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

#791

Post by boston_clone » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 1:04 PM UTC

SgtBastard wrote: post #780

boston_clone wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Desmond Tutu alleges "much like what happened to us black people in South Africa": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.is...

Irish President accuses Israel of war crimes: https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-irelands-sinn-fein-on-the...

UN Representatives from South Africa, UK, and India author report on war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mi...

Israel's Attorney General accuses state of apartheid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel#Accusation...

Then-VP Biden criticizes settlements in east Jerusalem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/0...

...and similar statements from an EU High Representative: https://www.consilium.europa.eu//uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressd...

US Department of State report on racism / discrimination: https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

UK MP compares actions to Nazi Germany: https://www.jta.org/2009/01/16/global/mp-kaufman-likens-isra...

Ergodan describes enacted laws as Zionist, fascist: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-...

South African cabinet minister "That is what apartheid and Israel have in common": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.is...

That should be a sufficient sample to show this viewpoint is not isolated to only NGOs or one geographic area, and the variance in time should highlight how long this commonly-held recognition has been stated publicly by elected officials.

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

#792

Post by selfmodruntime » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 1:38 PM UTC

cultofmetatron wrote: post #772

bsaul wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

These are the realities of war. There are no good guys in war.

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

#793

Post by matt-attack » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 1:38 PM UTC

coolhand2120 wrote: post #763

abeppu wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's borderline abusive. A message is not spam just because you don't want to see it. A good faith expression of a viewpoint in an appropriate context is not spam. If Meta is doing a bad job picking stuff for your feed, flagging other people's comments or posts inappropriately is not the answer. In the same way, it would be abusive for me to flag your response just because I didn't enjoy it.

Is that not the actual definition of spam? Unwanted solicitation? Why would it matter what the content of the message is?

Wow I really can’t believe this is an argument you’re trying to make. Spam is something entirely distinct from “any content I disagree with or didnt ask to see”. That’s kind of a preposterous take and a grievous misunderstanding of the internet.

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

#794

Post by cultofmetatron » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 2:10 PM UTC

selfmodruntime wrote: post #792

cultofmetatron wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

These are the realities of war. There are no good guys in war.

by that logic, hamas aren't the bad guys either. hamas is lambasted as a terrorist origanization because they dont' differentiate between military targets and civilians. the IDF seems to make no distinction either yet we dont' call them for what they are.

I wonder why that is

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

#795

Post by corimaith » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

boston_clone wrote: post #791

SgtBastard wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Desmond Tutu alleges "much like what happened to us black people in South Africa": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/06/southafrica.is... Irish President accuses Israel of war crimes: https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-irelands-sinn-fein-on-the... UN Representatives from South Africa, UK, and India author report on war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mi... Israel's Attorney…

Many of these examples have external or ideological reasons to do so though. Criticising Israel has no costs while supporting them has costs, but I would imagine that most of them are not going to put actual policy with consequences with that. If anything, they'd be more than enthusiatic to work with Israel when the question of a trade deal or security agreements come up.

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

#796

Post by mgraczyk » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 3:19 PM UTC

two_in_one wrote: post #773

mgraczyk wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes it would be easy, but when I worked there it didn't exist.

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

#797

Post by alternative_a » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #770

alternative_a wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me see how this works: For Palestinians to say the want to be “free from river to sea” means the “genocide of Israelis”. But, amazingly but unsurprisingly, for Israelis to say they want to be “free of Palestinians” (who happen to currently be in part in the area “from river to sea”) it does not mean “genocide of Palestinians”. This must be Schroedinger’s genocide. Now you see it now you don’t. Amazing. A conversa…

> For Palestinians to say the want to be “free from river to sea” means the “genocide of Israelis”. Yes. > But, amazingly but unsurprisingly, for Israelis to say they want to be “free of Palestinians” Who says that? And more importantly, who does that? Arabs are 20% of Israel population. They have full citizenship rights. Nobody tries to be "free" of them in any way or form. I mean, there are probably people that dre…

TLDR:

“‘Pre-emotive genocide’ is not genocide”.

