18 ms·

Facebook Collaborating with Israeli Government on What Should Be Censored

145 points by marcusgarvey 10y ago

reitanqild 10y ago
Worth noting here is that until now Facebook has been fairly anti-Israelic, so hopefully this is just an attempt to make it more neutral. Edit: If you have a lot of pro Israeli friends and didn't care to check outside of that thats not my fault (feel free to check, some of you might be delighted to see all the hate against Israelis that exists there ;-)
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  If you look hard enough on Facebook you'll find both anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian (and pro-both). Anecdotes from a single person's filter bubble aren't really evidence.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    There were a test a while ago (January 2016 I think) were two exactly similar groups were created: One were full of hate messages towards Israelis. The other one were full of hate messages towards Palestinian Arabs. One were closed almost immediately. One were not. Care were taken to make sure they were exactly similar. Sources: https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+group+facebook+test https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+grou... (Please note that Facebook admitted this to be the case.)
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      Top result for me: http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-proves-anti-israel-bias/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-... > In a simple test, the organization tracked down two existing Facebook pages – one pro-Israeli, and one pro-Palestinian – and uploaded content to each that was rife with incitement to violence and hate. Sample size of two is just another anecdote. Anyone who's reported large numbers of Facebook pages - like https://twitter.com/monteiro https://twitter.com/monteiro, who's been on a anti-gun sale campaign - knows getting a page taken down often depends on the random reviewer assigned to the case. I've personally reported the same page several times before someone at FB says "yep, deleted".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kobayashi 10y ago
The Intercept seems to have a real problem with providing fair coverage of anything related to Israel. The problems of incitement to violence on Facebook result in actualized civilian deaths in Israel.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- joobus 10y ago
  Israel has a real problem allowing journalists to accurately cover Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    Sources, please ?
  - anon1385 10y ago
    For those asking for evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrated-over-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrat... >UK news organisations are becoming increasingly frustrated by the continuing ban preventing foreign correspondents from crossing into the Gaza Strip, more than two weeks after Israel's military offensive against Hamas began. >After months of attempting to limit access, the Israel Defence Forces are still refusing to open the Erez crossing they closed on 27 December, when the bombing campaign began, to anything other than humanitarian aid – despite a supreme court ruling ordering the government to allow members of the international press into Gaza. >David Mannion, the ITV News editor-in-chief, branded the Israeli media ban "disgraceful", while Dominic Wagthorn, the Sky News Middle East correspondent, said the "unprecedented" level of interference was "very frustrating".
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Last time I've checked Gaza also borders Egypt, the Egyptians also aren't keen on letting anyone through, and they've have been stepping up since the war in the Sinai started 5 years ago and arms were flowing both in and out of Gaza. The Egyptians actually fire across the border, flood tunnels with sewage, and without going out on a full on assault do pretty much the same thing the Israelis do but since it's Egypt (almost) no one is reporting on it.
DominikR 10y ago
Edit: Intercept is not British, my bad.
- gort 10y ago
  British media?
  - DominikR 10y ago
    -
    - gort 10y ago
      Are you labouring under the impression that The Intercept is a British thing?
      - DominikR 10y ago
        Yes I did, I'm terribly sorry, I'm wrong here.
    - saiya-jin 10y ago
      > Yes and not just their media but also their politicians. The UK society seems to be much more critical of Israel than the US or continental Europe. well US is crystal-clear on this - they let Israelis do almost anything they want. Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony in this case is slightly beyond ridiculous). Europe probably goes +-in same footsteps. I mean, it's the only +- western society that for sure won't go jihad way against west in very lucrative and rich region. they need them and vice versa, business as usual. that said I must say I have big respect for them for striving in such a hostile environment. or maybe it's exactly because of that - growth due to challenge and whatnot
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        >Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony in this case is slightly beyond ridiculous). Jewish concentration camps fired 100,000 rockets into German cities? I never knew, it certainly explains a lot.
EddieSpeaks 10y ago
I'll take anything Glenn Greenwald is paranoid about with a barrel of salt
eranation 10y ago
