Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims • Hacker News Board

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

#771

Post by tety » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 6:36 AM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #705

tety wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

Sure slavery and racism is a huge part of it, but don't forget it's called 'the confederacy'. You can't claim this is constructed afterwards when it's plainly in the name

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

#772

Post by cultofmetatron » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 6:51 AM UTC

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.

> yes the problem is most likely that a lot of people have become hamas's defenders recently for some incomprehensible reasons.

when the "good guys" indiscriminately kill over 15000 children in the span of two months, I dunno what you expect but its certainly not "uncomprehensible"

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

#773

Post by two_in_one » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 8:19 AM UTC

mgraczyk wrote: post #643

two_in_one wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people now refrain from using the word "Palestine" to avoid metas algirithms It wasn't algorithm, or glitch, or bug. It was a decision made by humans, including you know who. It's a form of crowd control. That's why it's important to have several channels for 'producers'. For others it's a good idea to have several sources. You'll see much more even if each source represents a single side (which is usually the case…

It's difficult for anyone who doesn't work there to know, but I would guess based on what I know of how ranking decisions are made that you are mistaken. For example I worked there prior to the 2020 election and on Instagram there was no specific ranking rule of any kind related to keywords like that, and no intentional bias to push up one side or another in any way, outside of ads and government officials.

Your system, including subsystems, must have a filter for prohibited words, like n-word, f-word, etc. It's very easy to add another one. That could be another subsystem which very few people have access to. I suspect there are different subsystems. One strait with explanations, another shadow without. The second is something nobody talks about in public as it's difficult to explain, may be even illegal. The same way unwanted talks are being suppressed on other portals. Note, it's independent of recommendations system, which can be played with by assigning scores to words and phrases. Engineers who build those systems don't need to know how exactly they are used and what are the key words.

I can give you a first hand example. One big sh*ty bank didn't let me see my accounts if I refused to activate a debit card. After login they showed a message box, when I pressed 'cancel' they logged me out hoping I will 'click through' to get access. This way they didn't have to explain and could claim it was a bug. It lasted for months till I closed all accounts and they confirmed, but actually didn't do it. What I mean by this is don't expect big company to play nice.

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

#774

Post by krembo » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 9:02 AM UTC

cultofmetatron wrote: post #696

krembo wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If they need to go thru checkpoints then they are not trespassing their territory. literally 2 seconds of googling can disprove that https://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/checkpoints_and_... > If they need to go thru checkpoints then they are not trespassing their territory. if there was just one checkpoint between gaza and israel, yes that would be accurate but its not. last I checked, Mexicans don't have to…

Regardless to that btselem is an opinionated pro-palestinian organization, at least from the first 3 examples in the source they show biased information. The cities they mention and Hebron in particular, is divided between Israel and the Palestinian Authority by the 1996 agreements. From the nature of such division to get directly from one point to another might be impossible in some roads, yet there are other roads leading to same point, so no 2 points are totally disconnected.

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

#775

Post by krembo » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 9:05 AM UTC

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #683

krembo wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, if something is factually true it should not be disallowed to be said, right? But calling for the death of others should be, again, right?

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

#776

Post by krembo » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 9:08 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #548

krembo wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you flag something as flamewar and can you openly show how both sides are affected? Because the feeling of some seems that you are abit biased.

Mostly it's whether I see accounts breaking the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . That includes swipes, putdowns, name-calling, ideological/political/nationalistic battle rather than curious conversation, fulmination, cross examination, repeating internet tropes or talking points, and so on. I don't know what you mean by "openly show how both sides are affected". That's a tricky busi…

Thank you for your sincere answer. Yet it would be great to have more lights shed on the administrative decisions in HN, like when replies are flagged or when the algorithm is manually adjusted by admins for some content.

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

#777

Post by frabcus » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 9:14 AM UTC

mgraczyk wrote: post #645

Joeri wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel a deep discomfort with algorithms optimizing for “engaging” content like this. It feels to me like a form of algorithmic brainwashing, capturing people in filter bubbles. I would prefer it if there were laws against platforms making visibility decisions for the user. If people choose to be in a bubble, that’s a form of personal freedom, if an unknowable algorithm chooses for them, not so much.

Most people on Meta's product follow too many accounts to see everything everyone posts. In an alternate reality where ranking is illegal, the game would be different and worse. Accounts would just repost the same content over and over every few minutes to stay at the top of the feed, or some other strategy to get distribution.

Right but users could be given prominent ways to deal with this - eg tools and buttons to (in bulk at first) unfollow people.

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

#778

Post by paulmd » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 9:26 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #748

paulmd wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

Godspeed

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

#779

Post by ignoramous » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 10:04 AM UTC

reissbaker wrote: post #761

ignoramous wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I feel like you missed the part where the official Hamas spokesman called for permanent war.

You miss the part where Hamas was ready to step aside, as recently as 2021, if it meant a political agreement could be reached over the establishment of the Palestinian state: https://www.972mag.com/hamas-fatah-elections-israel-arroganc...

Anyhow, after Hamas is gone like we are promised, let's see what new excuses crop up (like, 'all Pal civilians are Nazis' is already gathering some steam) to continue the subjugation of the Palestinians.

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

#780

Post by SgtBastard » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 10:24 AM UTC

boston_clone wrote: post #647

SgtBastard wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "the rest of the world in general is very much against what Israel is and has been doing. The casual admission that support of war crimes / apartheid..." The "rest of the world" in general supports a ceasefire in the Gaza strip as evidenced by recent UN votes. I'm not aware of any Anglosphere, European or Asian nation describing Israel's actions as either war-crimes or perpetuating apartheid. While I'm happy to be…

The majority of the UN has consistently recognized and attempted to resolve what Israel is doing, as evidenced by their voting history in the years (decades?) prior to the events of the last few months. For your situational awareness, sarge - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes Don’t just downvote; lmk what you think!

I didn't downvote you but I can see why you were - your Wikipedia article doesn't support your argument - the strongest point it makes is that the UN HRC has an enquiry into Israel's actions.

There's several references to various NGOs calling for action against Israel but as we've seen recently at the Harvard and other Ivy's, that's deeply murky territory.

That's very, very far away from your claim that the rest of the world generally accepts that Israel is committing war crimes and instituting apartheid. To repeat, its well established that the rest of the world generally (and increasingly) supports a humanitarian ceasefire in the region.