4 ms·

http://www.ramzybaroud.net/ http://www.ramzybaroud.net/ is hardly a reputable source. Look at the rest of the site...

by voz_ 5y ago

botanical 5y ago
Perhaps you should focus on the subject matter? You seem to snub it because what exactly?
iqanq 5y ago
You could say the same thing about the nytimes for example.
sofixa 5y ago
Do you have any concrete criticism of the article contents? Even a terrible source like the Daily Mail can be 100% spot on about something.
- TedShiller 5y ago
  Why is DM terrible? I actually find it to be more accurate and less biased than mainstream US media
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Because they're a clickbait tabloid machine. Their articles lack essence and research and often focus on "celebrities" or "outrageous" things. And they're often flat out wrong.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      When are they wrong? I agree on the clickbait but that doesn’t mean wrong
- sharikous 5y ago
  I have. This is the real proposal https://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-advances-bill-censoring-criminal-social-media-posts/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-advances-bill-censorin... and the opposition's counterproposal https://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-floats-hebrew-service-centers-for-social-networks-to-explain-post-deletions/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-floats-hebrew-service... The article makes it like it's just a law aimed at Palestinians when it is a much broader issue and actually opposed by rightwing parties. The title is so insincere as to be sickening.
  - boffinAudio 5y ago
    Being opposed by rightwing parties means nothing. How it will be used by rightwing parties when it passes is really the only thing that matters. Lets return to your argument when the law as proposed is struck down and the Palestinian people are not in danger of having their plight further censored and ignored by the world at large.
- realYitzi 5y ago
  The article does not provide evidence to back the title's claim "How Israel’s ‘Facebook Law’ Plans to Control All Palestinian Content Online." - The article claims that takedown requests on 20,000 Palestinian items demonstrate an attempt to control all Palestinian content. - The number of takedown requests is irrelevant without demonstrating the illegitimacy of the requests. - Valid evidence would be showing a takedown request for a single post that an unbiased group wouldn't interpret as inflammatory or harmful to security. - It's suspicious that the article doesn't include a link to see the 20,000 posts. Or even one for that matter. Why wouldn't they include that extremely relevant info? - The source for the number 20,000 is this post => https://7amleh.org/2021/12/29/the-palestinian-digital-rights-coalition-and-the-palestinian-human-rights-organizations-council-warn-against-passing-the-facebook-law-in-the-israeli-knesset-and-its-repercussions-on-palestinian-digital-rights https://7amleh.org/2021/12/29/the-palestinian-digital-rights... - The post contains zero information on where that number came from. - The article uses misleading language. It claims takedown requests "grew exponentially", from 2,421 in 2016 to 20,000+ in 2020. An additional 18,000 requests over five years is not exponential growth. - It attributes maliciousness to the increase in takedown requests: -- Ignoring the fact that takedown requests have been increasing globally year after year. Twitter for example had 6,000 governmental takedown requests in 2015. In 2020 that number was 81,000! https://transparency.twitter.com/en/removal-requests.html https://transparency.twitter.com/en/removal-requests.html -- Ignoring Palestinian population growth (which is indeed exponential by nature) of more than half a million. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-palestine-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale... -- Ignoring the massive period of internet adoption during that time period. More than 1,000,000 new internet users! https://www.internetworldstats.com/me/il.htm https://www.internetworldstats.com/me/il.htm - Israel is not even among the top ten countries that submitted the most takedown requests in 2021. Russia, Turkey, France, and Germany are. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-censorship/ https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-cens... - In 2021 Israel had 7.68 million internet users and submitted 91 content removal requests per 100,000 users. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-censorship/ https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-cens... https://www.statista.com/statistics/974318/israel-number-of-internet-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/974318/israel-number-of-... - According to my math that is a total of 6,989 for ALL takedown requests, not just Palestinian content. Hardly the 20,000+ for Palestinian content alone that the article claims. - Depending on where you draw the lines it's hard to get a clear number of Palestinian social media users. Let's take 2.7 million as an estimate as per https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-palestine https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-palestine. - Let's pretend 20,000 is indeed the number of Israeli takedown requests of Palestinian posts. - Let's also pretend that none of those posts were incitements to violence. - Let's assume that each takedown request targeted a post of a unique Palestinian individual (highly unlikely, people's posts tend to have a theme). - That would mean that Israel tried to have a single post of less than 1% of Palestinian social media users taken down. - If the average social media user posts twice a day across all their platforms that's 730 posts in 2020. So even the < 1% of users potentially affected only had .001 of their posts affected. How on earth could anyone rational come to a conclusion that Israel plans to control all Palestinian content online? --- That's my concrete criticism. In addition, the article is a terrible source. It seems that it wasn't shared from the author's main publication "The Palestinian Chronicle" to make it seem less biased. Here is the original https://www.palestinechronicle.com/how-israels-facebook-law-plans-to-control-all-palestinian-content-online/ https://www.palestinechronicle.com/how-israels-facebook-law-.... Note the large logo signifying the platform of a single Palestinian state solution. No state for Jews anywhere in Palestine, not along any borders '67 or '48. What happens to the vast majority of Jews in Israel who have no other country that they can go to? Is there a larger incitement to violence?
someotherperson 5y ago
The article isn't acting as a primary source, it's a review that cites every claim and adds some analysis on top.
- sharikous 5y ago
  "some" analysis? It is a propaganda drivel with cherrypicked extremist sources that agree with the author
  - boffinAudio 5y ago
    Your vitriol belies a prejudice against the claims of the article. So how will this law be used properly, in your opinion, to protect the rights of the Palestinian people?
    - sharikous 5y ago
      I am not in favor of this law. But it's very disingenuous and wrong to say it is directed at Palestinians or focused on them as the article alludes.
      - boffinAudio 5y ago
        True - it will have a chilling effect on anyone and everyone who is critical of Israel, not just Palestinians, but definitely including Palestinians, who wish to raise the issue of their continued repression with the rest of the world. All it takes now is to claim victimhood in the form of 'suffering mental health as a result of online messages', and nobody will ever have to hear the cries of Israels' victims ever again. Absolutely reprehensible. A truly free people do not repress the voice of their victims.
  - someotherperson 5y ago
    If you have difficultly with certain subjects then you're probably better off avoiding them altogether on HN. This kind of posting contributes nothing -- it also goes against the rules and just makes the place hostile https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
boffinAudio 5y ago
You work for Facebook. You are literally being a hypocrite with this argument.
- ciphol 5y ago
  Is Facebook in favor of laws (e.g. by Israel) forcing it to censor specific posts?
  - boffinAudio 5y ago
    Yes. It clearly is. See also, the Unit 8200-founding member and other 'former' members of the IDF now sitting on Facebooks' board of directors.
giuliomagnifico 5y ago
What do you mean for “hardly reputable source”?! To me his curriculum doesn’t look bad (sarcastic, it’s a great CV), yes he’s Palestinian but judge the content, not who wrote it: > Ramzy Baroud is a US-Palestinian journalist, media consultant, an author, internationally-syndicated columnist, Editor of Palestine Chronicle (1999-present), former Managing Editor of London-based Middle East Eye, former Editor-in-Chief of The Brunei Times, former Deputy Managing Editor of Al Jazeera online. Baroud taught mass communication at Australia’s Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia Campus. Baroud also served as head of Aljazeera.net English’s Research and Studies department.
gatlin 5y ago