Censorship, especially a state interference in censorship smells really bad. Even if done for "good reasons" this can go bad really quickly. Having that said, and I'm all for free speech, but a post calling to use a better knife to inflict more damage on an ethnic group (I'm not making this up: http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-how-to-stab-jews-spreads-on-social-media http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-h...) should probably be legitimately removed. (and it was removed by Facebook / Google / Twitter) Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis. Some examples of posts that were probably the trigger of this: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Documents/PalIncitementSocialMedia191015.pdf http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Do... Facebook should follow one rule - any post that is illegal should be removed. How do they decide what is illegal? they let their legal department interpret it I assume, or wait to be sued and then decide (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-sue-Facebook-over-incitement-to-violence-by-Palestinians-430112 http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...) Still, Facebook should handle it as it handles things anywhere else. Maybe Israel have some good examples of content that should have been removed, but in most cases it has been removed, so basically Facebook is outsourcing moderation to the Israeli Government because they don't have enough moderators that can read Arabic or just not enough manpower? No matter if it's justified or not, a government should not meddle with the moderation operations of a global public platform.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  >Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis. "[G]uarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio
  - danarmak 10y ago
    Good thing Israel isn't a U.S. State, then.
tuna-piano 10y ago
For more information on this "digital intifada", the documentaries from vice are pretty good: https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprising-digital-intifada-part-1 https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprisin...
- s_q_b 10y ago
  The phrase "digital intifada" induces an eye-roll nearly as severe as it's cousin "digital holocaust." Comparing the deaths of massive numbers of civilians to Facebook posts is tone-deaf at best.
  - droopyEyelids 10y ago
    Intifada literally means tremor or shaking, and in context it means "to shake off" or "uprising" It's a real concept with reasonable meaning- digital revolution, digital uprising, etc. Not necessarily related to the first and second initfadas, the historical events.
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      In this case it means uprising. The choice to use that particular word, especially in English, deliberately links current acts of free speech to two previous brutal civil wars. This is neither a real event nor a reasonable use of terms. It is an abuse of terminology to engender in the reader a particular set of emotions, which leads to a desired set of actions. In politics, language matters.
tempodox 10y ago
> Facebook is confronting extreme pressure to censor content disliked by various governments. So much for all the Constitutions, right to free speech and what have you. The tiniest bout of bad weather makes them go away in a jiffy, if you let our governments decide. One bad day, and we're back to burning witches, because that's still the best PR campaign for any ideology.
mbloom1915 10y ago
Someone define 'collaborating' here =/
mitchellst 10y ago
Just saying, "Collaborating" was a very poor choice of words.
davemel37 10y ago
>"Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit, and so it will interpret very slippery concepts such as “hate speech” and “inciting violence” to please those who wield the greatest power." This story does everything other than show a single example of hate speech and inciting violence posts being a "slippery concept" or a single example of Israel asking for something to be removed that doesnt directly incite violence. I cant imagine someone thinking a video of a cleric waving a knife telling his followers to stab Jews or of little kids being taught to stab jews as being slippery or possibly interpreted as not inciting violence. The only thing mentioned is that Israel will help Facebook identify violence inciting posts...not hate speech, not political speech, strictly violence inciting posts...and the Author goes out on a massive limb to paint a picture of censorship and abuse of power and finger pointing at other offenders... remove any calls to violence...especially when you can directly link it to actual violence! Edit: updated quotes
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  >legal obligation to maximize profit Wasting my breath because this comes up so often, but this is not in any way true.
  - davemel37 10y ago
    I was citing the article. I think the author's point was a publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. I agree with you though.
    - whamlastxmas 10y ago
      >has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value Even that is arguably not true. The only real responsibility of a director is to not act in his or her own self interest to the detriment of the company. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...
gavanwoolery 10y ago
I like how mainstream media is always quick to mention Israel's "occupation" - but never brings up the fact that they were exiled from their homes throughout the Middle East: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Mu... And I have "occupation" in quotes because of this (or do your own research, you will find many similar articles): http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-that-israel-is-illegally-occupying-its-land http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-t...
- brainfire 10y ago
  Your first point is unrelated to the topic. Your second point is unrelated to the topic and runs counter to the opinion of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice.
  - gavanwoolery 10y ago
    The article uses the term "occupation" so I'd say it is related. The United Nations is one of the most corrupt political entities so their stance is of dubious value IMHO. https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2 https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/ http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and...
blablabla123 10y ago
