17 ms·

if one side is directly inciting violence, then yeah, they will have to "take sides"

by metalliqaz 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago
And if both sides are inciting violence?
- asdfrewqzxcv 5y ago
  ban/censor both sides, problem solved :)
dvt 5y ago
> if one side is directly inciting violence Who determines this? If I ask my Jewish friends, they'll say Palestine is inciting violence. If I ask my Palestinian friends, they'll say Israel is. Who should Twitter ban?
- legulere 5y ago
  Your friends are not contradicting each other, we could also ban both.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  it's always good to consider people's words and feelings in the context of material facts, things that can be meassured objectively, like, for instance, counting dead bodies.
  - tryonenow 5y ago
    Dead body count says nothing about instigation or justification.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    It seems like a disastrously bad idea for Twitter to make moderation decisions based on how many dead people they think are on some particular tweet's side. "Sorry, we've only assigned you 5 bodies - only movements with 20 or more bodies are allowed to send this tweet."
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      the context of my remark is: 1. ban people for threatening violence 2. what if both sides are? 3. then consider which side is killing people
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        But in this case, both sides are killing people and acknowledge that they're doing so. Your comment seemed to suggest that we could further resolve the dispute with something like 4. count up how many people each side is killing, and only ban sides with a large number and that's what doesn't make sense to me.
        pasquinelli 5y ago
        in my research i've found that no israelis have died thus far.
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
    Yes let's keep posts on twitter that say "Death to the Jews". Your body count number isn't objective without context. Saying they killed 20 and the other side killed 2 so the one that killed 20 is bad. And what if of that 20 some were killed by their own misfire or that part of that body count are also militants or that the only reason that only 2 killed was because defensive measures that if weren't in place would drastically increase casualties.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      > And what if of that 20 some were killed by their own misfire or that part of that body count are also militants or that the only reason that only 2 killed was because defensive measures that if weren't in place would drastically increase casualties. Well unless you have specific evidence, that seems to be a reality we don't live in, so not really something we need to worry about. The point of the GP was to point out the power differential. That seems to remain the consant even in your hypothetical world.
      - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
        There are plenty of evidence the militants are part of the count, that's what the health ministry in Gaza publish and that misfired rockets and mortars land in Gaza killing Gazans. As for the Israeli side, just take into account the number of intercepted rockets (those that would land in a populated area) and assume one death per rocket, the death toll would be in the hundreds.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    You mean if Israel takes down their Iron Dome and suicide themselves for 10x extra casualties, this will be a material fact to decide whom to support ?
- mudil 5y ago
  More than 1000 indiscriminately fired rockets been sent to Israel. Maybe you should ask yourself where's violence coming from.
- barneygale 5y ago
  Israel has no legitimate claim over east Jerusalem. Even if they did, evictions based on ethnicity/religion can not be justified. Your Jewish friends are wrong.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    Ultimately, the only legitimate claim any nation has over its territory is occupancy of it and ability to defend it.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    "Israel" is not claiming ownership of the property in question. A Jewish organization purchased the property and started developing it during the Ottoman period, and despite several changes in which country's government is in charge, there has not been any legal transfer other than a sale to another Jewish organization. The Palestinian families that currently live there were originally settled there as tenants, not owners, by the government of Jordan. They are not being evicted on the basis of their ethnicity; they are being evicted because, despite signing what amounted to a perpetual lease in the 1980s, they have made no rent payments and have made unauthorized modifications to the property (and ignored a court order to remove those modifications). More important than the actual facts of the case is this: HOW is a legal dispute, which is working its way through a civil court system -- the same court system that ruled in favor of these Palestinian families in the 1980s -- an "incitement to violence?" I am genuinely curious to know what the argument is here.
    - sloshnmosh 5y ago
      Thank you for this information. I had not heard this until now.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - b-x 5y ago