http://www.ramzybaroud.net/ http://www.ramzybaroud.net/ is hardly a reputable source. Look at the rest of the site...

by voz_ 5y ago

http://www.ramzybaroud.net/ http://www.ramzybaroud.net/ is hardly a reputable source. Look at the rest of the site...

botanical 5y ago

Perhaps you should focus on the subject matter? You seem to snub it because what exactly?

iqanq 5y ago

You could say the same thing about the nytimes for example.

sofixa 5y ago

Do you have any concrete criticism of the article contents? Even a terrible source like the Daily Mail can be 100% spot on about something.

TedShiller 5y ago
Why is DM terrible? I actually find it to be more accurate and less biased than mainstream US media
- sofixa 5y ago
  Because they're a clickbait tabloid machine. Their articles lack essence and research and often focus on "celebrities" or "outrageous" things. And they're often flat out wrong.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    When are they wrong? I agree on the clickbait but that doesn’t mean wrong
sharikous 5y ago
I have. This is the real proposal https://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-advances-bill-censoring-criminal-social-media-posts/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-advances-bill-censorin... and the opposition's counterproposal https://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-floats-hebrew-service-centers-for-social-networks-to-explain-post-deletions/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-floats-hebrew-service... The article makes it like it's just a law aimed at Palestinians when it is a much broader issue and actually opposed by rightwing parties. The title is so insincere as to be sickening.
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  Being opposed by rightwing parties means nothing. How it will be used by rightwing parties when it passes is really the only thing that matters. Lets return to your argument when the law as proposed is struck down and the Palestinian people are not in danger of having their plight further censored and ignored by the world at large.
realYitzi 5y ago
The article does not provide evidence to back the title's claim "How Israel’s ‘Facebook Law’ Plans to Control All Palestinian Content Online." - The article claims that takedown requests on 20,000 Palestinian items demonstrate an attempt to control all Palestinian content. - The number of takedown requests is irrelevant without demonstrating the illegitimacy of the requests. - Valid evidence would be showing a takedown request for a single post that an unbiased group wouldn't interpret as inflammatory or harmful to security. - It's suspicious that the article doesn't include a link to see the 20,000 posts. Or even one for that matter. Why wouldn't they include that extremely relevant info? - The source for the number 20,000 is this post => https://7amleh.org/2021/12/29/the-palestinian-digital-rights-coalition-and-the-palestinian-human-rights-organizations-council-warn-against-passing-the-facebook-law-in-the-israeli-knesset-and-its-repercussions-on-palestinian-digital-rights https://7amleh.org/2021/12/29/the-palestinian-digital-rights... - The post contains zero information on where that number came from. - The article uses misleading language. It claims takedown requests "grew exponentially", from 2,421 in 2016 to 20,000+ in 2020. An additional 18,000 requests over five years is not exponential growth. - It attributes maliciousness to the increase in takedown requests: -- Ignoring the fact that takedown requests have been increasing globally year after year. Twitter for example had 6,000 governmental takedown requests in 2015. In 2020 that number was 81,000! https://transparency.twitter.com/en/removal-requests.html https://transparency.twitter.com/en/removal-requests.html -- Ignoring Palestinian population growth (which is indeed exponential by nature) of more than half a million. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-palestine-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-pale... -- Ignoring the massive period of internet adoption during that time period. More than 1,000,000 new internet users! https://www.internetworldstats.com/me/il.htm https://www.internetworldstats.com/me/il.htm - Israel is not even among the top ten countries that submitted the most takedown requests in 2021. Russia, Turkey, France, and Germany are. