36 ms·

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

648 points by cratermoon 3y ago

Qem 3y ago
[flagged]
- baobun 3y ago
  More on the same for those out of the loop: https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37709284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37709284)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mc32 3y ago
What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? The fact is people are unprincipled and will either complain about free speech or will clamor for it, or complain about censorship or clamor for it depending on point of view. I wish people were principled and stood on principle and not what dog they have in a fight.
- djohnston 3y ago
  Yep, everyone is full of shit and self interested. Accepting that makes it easy to tune out weak rhetoric from all sides.
  - g8oz 3y ago
    You could try paying attention to human rights reports instead of assuming a false equivalence.
    - djohnston 3y ago
      [flagged]
- CM30 3y ago
  Sadly I agree with this. It seems like the best summary of how most people treat free speech is basically: "If my side is the underdog, talk about how important it is and complain that we're being censored, and if my side is winning, talk about how it's not necessary and those people can go elsewhere" It was extremely obvious when Twitter was bought by Musk and the rules changed to favour far right wing content and rhetoric. Suddenly all the folks talking about that XKDC comic and no free speech on a private platform had a very different tune once their side was the one getting banned or censored there... If you disagree with how a platform is run, go somewhere else.
  - zen928 3y ago
    I agree that it's sad you agree with this.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      No matter what people say it's a private company and they can censor or use your data anyway they wish. If you don't like it go elsewhere. I hate that idea but I accept it. If I didn't accept this then I am in favor of random political entities dictating what is accept content.
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  The vast majority of people are principled on outcomes, not the details of how to get there. So when aiding in an attempted coup or a coordinated effort to manipulate votes to subvert democratic institutions, their principles are focused on stopping that from happening. But we simultaneously admire the founding fathers - who committed a coup and massaged democracy to embed their own power and ideals. And it's regularly asked (though less commonly with time) why Germans didn't just "kill Hitler", by people who would call the assassination of Abraham Lincoln appalling. Because it aligns with their principles for the outcome of "a better world for people", which is what they actually care about. Being dogmatic on the implementation details is important as a preventative measure for abuse by bad actors later, mostly. But forgetting that the end goal is a more just world is just as deadly, because it can let institutions be warped and abused, even if they technically don't break "principles". Plus, I think the last 100 years have made it fairly clear that the real threats and tyrant don't care, they'll just break your principled rules and just... Do it? Anyway, I find it curious that you call "being against an active genocide of a race of people, the murder of innocent women and children in their open-air prison" a simple "dog in the fight". As if stopping thousands of deaths isn't worth breaking a principle or two? Now I don't know enough about the situation to say that's what's happening or not, but that's what these people are the very least feel. Try to use that perspective when engaging the discussion.
- whats_a_quasar 3y ago
  The platforms are large enough now that there is a public interest in the moderation decisions that they make. Like a utility or a mail carrier or an internet service provider, if you reach a certain size in an industry that tends towards a natural monopoly, then the public has an interest in regulating your behavior towards neutrality.
  - hfaklimarse 3y ago
    [flagged]
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > Their platform, their rules? This works at a national level too: "our country, our rules (laws)" And FB and the like have been found to break a number of laws in the past: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-facebook-result-edpb-binding-decision_en https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-f... Perhaps alternative planforms would have a better chance if FB played fair?
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? Yes, and it's absolutely still their platform and their rules. And people also have every right to criticize that platform and its rules, as they're doing. What Meta is doing is wrong, but it should emphatically not be illegal.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    > What Meta is doing is wrong The very first example in the report is "river to the sea" which is arguably a dog whistle for genocide. Parts of liberal Europe have banned this slogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Lega...
deadbabe 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- g8oz 3y ago
  I urge you to look up the definition of a genocide as defined by the United Nations. It's not just an accusation being thrown around for rhetorical purposes. This slaughter meets all the criteria.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - physicles 3y ago
    It does not. The war is being waged with the intent to destroy Hamas (which has itself stated that its goal is to destroy Israel, if given the chance), not to kill every last Palestinian. See also https://youtu.be/L9n77DPJ7AE https://youtu.be/L9n77DPJ7AE
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      Not a bad video, but I think there is missing context. It also doesn't really "absolve" Israel on what might be a technicality (Genocide vs other Crimes AH). There is a pretty good comment there though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE&lc=Ugxo07TPIYWoI148FS94AaABAg.9xhFBBTfTX99xkainw_87e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE&lc=Ugxo07TPIYWoI... I think the quotes there are pretty telling: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank." -- Netanyahu, via theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister
    - g8oz 3y ago