"Can anyone imagine Facebook deleting the posts of prominent Israelis calling for increased violence or oppression against Palestinians?" The author is suggesting censorship is good and bad at the same time. ;)
- ta_donk_gt 10y ago
  I took it to mean that censorship is generally one-sided and logically inconsistent...I guess we see what we want to see.
  - blablabla123 10y ago
    Why is that? Censorship is there for a reason, usually because a government wants to protect itself. (When something illegal is removed, it's not censorship.) But unless people who advocate against it accomplish to create consistent arguments, they won't be very successful.
    - ta_donk_gt 10y ago
      > Why is that? Why is what? Why did I interpret this as what the author was saying? Why is censorship generally implemented in a biased way? If the former, based on the way the article was written, I interpreted that phrase as saying that FB is worrying about censoring one side of Isreali-Palestinian, but not the equivalent views on the other side. And that leads to the conclusion of the latter question above, which is that this is how it generally goes with censorship. We generally only want to censor opposing viewpoints, but not our own views which are often logically equivalent (because being so emotionally invested in our own viewpoints and only being able to see the world from our own vantage point does not allow us to see the opposing views as logically equivalent). That is one-sided and logically inconsistent, but is human nature. I wasn't saying anything about what should be illegal and what should not, only that I think you misinterpreted what the author was trying to convey.
      - blablabla123 10y ago
mark_l_watson 10y ago
A slippery slope. Absolutely posts promoting or justifying violent acts should be blocked - at least in my opinion. However posts, in this case critical of the Israeli or Palestinian governments, that criticize actions of public figures and organizations should be protected as free speech.
- vkou 10y ago
  > justifying violent acts So, when the POTUS is going to start drumming up support for the next war, Facebook should block him, her supporters, and the media puppet-show that will cheer-lead this adventure? What about Israeli settler groups? They use violence to take land from its owners. Should they also be blocked?
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    >They use violence to take land from its owners Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force. Israeli leftist organizations constantly try to publish the deals knowing that it would result in likely deaths as the penalty of selling land to a Jew (not Israeli but a Jew) under PA law is death, and if the PA doesn't get to you the neighbourhood mob will. The Israeli settlements especially around the B areas are a problem but it's less the settlement itself and more the supporting infrastructure associated with, primarily the fact that the Israeli armed forces have to step in and provide protection. Israeli settlement policy is inconsistent they are actively dismantling the smaller settlements and supporting the big ones, however there is also a perception issue every time there is some headlines of 100,000 homes being built it's a gross and intentional misrepresentation of the facts; since they account for every construction permit as a housing unit even if it's a permit to change the porch or move the sidewalk, and there seem to be complete disregard to the difference between E. Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks which are effectively cities and the smaller settlements which spawn sporadically (and often dismantled) deeper within the west bank.
    - bjourne 10y ago
      > >They use violence to take land from its owners > Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force. That's not true. Best estimates by Peace Now and B'Tselem is that 30-40% of the settlements are built on private Palestinian land. In addition to that, a lot of land is expropriated using absentee land laws (a relic from the Ottoman period in which unused land reverts to belonging to the state after a set number of years) and only a small minority is purchased. See https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-land-on-which-Israeli-settlements-are-built-was-confiscated-from-private-Palestinian-owners https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-land-on-which-Israeli-...
thr0waway1239 10y ago
Is there anyone here who is against what FB is doing in this situation but supported FB's backdown on the napalm episode? Welcome to the slippery slope of bad precedents. Why does no one actually talk about the fact that no one should tell FB what it can and cannot bring down on its property? Feeling unhappy about their heavy handedness? Just stop using FB. If you see my comments history, you will know that I actually despise FB a lot - but on this issue, I not only feel sorry for them, but I am a little surprised by the double standards. Question for those who are now suggesting that government of country X should decide what is best to allow on FB's private property (remembering that FB would want to play it safe and in their ideal world would prefer that FB resembles Disneyland where people just wave and smile and buy expensive stuff) 1. Which government? 2. What if the government has an opposing government which has the exact opposite view on the censorship? 