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

871–880 of 903 posts

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

#871

Post by johnnyworker »

smsm42 wrote: post #853
johnnyworker wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, the defense minister is handing out assault rifles to West Bank Settlers but nobody really wants to be there. > Israel explicitly exited Gaza because it didn't want any responsibility for it. That is not how that works. As an occupying force they are obligated to protect the population they are occupying, not commit genocide on them. No amount of kicking up sand changes that very basic fact. It doesn't matter…

> As an occupying force they are obligated to protect the population they are occupying Israel hasn't been "an occupying force" in Gaza for 18 years. All those years Hamas explicitly renounced responsibility of doing anything for Gazans, as a normal government should - their functionaries, like Musa Abu Marzouk, openly said they are not going to do anything for the population, that's UN's business. Their business is…

Sure thing. They regularly "mow the lawn", they imposed calorie restrictions or things like spices, but they're not an occupying force.

> Despite the Israeli disengagement, the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and many human-rights organizations continue to consider Gaza to be held under Israeli military occupation, due to what they consider Israel's effective military control over the territory; Israel disputes that it occupies the territory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

They blow up up the Palestinian Supreme court and you claim "What Israel is doing is dismantling the Hamas regime. Nothing else."

https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17317722618482647...

That has as much to do with fighting Hamas as putting children into death camps had to do with fighting "Jews who control the media" or whatever.

You did not change the facts, you did not even cover them up in the slightest. What you did was stand up and get counted as someone looking the other way.

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

#872

Post by uoaei »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #804
uoaei wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone could say exactly the same thing about any hot-button topic and feel as self-righteous as you. Again, it's fantasy until you back it up with something empirical.

The experiments are straight forward if someone wants to run them. But your fantasy is backed up by as much evidence as mine, we are arguing about whose anecdote is better until someone does the experiment.

My argument is nothing more than that we don't know anything "until someone does the experiment". Stop putting words in my mouth, Sean.

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

#873

Post by Sporktacular »

holbrad wrote: post #313
Sporktacular wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's already cost 7,000+ children's lives" Please. They aren't bombing hostage locations to free hostages. The effort to eliminate Hamas has cost 7000+ children lives. That number won't stop growing when hostages are freed. Can we stop bringing up the 200 hostages in response to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians? It's a rounding error by comparison and a sad reminder that in 2023, to some, some lives are…

"to some, some lives are worth 100 times more than others." I feel like that's true for most people/all most everyone ? You've got the thought experiment of: How many strangers lives would you trade for a family members well being ?

And on a national scale that's called racism. But fine then - admit you're just another amoral tribalist taking care of your own, and save everyone else the time of trying to determine if you're actually interested in peace or justice.

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

#874

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

tptacek wrote: post #869
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any motte-and-bailey argument. You said that the First Arab-Israeli War was an Arab war of aggression. I responded. > all of Israel is now occupied territory This isn't the point I was trying to make. All of Israel was taken from the Arabs - unjustly so. However, I was simply responding to your claim about the First Arab-Israeli War, and when I speak about the "occupied territories," I'm referring to the…

Egypt and Syria mobilized on Israel's borders in May of '67 . You're citing something that happened 10 years earlier. And this appears to be the best argument you've got, since you keep making it. Let's disengage?

Egypt mobilized a defensive force that was incapable of launching an invasion. Meanwhile, Israel had been planning a first-strike, which it actually executed.

> You're citing something that happened 10 years earlier.

Israel's invasion of Egypt was 10 years prior, but dominated Egyptian security considerations. Israel's major incursion into Jordan was only 7 months prior. The Arabs had every reason to fear Israeli aggression.

Going back to the original comment about the 1967 war, OP implied that the Palestinians were somehow to blame for the fact that they live under military occupation. The story of Israel simply defending itself in 1967 is not true: Israel struck first, and its claims that it was acting in preemptive self-defense are highly questionable, at best.

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

#875

Post by tptacek »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #874
tptacek wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egypt and Syria mobilized on Israel's borders in May of '67 . You're citing something that happened 10 years earlier. And this appears to be the best argument you've got, since you keep making it. Let's disengage?

Egypt mobilized a defensive force that was incapable of launching an invasion. Meanwhile, Israel had been planning a first-strike, which it actually executed. > You're citing something that happened 10 years earlier. Israel's invasion of Egypt was 10 years prior, but dominated Egyptian security considerations. Israel's major incursion into Jordan was only 7 months prior. The Arabs had every reason to fear Israeli agg…

Egyptians had no reason to fear Israeli aggression. Please cite the book that says otherwise. I don't think your takes here are at all historically grounded; this reads like stuff you'd get on TeachPalestine.

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

#876

Post by alerighi »

deadbabe wrote: post #35
alerighi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of Palestinian content descends straight into hyperbole. People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a “genocide”. This is the consequence of totally unmoderated content. A genocide is the indiscriminate distruction of a population, that is exactly what Israel (with the support of the USA) is doing to Palestine.

No, there are clear criteria for genocide as stated in other posts.

[flagged]

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

#877

Post by tptacek »

alerighi wrote: post #876
deadbabe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are clear criteria for genocide as stated in other posts.

[flagged]

Things like "you americans can't reason objectively" aren't OK on HN; it's no more OK when Americans write slurs about Europeans. You're wading into one of the most contentious and complicated geopolitical conflicts in the world. People are going to disagree with you. If you can't deal with that, don't engage on this topic here.

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

#878

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

tptacek wrote: post #875
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egypt mobilized a defensive force that was incapable of launching an invasion. Meanwhile, Israel had been planning a first-strike, which it actually executed. > You're citing something that happened 10 years earlier. Israel's invasion of Egypt was 10 years prior, but dominated Egyptian security considerations. Israel's major incursion into Jordan was only 7 months prior. The Arabs had every reason to fear Israeli agg…

Egyptians had no reason to fear Israeli aggression. Please cite the book that says otherwise. I don't think your takes here are at all historically grounded; this reads like stuff you'd get on TeachPalestine.

Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and by 1967 was, in fact, planning a first strike on Egypt, which it subsequently executed. Of course Egypt had every reason to fear Israeli aggression.

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

#879

Post by luuurker »

aik wrote: post #621
luuurker wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk has criticised Community Notes a few times for calling him out.

More often he has expressed how well it works and how great it is.

He praised it many times, but just a few weeks ago was complaining when he posted BS and community notes essentially called him out. In any case, I think it's a good feature and hope it doesn't go away.

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

#880

Post by tptacek »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #878
tptacek wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egyptians had no reason to fear Israeli aggression. Please cite the book that says otherwise. I don't think your takes here are at all historically grounded; this reads like stuff you'd get on TeachPalestine.

Israel invaded Egypt in 1956, and by 1967 was, in fact, planning a first strike on Egypt, which it subsequently executed. Of course Egypt had every reason to fear Israeli aggression.

This is the opposite of what happened.
Post reply on HN