      Your comment would be credible if the Israeli regime juridical system is unbiased. However, their rulings are oppressing the minorities. Indeed, the unrest that we are witnessing in Arab communities inside only highlights the feeling of injustice by the indigenous population. Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Maybe don't rely on the opinions of random people? Why not take a look at what the IDF has to say, and then compare with what Hamas has to say, and see if you can figure out which side is inciting violence? It is not all that difficult to figure this one out. (For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet: Hamas is the political party that current controls the Gaza Strip and is widely recognized to be a terrorist organization. Among other things, the first actions Hamas took after seizing power in the Gaza Strip included killing leaders from other Palestinian political parties. The Egyptian government has repeatedly closed the border with the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas using that border to import rockets and for trying to use Egyptian territory to fire rockets into Israel. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has sanctioned Hamas by refusing to pay for various things in the Gaza Strip. Obviously the Israelis have no patience for Hamas, but let's not pretend that this is the typical Zionists-vs-Palestinians dispute.)
  - b-x 5y ago
    > For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet: The not so much "random stranger" above is clearly taking the Netanyahu regime side and discrediting any humanity from the reaction that the other side is taking.
  - Context_free 5y ago
    > Hamas is the political party that current controls the Gaza Strip and is widely recognized to be a terrorist organization. Among other things, the first actions Hamas took after seizing power in the Gaza Strip included killing leaders from other Palestinian political parties. Yitzhak Segev, once the Israeli military governor of Gaza, funded Ahmed Yassin and encouraged antagonism in him against secular Palestinian political forces. It's funny for Israel to fund the founding of Hamas, encourage Muslim religious antagonism against more internationally appealing secular Palestinian figures, and then turn around and whinge about the people that they bankrolled. Hamas was bankrolled by Israel and its no secret. Working people around the world know this and stand in support of Ahmad Sa'adat and other Palestinians to live free of the barbarism and tyranny Zionism is inflicting on them right now.
- criddell 5y ago
  Twitter could ban those inciting or responding with violence.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    That's one of the more probable cause of this specific issue. There's speculation all over the place in these comments but it's extremely likely that an automatic moderation system triggered these bans... That moderation system may have been responding to a bunch of people flagging posts from those accounts as hate speech or violence. It's also quite difficult to actually solidly connect accounts with real-world persons - and equally difficult to find reliable streams on who has committed violent crimes (ones that aren't likely to be poisoned by political silencing) and integrate that into your system. Social media has definitely made this problem on their own, but it isn't surprising to me that they're all struggling to weave a line between becoming tools of political repression and being full to the brim with extremism.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  > If I ask my Jewish friends, they'll say Palestine is inciting violence. If I ask my Palestinian friends, they'll say Israel is. Inciting violence is a broad definition. There are two sides at war, each one using what they have at hand to fight the other side, however when we see regular well equipped troops our brain thinks "Army", while when there are random masked citizens with AK47s, we immediately think "Terrorists", also thanks to well crafted western propaganda. As Peter Ustinov said: "terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich"; I see two sides battling, but one side just follows orders while the other defends their homes, therefore I am 100% with the Palestinians.
  - prestigious 5y ago
    If you are 100% on any side you are 100% in the wrong.
    - joelbluminator 5y ago
      This is very true. Most people think in black or white terms about this conflict when it can't be more complicated and nuanced.
  - tlear 5y ago
    Defending their homes? So you must be on the side of Israeli civilians at whome Hamas is salvo firing rockets. Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas?
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      > So you must be on the side of Israeli civilians at whome Hamas is salvo firing rockets. I feel like this is similar to a false dichotomy. The GP is pointing out a difference in resources and thus power. It doesn't mean one does not empathize with anyone suffering. That's just not something that follows. Any case of someone who is having their home, workplace and life destroyed is an absolute tragedy. I don't think that distracts from GPs point at all which has to do with power dynamics and the media's presentation of events. > Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas? Why would they do this? I don't understand the relevance.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Is that really true or a badly timed example you gave? I have Jewish friends who most certainly will not blindly side with Israel only. Your last wording only for a exacerbates the issue of making the conflict a religious only issue when it isn’t.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
http://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-gaza-fighting-pakistani-actress-quotes-hitler-about-killing-jews http://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-gaza-fighting-pakistani-ac... Hundreds of thousands upvoted a fake hitler quote… will they get banned for inciting violence? Hopefully…?