3. How can you be so sure the government you support is doing the right thing? Is there anyone here who is actually surprised a government pounced on the first sign of placation from FB to now demand things which should be best left to FB's discretion? And do you honestly think the governments of other countries are not queueing up with their demand next? And let us suppose that FB does follow some government's diktat, and takes some action which somehow counterintuitively worsens the situation somehow? Would you all then personally also take responsibility for the consequences? Here is what everyone will say at that point: well, no one can predict the future, and of course FB had to do these things at its own discretion. And what about this statement: "All of this underscores the severe dangers of having our public discourse overtaken, regulated, and controlled by a tiny number of unaccountable tech giants." No company has any more power on these matters than that which we give them, often willingly. They certainly exploit it, but why is the article talking about this as if FB sent its troops to scatter people who had gathered for public discourse? In your mind, maybe FB's censorship looks the same - but that is only true if you are left with no alternatives. Public discourse has not been "overtaken", people just want to have their cake (undisturbed expression of thoughts) and eat it too (on property that does not belong to them, or to the public). I noted before, but FB should have been left alone to bring down any post it wanted, as long as it consistently enforces its rules even if you feel the rules are too naive and simplistic (e.g. nude picture of child).
- gmarx 10y ago
throwanem 10y ago
> It’s true that these companies have the legal right as private actors to censor whatever they want. But that proposition ignores the unprecedented control this small group of corporations now exerts over global communications. I've had my differences with Mr. Greenwald over the years. But he's exactly right about this. I cannot imagine a clearer or more concise statement of the essential issue here at hand.
xenosapien 10y ago
They're probably right. There was virtually no violence in the region before Facebook. /s
mary_fortran 10y ago
Y Combinator loves to bash Israel (and Jews!) for some reason. I agree with your assessment. There's plenty of Israel critical material on Facebook. Only a very few items--items that would be not legal under US law, have been cited as examples. There's no secret kabal conspiracy here.
- davemel37 10y ago
  >"Y Combinator loves to bash Israel (and Jews!) for some reason." As a Jew, active on HN for years, I have not seen this to be the case at all. I have seen sporatic posts that appeared biased or racist on both sides of the aisle...definitely not more or less than exists in the real world... and certainly not enough to generalize about YC at all.
- yarou 10y ago
  > Account created 3 days ago. Really makes you think, huh?
  - GirlsCanCode 10y ago
    It looks like it makes you think there's some Vast Conspiracy to make comments like that. So we all now know what kind a a person you are. Thanks for making that clear.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Being critical of Israel's government and its policies is not the same as being anti-Semitic. That's a popular rhetorical trick to deflect all criticism, and it's not valid.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  I don't see y combinator's specific involvement at all. It's certainly likely some HN community members aren't huge fans of Israel, since that country acts like an asshole all the time. I don't see much in the way of anti-Jewish sentiment, however, and being critical of Israel is hardly the same thing outside of emotional rhetoric.
- 10y ago
neves 10y ago
FB is the main news outlet of a majority of friends. The fact that FB owner and some its main investors are from Jewish ascent is really an menace to the diversity of points of views.
- neves 10y ago
  The downvote of any kind of discussion of the influence of the religion in the acts of people, also curbs the freedom of information.
Animats 10y ago
Of the big three in social outside China, Google and Facebook both have Jewish CEOs. So does Yahoo, if that still matters. Twitter's CEO is Catholic. Of the new generation of social networks, Instagram is owned by Facebook, Snapchat's CEO is Episcopalian, and Tumblr is owned by Yahoo. So 5 out of 7 are under Jewish control.
- gort 10y ago
  Things are not this simple though, are they? It's certainly not the case that Jews or people of Jewish descent will reliably support Israel. (I was interested to learn today that Jill Stein is aligned with BDS, for example. And Greenwald, author of the piece, also has Jewish parents.) Even if they did, such support need not lend itself to unfair practices re: censorship. (I will add: if you could plausibly argue that media owners tended to be Catholic, or vegetarian, or Scottish, or whatever, I think you should be able to express concerns about how that would affect discourse without being called a bigot; and likewise here. So I do not condemn your comment. But no group of people are a hivemind.)
- louhike 10y ago
  What does it bring to the table? A jewish isn't an Israeli and might not even be a sionist. And "jewish control" sounds really negative.
- gohrt 10y ago
  Sundar Pinchai is Jewish?
- jrapdx3 10y ago
  IMO this comment exemplifies a fairly common logical/factual error, and is therefore misleading. While the enterprises named were founded or headed by individuals with Jewish ancestry, there is not much else of significance being said. The statement implies that "Jewish control" is a meaningful idea, but it is not. First of all, Jews are a very heterogeneous group and vary considerably ethnically, religiously and politically. There is absolutely no central Jewish "authority", and Jews hold very diverse views on all topics. Secondly, imagining there's communication among the 5/7 CEO's to coordinate their corporate policies on the basis of any "Jewish agenda" is in tinfoil territory, and absurd in the extreme. Finally if the commenter is implying there's some kind of built-in, genetic "Jewish worldview" that predisposes to disfavored corporate policies, that's obviously fallacious. The motivation for making such assertions is unclear, indeed what the writer hoped to communicate is equally foggy. However, the comment emits an aura of antisemitism, as if attempting to attribute undesirable corporate behavior to the mere fact of CEO's presumed Jewish origins. I believe that represents troublesome prejudice that needs to be discouraged.

