasonable.

Regardless, I remain fearless. That is, down votes don't stop me from expressing myself. In fact, often enough the DVs are vindication in the sense I know they didn't take the time to consider the idea(s). "This doesn't fit my oversimplified paradigm...down vote!!!" The actusl possible merit of the idea never given a chance.

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

#749

Post by smsm42 »

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…

Yes, it is convenient for potential victims of genocide that calling for genocide of those people is considered calling for genocide. It's also true. "From the river to the sea" is calling for the genocide of Israel population. It was known before, and Hamas proudly demonstrated it just now, there can not be any misunderstanding what they meant.

The lines on the flag have zero to do with rivers, it's a symbolic representation of a talith, a prayer garment, which can be seen in any synagogue. Try to get a bit of factual information before you go around spreading nonsense.

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

#750

Post by smsm42 »

faeriechangling wrote: post #490
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 have no problem taking down "From the river to the sea" type content so long as we also take down Greater Israel type content.

I don't remember a single instance of a mass protest on campus or in the streets, in US or in Europe or in Israel, where the protestors would demand that Israel occupies Egypt, Iraq and Syria, throw their population into the sea (or into the desert) and establish a Judaic theocracy on the freshly liberated land. I can believe that whatever is meant by "Greater Israel" among 8 billions of people would be some that support that idea, because any crazy idea can find a person crazy enough to support it. However, comparing this idea to the level of support slogans like "from the river to the sea" enjoy right now - with thousands openly proclaiming them, and on many campuses also proceeding to attack Jewish students under them - is just non-sensical. There's no "Greater Israel" movement worth talking about seriously - but there's very much movement in support of genocide of Jews, and it's very visible and prominent.
Post reply on HN