if one side is directly inciting violence, then yeah, they will have to "take sides"

pjc50 5y ago

And if both sides are inciting violence?

asdfrewqzxcv 5y ago
ban/censor both sides, problem solved :)

dvt 5y ago

> if one side is directly inciting violence Who determines this? If I ask my Jewish friends, they'll say Palestine is inciting violence. If I ask my Palestinian friends, they'll say Israel is. Who should Twitter ban?

legulere 5y ago
Your friends are not contradicting each other, we could also ban both.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pasquinelli 5y ago
it's always good to consider people's words and feelings in the context of material facts, things that can be meassured objectively, like, for instance, counting dead bodies.
- tryonenow 5y ago
  Dead body count says nothing about instigation or justification.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  It seems like a disastrously bad idea for Twitter to make moderation decisions based on how many dead people they think are on some particular tweet's side. "Sorry, we've only assigned you 5 bodies - only movements with 20 or more bodies are allowed to send this tweet."
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    the context of my remark is: 1. ban people for threatening violence 2. what if both sides are? 3. then consider which side is killing people
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      But in this case, both sides are killing people and acknowledge that they're doing so. Your comment seemed to suggest that we could further resolve the dispute with something like 4. count up how many people each side is killing, and only ban sides with a large number and that's what doesn't make sense to me.
      - pasquinelli 5y ago
        in my research i've found that no israelis have died thus far.
- TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
  Yes let's keep posts on twitter that say "Death to the Jews". Your body count number isn't objective without context. Saying they killed 20 and the other side killed 2 so the one that killed 20 is bad. And what if of that 20 some were killed by their own misfire or that part of that body count are also militants or that the only reason that only 2 killed was because defensive measures that if weren't in place would drastically increase casualties.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > And what if of that 20 some were killed by their own misfire or that part of that body count are also militants or that the only reason that only 2 killed was because defensive measures that if weren't in place would drastically increase casualties. Well unless you have specific evidence, that seems to be a reality we don't live in, so not really something we need to worry about. The point of the GP was to point out the power differential. That seems to remain the consant even in your hypothetical world.
    - TheGuyWhoCodes 5y ago
      There are plenty of evidence the militants are part of the count, that's what the health ministry in Gaza publish and that misfired rockets and mortars land in Gaza killing Gazans. As for the Israeli side, just take into account the number of intercepted rockets (those that would land in a populated area) and assume one death per rocket, the death toll would be in the hundreds.
- lenkite 5y ago
  You mean if Israel takes down their Iron Dome and suicide themselves for 10x extra casualties, this will be a material fact to decide whom to support ?
mudil 5y ago
More than 1000 indiscriminately fired rockets been sent to Israel. Maybe you should ask yourself where's violence coming from.
barneygale 5y ago
Israel has no legitimate claim over east Jerusalem. Even if they did, evictions based on ethnicity/religion can not be justified. Your Jewish friends are wrong.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Ultimately, the only legitimate claim any nation has over its territory is occupancy of it and ability to defend it.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  "Israel" is not claiming ownership of the property in question. A Jewish organization purchased the property and started developing it during the Ottoman period, and despite several changes in which country's government is in charge, there has not been any legal transfer other than a sale to another Jewish organization. The Palestinian families that currently live there were originally settled there as tenants, not owners, by the government of Jordan. They are not being evicted on the basis of their ethnicity; they are being evicted because, despite signing what amounted to a perpetual lease in the 1980s, they have made no rent payments and have made unauthorized modifications to the property (and ignored a court order to remove those modifications). More important than the actual facts of the case is this: HOW is a legal dispute, which is working its way through a civil court system -- the same court system that ruled in favor of these Palestinian families in the 1980s -- an "incitement to violence?" I am genuinely curious to know what the argument is here.
  - sloshnmosh 5y ago
    Thank you for this information. I had not heard this until now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - b-x 5y ago
    Your comment would be credible if the Israeli regime juridical system is unbiased. However, their rulings are oppressing the minorities. Indeed, the unrest that we are witnessing in Arab communities inside only highlights the feeling of injustice by the indigenous population. Let us also remember that the ruling regime is accused of committing the crime of Apartheid. [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56898864
betterunix2 5y ago