145 points by marcusgarvey 10y ago

Worth noting here is that until now Facebook has been fairly anti-Israelic, so hopefully this is just an attempt to make it more neutral. Edit: If you have a lot of pro Israeli friends and didn't care to check outside of that thats not my fault (feel free to check, some of you might be delighted to see all the hate against Israelis that exists there ;-)

ceejayoz 10y ago
If you look hard enough on Facebook you'll find both anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian (and pro-both). Anecdotes from a single person's filter bubble aren't really evidence.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  There were a test a while ago (January 2016 I think) were two exactly similar groups were created: One were full of hate messages towards Israelis. The other one were full of hate messages towards Palestinian Arabs. One were closed almost immediately. One were not. Care were taken to make sure they were exactly similar. Sources: https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+group+facebook+test https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+grou... (Please note that Facebook admitted this to be the case.)
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    Top result for me: http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-proves-anti-israel-bias/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-... > In a simple test, the organization tracked down two existing Facebook pages – one pro-Israeli, and one pro-Palestinian – and uploaded content to each that was rife with incitement to violence and hate. Sample size of two is just another anecdote. Anyone who's reported large numbers of Facebook pages - like https://twitter.com/monteiro https://twitter.com/monteiro, who's been on a anti-gun sale campaign - knows getting a page taken down often depends on the random reviewer assigned to the case. I've personally reported the same page several times before someone at FB says "yep, deleted".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kobayashi 10y ago

The Intercept seems to have a real problem with providing fair coverage of anything related to Israel. The problems of incitement to violence on Facebook result in actualized civilian deaths in Israel.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joobus 10y ago
Israel has a real problem allowing journalists to accurately cover Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Sources, please ?
- anon1385 10y ago
  For those asking for evidence: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrated-over-gaza https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrat... >UK news organisations are becoming increasingly frustrated by the continuing ban preventing foreign correspondents from crossing into the Gaza Strip, more than two weeks after Israel's military offensive against Hamas began. >After months of attempting to limit access, the Israel Defence Forces are still refusing to open the Erez crossing they closed on 27 December, when the bombing campaign began, to anything other than humanitarian aid – despite a supreme court ruling ordering the government to allow members of the international press into Gaza. >David Mannion, the ITV News editor-in-chief, branded the Israeli media ban "disgraceful", while Dominic Wagthorn, the Sky News Middle East correspondent, said the "unprecedented" level of interference was "very frustrating".
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Last time I've checked Gaza also borders Egypt, the Egyptians also aren't keen on letting anyone through, and they've have been stepping up since the war in the Sinai started 5 years ago and arms were flowing both in and out of Gaza. The Egyptians actually fire across the border, flood tunnels with sewage, and without going out on a full on assault do pretty much the same thing the Israelis do but since it's Egypt (almost) no one is reporting on it.

DominikR 10y ago

Edit: Intercept is not British, my bad.

gort 10y ago
British media?
- DominikR 10y ago
  -
  - gort 10y ago
    Are you labouring under the impression that The Intercept is a British thing?
    - DominikR 10y ago
      Yes I did, I'm terribly sorry, I'm wrong here.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    > Yes and not just their media but also their politicians. The UK society seems to be much more critical of Israel than the US or continental Europe. well US is crystal-clear on this - they let Israelis do almost anything they want. Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony in this case is slightly beyond ridiculous). Europe probably goes +-in same footsteps. I mean, it's the only +- western society that for sure won't go jihad way against west in very lucrative and rich region. they need them and vice versa, business as usual. that said I must say I have big respect for them for striving in such a hostile environment. or maybe it's exactly because of that - growth due to challenge and whatnot
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      >Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony in this case is slightly beyond ridiculous). Jewish concentration camps fired 100,000 rockets into German cities? I never knew, it certainly explains a lot.