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-censorship/ https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-cens... - In 2021 Israel had 7.68 million internet users and submitted 91 content removal requests per 100,000 users. https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-censorship/ https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/tech-giant-cens... https://www.statista.com/statistics/974318/israel-number-of-internet-users/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/974318/israel-number-of-... - According to my math that is a total of 6,989 for ALL takedown requests, not just Palestinian content. Hardly the 20,000+ for Palestinian content alone that the article claims. - Depending on where you draw the lines it's hard to get a clear number of Palestinian social media users. Let's take 2.7 million as an estimate as per https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-palestine https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-palestine. - Let's pretend 20,000 is indeed the number of Israeli takedown requests of Palestinian posts. - Let's also pretend that none of those posts were incitements to violence. - Let's assume that each takedown request targeted a post of a unique Palestinian individual (highly unlikely, people's posts tend to have a theme). - That would mean that Israel tried to have a single post of less than 1% of Palestinian social media users taken down. - If the average social media user posts twice a day across all their platforms that's 730 posts in 2020. So even the < 1% of users potentially affected only had .001 of their posts affected. How on earth could anyone rational come to a conclusion that Israel plans to control all Palestinian content online? --- That's my concrete criticism. In addition, the article is a terrible source. It seems that it wasn't shared from the author's main publication "The Palestinian Chronicle" to make it seem less biased. Here is the original https://www.palestinechronicle.com/how-israels-facebook-law-plans-to-control-all-palestinian-content-online/ https://www.palestinechronicle.com/how-israels-facebook-law-.... Note the large logo signifying the platform of a single Palestinian state solution. No state for Jews anywhere in Palestine, not along any borders '67 or '48. What happens to the vast majority of Jews in Israel who have no other country that they can go to? Is there a larger incitement to violence?

someotherperson 5y ago

The article isn't acting as a primary source, it's a review that cites every claim and adds some analysis on top.

sharikous 5y ago
"some" analysis? It is a propaganda drivel with cherrypicked extremist sources that agree with the author
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  Your vitriol belies a prejudice against the claims of the article. So how will this law be used properly, in your opinion, to protect the rights of the Palestinian people?
  - sharikous 5y ago
    I am not in favor of this law. But it's very disingenuous and wrong to say it is directed at Palestinians or focused on them as the article alludes.
    - boffinAudio 5y ago
      True - it will have a chilling effect on anyone and everyone who is critical of Israel, not just Palestinians, but definitely including Palestinians, who wish to raise the issue of their continued repression with the rest of the world. All it takes now is to claim victimhood in the form of 'suffering mental health as a result of online messages', and nobody will ever have to hear the cries of Israels' victims ever again. Absolutely reprehensible. A truly free people do not repress the voice of their victims.
- someotherperson 5y ago
  If you have difficultly with certain subjects then you're probably better off avoiding them altogether on HN. This kind of posting contributes nothing -- it also goes against the rules and just makes the place hostile https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

boffinAudio 5y ago

You work for Facebook. You are literally being a hypocrite with this argument.

ciphol 5y ago
Is Facebook in favor of laws (e.g. by Israel) forcing it to censor specific posts?
- boffinAudio 5y ago
  Yes. It clearly is. See also, the Unit 8200-founding member and other 'former' members of the IDF now sitting on Facebooks' board of directors.

giuliomagnifico 5y ago

What do you mean for “hardly reputable source”?! To me his curriculum doesn’t look bad (sarcastic, it’s a great CV), yes he’s Palestinian but judge the content, not who wrote it: > Ramzy Baroud is a US-Palestinian journalist, media consultant, an author, internationally-syndicated columnist, Editor of Palestine Chronicle (1999-present), former Managing Editor of London-based Middle East Eye, former Editor-in-Chief of The Brunei Times, former Deputy Managing Editor of Al Jazeera online. Baroud taught mass communication at Australia’s Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia Campus. Baroud also served as head of Aljazeera.net English’s Research and Studies department.

gatlin 5y ago