Maybe don't rely on the opinions of random people? Why not take a look at what the IDF has to say, and then compare with what Hamas has to say, and see if you can figure out which side is inciting violence? It is not all that difficult to figure this one out. (For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet: Hamas is the political party that current controls the Gaza Strip and is widely recognized to be a terrorist organization. Among other things, the first actions Hamas took after seizing power in the Gaza Strip included killing leaders from other Palestinian political parties. The Egyptian government has repeatedly closed the border with the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas using that border to import rockets and for trying to use Egyptian territory to fire rockets into Israel. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has sanctioned Hamas by refusing to pay for various things in the Gaza Strip. Obviously the Israelis have no patience for Hamas, but let's not pretend that this is the typical Zionists-vs-Palestinians dispute.)
- b-x 5y ago
  > For the lazy people who would rather listen to a random stranger on the Internet: The not so much "random stranger" above is clearly taking the Netanyahu regime side and discrediting any humanity from the reaction that the other side is taking.
- Context_free 5y ago
  > Hamas is the political party that current controls the Gaza Strip and is widely recognized to be a terrorist organization. Among other things, the first actions Hamas took after seizing power in the Gaza Strip included killing leaders from other Palestinian political parties. Yitzhak Segev, once the Israeli military governor of Gaza, funded Ahmed Yassin and encouraged antagonism in him against secular Palestinian political forces. It's funny for Israel to fund the founding of Hamas, encourage Muslim religious antagonism against more internationally appealing secular Palestinian figures, and then turn around and whinge about the people that they bankrolled. Hamas was bankrolled by Israel and its no secret. Working people around the world know this and stand in support of Ahmad Sa'adat and other Palestinians to live free of the barbarism and tyranny Zionism is inflicting on them right now.
criddell 5y ago
Twitter could ban those inciting or responding with violence.
- munk-a 5y ago
  That's one of the more probable cause of this specific issue. There's speculation all over the place in these comments but it's extremely likely that an automatic moderation system triggered these bans... That moderation system may have been responding to a bunch of people flagging posts from those accounts as hate speech or violence. It's also quite difficult to actually solidly connect accounts with real-world persons - and equally difficult to find reliable streams on who has committed violent crimes (ones that aren't likely to be poisoned by political silencing) and integrate that into your system. Social media has definitely made this problem on their own, but it isn't surprising to me that they're all struggling to weave a line between becoming tools of political repression and being full to the brim with extremism.
squarefoot 5y ago
> If I ask my Jewish friends, they'll say Palestine is inciting violence. If I ask my Palestinian friends, they'll say Israel is. Inciting violence is a broad definition. There are two sides at war, each one using what they have at hand to fight the other side, however when we see regular well equipped troops our brain thinks "Army", while when there are random masked citizens with AK47s, we immediately think "Terrorists", also thanks to well crafted western propaganda. As Peter Ustinov said: "terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the rich"; I see two sides battling, but one side just follows orders while the other defends their homes, therefore I am 100% with the Palestinians.
- prestigious 5y ago
  If you are 100% on any side you are 100% in the wrong.
  - joelbluminator 5y ago
    This is very true. Most people think in black or white terms about this conflict when it can't be more complicated and nuanced.
- tlear 5y ago
  Defending their homes? So you must be on the side of Israeli civilians at whome Hamas is salvo firing rockets. Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas?
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > So you must be on the side of Israeli civilians at whome Hamas is salvo firing rockets. I feel like this is similar to a false dichotomy. The GP is pointing out a difference in resources and thus power. It doesn't mean one does not empathize with anyone suffering. That's just not something that follows. Any case of someone who is having their home, workplace and life destroyed is an absolute tragedy. I don't think that distracts from GPs point at all which has to do with power dynamics and the media's presentation of events. > Or if you are on the side of Hamas should Twitter remove all the Iron Dome videos showing interception of rockets deliberately fired at civilians by Hamas? Why would they do this? I don't understand the relevance.
skinnymuch 5y ago
Is that really true or a badly timed example you gave? I have Jewish friends who most certainly will not blindly side with Israel only. Your last wording only for a exacerbates the issue of making the conflict a religious only issue when it isn’t.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

http://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-gaza-fighting-pakistani-actress-quotes-hitler-about-killing-jews http://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-gaza-fighting-pakistani-ac... Hundreds of thousands upvoted a fake hitler quote… will they get banned for inciting violence? Hopefully…?