EddieSpeaks 10y ago

I'll take anything Glenn Greenwald is paranoid about with a barrel of salt

eranation 10y ago

Censorship, especially a state interference in censorship smells really bad. Even if done for "good reasons" this can go bad really quickly. Having that said, and I'm all for free speech, but a post calling to use a better knife to inflict more damage on an ethnic group (I'm not making this up: http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-how-to-stab-jews-spreads-on-social-media http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-h...) should probably be legitimately removed. (and it was removed by Facebook / Google / Twitter) Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis. Some examples of posts that were probably the trigger of this: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Documents/PalIncitementSocialMedia191015.pdf http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Do... Facebook should follow one rule - any post that is illegal should be removed. How do they decide what is illegal? they let their legal department interpret it I assume, or wait to be sued and then decide (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-sue-Facebook-over-incitement-to-violence-by-Palestinians-430112 http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...) Still, Facebook should handle it as it handles things anywhere else. Maybe Israel have some good examples of content that should have been removed, but in most cases it has been removed, so basically Facebook is outsourcing moderation to the Israeli Government because they don't have enough moderators that can read Arabic or just not enough manpower? No matter if it's justified or not, a government should not meddle with the moderation operations of a global public platform.

s_q_b 10y ago
>Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis. "[G]uarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio
- danarmak 10y ago
  Good thing Israel isn't a U.S. State, then.

tuna-piano 10y ago

For more information on this "digital intifada", the documentaries from vice are pretty good: https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprising-digital-intifada-part-1 https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprisin...

s_q_b 10y ago
The phrase "digital intifada" induces an eye-roll nearly as severe as it's cousin "digital holocaust." Comparing the deaths of massive numbers of civilians to Facebook posts is tone-deaf at best.
- droopyEyelids 10y ago
  Intifada literally means tremor or shaking, and in context it means "to shake off" or "uprising" It's a real concept with reasonable meaning- digital revolution, digital uprising, etc. Not necessarily related to the first and second initfadas, the historical events.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    In this case it means uprising. The choice to use that particular word, especially in English, deliberately links current acts of free speech to two previous brutal civil wars. This is neither a real event nor a reasonable use of terms. It is an abuse of terminology to engender in the reader a particular set of emotions, which leads to a desired set of actions. In politics, language matters.

tempodox 10y ago

> Facebook is confronting extreme pressure to censor content disliked by various governments. So much for all the Constitutions, right to free speech and what have you. The tiniest bout of bad weather makes them go away in a jiffy, if you let our governments decide. One bad day, and we're back to burning witches, because that's still the best PR campaign for any ideology.

mbloom1915 10y ago

Someone define 'collaborating' here =/

mitchellst 10y ago

Just saying, "Collaborating" was a very poor choice of words.

davemel37 10y ago

>"Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit, and so it will interpret very slippery concepts such as “hate speech” and “inciting violence” to please those who wield the greatest power." This story does everything other than show a single example of hate speech and inciting violence posts being a "slippery concept" or a single example of Israel asking for something to be removed that doesnt directly incite violence. I cant imagine someone thinking a video of a cleric waving a knife telling his followers to stab Jews or of little kids being taught to stab jews as being slippery or possibly interpreted as not inciting violence. The only thing mentioned is that Israel will help Facebook identify violence inciting posts...not hate speech, not political speech, strictly violence inciting posts...and the Author goes out on a massive limb to paint a picture of censorship and abuse of power and finger pointing at other offenders... remove any calls to violence...especially when you can directly link it to actual violence! Edit: updated quotes

whamlastxmas 10y ago
>legal obligation to maximize profit Wasting my breath because this comes up so often, but this is not in any way true.
- davemel37 10y ago
  I was citing the article. I think the author's point was a publicly traded company has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. I agree with you though.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    >has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value Even that is arguably not true. The only real responsibility of a director is to not act in his or her own self interest to the detriment of the company. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-com...

gavanwoolery 10y ago

I like how mainstream media is always quick to mention Israel's "occupation" - but never brings up the fact that they were exiled from their homes throughout the Middle East: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Mu... And I have "occupation" in quotes because of this (or do your own research, you will find many similar articles): http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-that-israel-is-illegally-occupying-its-land http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-t...

brainfire 10y ago
Your first point is unrelated to the topic. Your second point is unrelated to the topic and runs counter to the opinion of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of Justice.
- gavanwoolery 10y ago
  The article uses the term "occupation" so I'd say it is related. The United Nations is one of the most corrupt political entities so their stance is of dubious value IMHO. https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2 https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2 http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/ http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and...