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

#798

Post by faeriechangling » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #750

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.

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 sup…

There is a "Greater Israel" movement worth taking seriously, not because they have as much popular support as "From the River to the Sea" on the streets or in the campuses, but more because of the people who believe in this notion in the halls of power.

People have called for the seizure of "Greater Israel" since Israel's founding[1]. The "Movement for Greater Israel"[2] was one of the parties that merged together to form the ruling Likud Party, and the president of Israel pulled out a map showing "The New Middle East" only having Israel and no longer having Palestine [3]. You know, the one who just invaded "Greater Israel".

My square deal, is if "From the River to the Sea" gets banned as hate speech, Netanyahu's map also gets banned as hate speech. Nobody is allowed to promote the idea that Israel takes over Palestine, or Palestine takes over Israel. It's not fair if we ban things in one direction and not the other. Allow both or neither.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel#During_British_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Greater_Israel [3] https://i.redd.it/x68dg51jb0qb1.jpg

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

#799

Post by ignoramous » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

reissbaker wrote: post #784

ignoramous wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subjugati…

My statement is from 2023 and is the current state of affairs. Your source from 2021 does not include: 1. An actual statement 2. That was ever enacted FYI, what you are referring to is actually a proposal from Fatah to hold elections in 2021, and a promise from Hamas not to run. Hamas backed out of the agreement and ended up submitting candidates to run, despite briefly claiming they wouldn't, and according to Marwan…

> My statement is from 2023...

GP started off with something from 2004! Glad we are making progress with timelines here, if nothing else.

Speaking of 2023 statements, the ruling party in Israel democratically elected for 2 decades now, have made it abundantly clear that they'll continue to thwart any attempts at 2SS (https://archive.is/34Sg0) because 'security of the only democracy in the Middle East is at stake'. Apartheid? Yes, for security. Siege? Aiwa, security. Bombing Syria and Iran? Also, security. I'd like to smoke what they are in Knesset to be this drunk on conflict and war. And for the majority to continue to vote them in, because 'security', is telling. The result is, Kahanists are now elected ministers; but God forbid Pals elect 'terrorists'...

> Hamas backed out of the agreement and ended up submitting candidates to run

I don't see a single mention of Hamas in the 2021 roster: https://www.elections.ps/tabid/1163/language/ar-PS/Default.a... The Wikipedia page you linked to merely points out a former Hamas leader was running under a new party.

> Your article's claim that it was due to "heavy pressure" from the United States and Israel is unsourced

Abu Mazen is a puppet. No reason to believe he cancelled the elections despite ALL other factions (some 25+) wanting one. He most certainly can't do so without the support of whoever funds his little fiefdom. It is a forgone conclusion, as people say.

> Hamas was running and any pretense that they would step aside was gone.

I mean, you state that there hasn't been an actual statement (see below) but also claim it is all a ruse all in the space of 3 paragraphs...

  The full minutes of the talks were published in an official Emirati document. In essence, the message of the Hamas leadership was clear: "If you in Fatah are convinced that you can get a state from Israel along the 1967 lines through negotiations, go for it. We will not interfere."

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

#800

Post by bsaul » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 7:03 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #790

bsaul wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the israeli-arab conflict in general triggers extraordinary responses in the public opinion is another issue. i don't have any definitive answer on that. The troubling part is that women are killed almost the same day in the same region, in the same conflict, and i'd even say only the israli ones got targeted as women on purpose and raped. And yet they chose to protest exclusively for the other side.

> i don’t have any definitive answer on that You should consider asking a few people and actually listening to their answers instead of accusing them of being pro-rape for failing to mention your topics of choice in the same breath. A lot of people end up with beliefs and attitudes by sheer inertia of those around them and will accordingly have bad answers. Some people don’t though, and they’re the ones who you can b…

I notice you still haven't given me any plausible reason. What's the "strong version" then ?

the "definitive answer" was for the global historical interest on the israel/arab conflict. But once again, this is another issue than what we were talking about.