blablabla123 10y ago

"Can anyone imagine Facebook deleting the posts of prominent Israelis calling for increased violence or oppression against Palestinians?" The author is suggesting censorship is good and bad at the same time. ;)

ta_donk_gt 10y ago
I took it to mean that censorship is generally one-sided and logically inconsistent...I guess we see what we want to see.
- blablabla123 10y ago
  Why is that? Censorship is there for a reason, usually because a government wants to protect itself. (When something illegal is removed, it's not censorship.) But unless people who advocate against it accomplish to create consistent arguments, they won't be very successful.
  - ta_donk_gt 10y ago
    > Why is that? Why is what? Why did I interpret this as what the author was saying? Why is censorship generally implemented in a biased way? If the former, based on the way the article was written, I interpreted that phrase as saying that FB is worrying about censoring one side of Isreali-Palestinian, but not the equivalent views on the other side. And that leads to the conclusion of the latter question above, which is that this is how it generally goes with censorship. We generally only want to censor opposing viewpoints, but not our own views which are often logically equivalent (because being so emotionally invested in our own viewpoints and only being able to see the world from our own vantage point does not allow us to see the opposing views as logically equivalent). That is one-sided and logically inconsistent, but is human nature. I wasn't saying anything about what should be illegal and what should not, only that I think you misinterpreted what the author was trying to convey.
    - blablabla123 10y ago

mark_l_watson 10y ago

A slippery slope. Absolutely posts promoting or justifying violent acts should be blocked - at least in my opinion. However posts, in this case critical of the Israeli or Palestinian governments, that criticize actions of public figures and organizations should be protected as free speech.

vkou 10y ago
> justifying violent acts So, when the POTUS is going to start drumming up support for the next war, Facebook should block him, her supporters, and the media puppet-show that will cheer-lead this adventure? What about Israeli settler groups? They use violence to take land from its owners. Should they also be blocked?
- dogma1138 10y ago
  >They use violence to take land from its owners Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force. Israeli leftist organizations constantly try to publish the deals knowing that it would result in likely deaths as the penalty of selling land to a Jew (not Israeli but a Jew) under PA law is death, and if the PA doesn't get to you the neighbourhood mob will. The Israeli settlements especially around the B areas are a problem but it's less the settlement itself and more the supporting infrastructure associated with, primarily the fact that the Israeli armed forces have to step in and provide protection. Israeli settlement policy is inconsistent they are actively dismantling the smaller settlements and supporting the big ones, however there is also a perception issue every time there is some headlines of 100,000 homes being built it's a gross and intentional misrepresentation of the facts; since they account for every construction permit as a housing unit even if it's a permit to change the porch or move the sidewalk, and there seem to be complete disregard to the difference between E. Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks which are effectively cities and the smaller settlements which spawn sporadically (and often dismantled) deeper within the west bank.
  - bjourne 10y ago
    > >They use violence to take land from its owners > Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force. That's not true. Best estimates by Peace Now and B'Tselem is that 30-40% of the settlements are built on private Palestinian land. In addition to that, a lot of land is expropriated using absentee land laws (a relic from the Ottoman period in which unused land reverts to belonging to the state after a set number of years) and only a small minority is purchased. See https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-land-on-which-Israeli-settlements-are-built-was-confiscated-from-private-Palestinian-owners https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-land-on-which-Israeli-...

thr0waway1239 10y ago

Is there anyone here who is against what FB is doing in this situation but supported FB's backdown on the napalm episode? Welcome to the slippery slope of bad precedents. Why does no one actually talk about the fact that no one should tell FB what it can and cannot bring down on its property? Feeling unhappy about their heavy handedness? Just stop using FB. If you see my comments history, you will know that I actually despise FB a lot - but on this issue, I not only feel sorry for them, but I am a little surprised by the double standards. Question for those who are now suggesting that government of country X should decide what is best to allow on FB's private property (remembering that FB would want to play it safe and in their ideal world would prefer that FB resembles Disneyland where people just wave and smile and buy expensive stuff) 1. Which government? 2. What if the government has an opposing government which has the exact opposite view on the censorship? 3. How can you be so sure the government you support is doing the right thing? Is there anyone here who is actually surprised a government pounced on the first sign of placation from FB to now demand things which should be best left to FB's discretion? And do you honestly think the governments of other countries are not queueing up with their demand next? And let us suppose that FB does follow some government's diktat, and takes some action which somehow counterintuitively worsens the situation somehow? Would you all then personally also take responsibility for the consequences? Here is what everyone will say at that point: well, no one can predict the future, and of course FB had to do these things at its own discretion. And what about this statement: "All of this underscores the severe dangers of having our public discourse overtaken, regulated, and controlled by a tiny number of unaccountable tech giants." No company has any more power on these matters than that which we give them, often willingly. They certainly exploit it, but why is the article talking about this as if FB sent its troops to scatter people who had gathered for public discourse? In your mind, maybe FB's censorship looks the same - but that is only true if you are left with no alternatives. Public discourse has not been "overtaken", people just want to have their cake (undisturbed expression of thoughts) and eat it too (on property that does not belong to them, or to the public). I noted before, but FB should have been left alone to bring down any post it wanted, as long as it consistently enforces its rules even if you feel the rules are too naive and simplistic (e.g. nude picture of child).

gmarx 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

> It’s true that these companies have the legal right as private actors to censor whatever they want. But that proposition ignores the unprecedented control this small group of corporations now exerts over global communications. I've had my differences with Mr. Greenwald over the years. But he's exactly right about this. I cannot imagine a clearer or more concise statement of the essential issue here at hand.

xenosapien 10y ago

They're probably right. There was virtually no violence in the region before Facebook. /s

mary_fortran 10y ago

Y Combinator loves to bash Israel (and Jews!) for some reason. I agree with your assessment. There's plenty of Israel critical material on Facebook. Only a very few items--items that would be not legal under US law, have been cited as examples. There's no secret kabal conspiracy here.

davemel37 10y ago
>"Y Combinator loves to bash Israel (and Jews!) for some reason." As a Jew, active on HN for years, I have not seen this to be the case at all. I have seen sporatic posts that appeared biased or racist on both sides of the aisle...definitely not more or less than exists in the real world... and certainly not enough to generalize about YC at all.
yarou 10y ago
> Account created 3 days ago. Really makes you think, huh?
- GirlsCanCode 10y ago
  It looks like it makes you think there's some Vast Conspiracy to make comments like that. So we all now know what kind a a person you are. Thanks for making that clear.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Being critical of Israel's government and its policies is not the same as being anti-Semitic. That's a popular rhetorical trick to deflect all criticism, and it's not valid.
oldmanjay 10y ago
I don't see y combinator's specific involvement at all. It's certainly likely some HN community members aren't huge fans of Israel, since that country acts like an asshole all the time. I don't see much in the way of anti-Jewish sentiment, however, and being critical of Israel is hardly the same thing outside of emotional rhetoric.
10y ago

neves 10y ago

FB is the main news outlet of a majority of friends. The fact that FB owner and some its main investors are from Jewish ascent is really an menace to the diversity of points of views.

neves 10y ago
The downvote of any kind of discussion of the influence of the religion in the acts of people, also curbs the freedom of information.

Animats 10y ago

Of the big three in social outside China, Google and Facebook both have Jewish CEOs. So does Yahoo, if that still matters. Twitter's CEO is Catholic. Of the new generation of social networks, Instagram is owned by Facebook, Snapchat's CEO is Episcopalian, and Tumblr is owned by Yahoo. So 5 out of 7 are under Jewish control.

gort 10y ago
Things are not this simple though, are they? It's certainly not the case that Jews or people of Jewish descent will reliably support Israel. (I was interested to learn today that Jill Stein is aligned with BDS, for example. And Greenwald, author of the piece, also has Jewish parents.) Even if they did, such support need not lend itself to unfair practices re: censorship. (I will add: if you could plausibly argue that media owners tended to be Catholic, or vegetarian, or Scottish, or whatever, I think you should be able to express concerns about how that would affect discourse without being called a bigot; and likewise here. So I do not condemn your comment. But no group of people are a hivemind.)
louhike 10y ago
What does it bring to the table? A jewish isn't an Israeli and might not even be a sionist. And "jewish control" sounds really negative.
gohrt 10y ago
Sundar Pinchai is Jewish?
jrapdx3 10y ago
IMO this comment exemplifies a fairly common logical/factual error, and is therefore misleading. While the enterprises named were founded or headed by individuals with Jewish ancestry, there is not much else of significance being said. The statement implies that "Jewish control" is a meaningful idea, but it is not. First of all, Jews are a very heterogeneous group and vary considerably ethnically, religiously and politically. There is absolutely no central Jewish "authority", and Jews hold very diverse views on all topics. Secondly, imagining there's communication among the 5/7 CEO's to coordinate their corporate policies on the basis of any "Jewish agenda" is in tinfoil territory, and absurd in the extreme. Finally if the commenter is implying there's some kind of built-in, genetic "Jewish worldview" that predisposes to disfavored corporate policies, that's obviously fallacious. The motivation for making such assertions is unclear, indeed what the writer hoped to communicate is equally foggy. However, the comment emits an aura of antisemitism, as if attempting to attribute undesirable corporate behavior to the mere fact of CEO's presumed Jewish origins. I believe that represents troublesome prejudice that needs to be discouraged.