      You're taking Israeli intent at face value. Anyone paying attention to the discourse in Israeli society and amongst their leadership class will understand that this is a war against the Palestinian people.They have been quite open about destroying systems of life to create a self-sustaining humanitarian catastrophe that will force the relocation of Gazans to the Sinai. And the virtual certainty of eye-watering civilian casualties is baked into their rules of engagement. Kill 300 people to get one Hamas fighter? Sure! They have been coddled and shielded by the United States to the point where they genuinely don't seem to understand that this is a war crime.
coryrc 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
newsclues 3y ago
[flagged]
hanniabu 3y ago
[flagged]
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  It's not an absurd proposition. Students have been paid to post in online forums with set talking points.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  ¿Por que no los dos?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
UrineSqueegee 3y ago
Eh this is really tricky, for exampe if I open instagram, Threads or tiktok 9/10 posts will be pro-palestinian with 1 being pro-israeli. Then some of the propalestinian post will be calling for genocide or celebrating the massacre of oct 7. IMO you shouldn't censor anything. That's the only solution. When something is propaganda or false just quickly tag it as such with why it is false like Xitter does.
- rottencupcakes 3y ago
  Twitter has surprisingly become much better since Elon purchased it. The community tags are great and non-partisan, they fairly report on all inaccuracy. Even advertisers aren’t immune, I’ve seen community tags on paid ads calling them out for being drop shippers.
  - throwuxiytayq 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
    Notably, Community Notes (formerly Birdwatch) was released in Jan 2021. Elon just flipped the feature flag.
    - junofan 3y ago
      Worth noting Birdwatch launched alongside the ability to report tweets for misinformation, a feature Elon disabled. For that reason it’s difficult to conceive of Community Notes today as a simple continuation of the Birdwatch effort.
      - GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
        I think he was right to disable the ability for Community Notes to actually report and remove tweets. First, it's a vector for abuse. Second, misinformation is a loaded term and having the context along side the content is more important for an informed public. Of course anything illegal or against ToS should be removed and only be the purview of Twitter's moderation team (or what's left of it).
iddan 3y ago
[flagged]
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam, the report said." But yes, I would have liked to see some concrete examples.
- mort96 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mort96 3y ago
      I'm not sure it's possible to look at what Israel is doing and say it's not terror. So, charitably, I guess you're saying the IDF is not an organization?
      - josephcsible 3y ago
        Is every country in the world wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... doesn't have a single country that calls the IDF a terror organization.
        mort96 3y ago
        Countries are careful about calling other countries terror organisations. That's a weak argument. To convince me, you have to argue that their actions aren't terroristic. Usually, you can argue that a state's actions aren't "terrorism" because most definitions of "terrorism" involve the requirement that the action is illegal. But saying that the IDF is regularly committing war crimes isn't even controversial at this point. So what exactly separates their illegal actions intended to instil terror from all the other terror organizations?
vitalurk 3y ago
[flagged]
- mort96 3y ago
  What exactly are you trying to say
  - black6 3y ago
    That war is a racket where children's lives are acceptable collateral.
    - mort96 3y ago
      No I'm pretty sure that there's some deeper meaning, but I'm not sure exactly what. For example, what exactly is meant by "Viral content? Fuck this"? Is this Guardian article the "viral content"? Or the Human Rights Watch posts? Or what? What exactly is being criticized?
      - black6 3y ago
        Viral media (videos, memes, etc) are largely propaganda, and they're being used by both sides to encourage and glorify conflict. Conflict, the result of which is dead citizens, many of them children, while those who beat the war drums do so from positions of security while they profit off of the war.
      - vitalurk 3y ago
        I'm seeing a bunch of techies use terms normally utilized for TikTok dances, and I'm just saying maybe we should stop. What deeper meaning do you need? Bombing of Palestinian children is what I'm being critical of.
perfectritone 3y ago
At the beginning of the conflict I noticed my feed was fully leaning towards supporting Israel, even if it was only the posts of 3 people. Somehow the 30+ people demanding the stop to the bombing of civilians didn't really start appearing until late November. They were posting the entire time, but Meta's algorithm decided not to show it to me.
- rasz 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    Yes, most condemn ALL violence.
    - salawat 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - salawat 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar. Your account has a long history of doing this, and we've warned you many times. To continue doing it is not ok, and on this topic least of all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460722 (Jan 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209948 (Oct 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32922335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32922335 (Sept 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010834 (April 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927198 (July 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27089584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27089584 (May 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26857484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26857484 (April 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21875867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21875867 (Dec 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15143690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15143690 (Aug 2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mustafa_pasi 3y ago
[flagged]
- aaomidi 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mustafa_pasi 3y ago
    For sure. And you know what will be disgusting to witness? A lot of the ones supporting this evil, will claim to have been against the injustice all along. Plain lies. Like the German NAZIs did after the Holocaust. I wonder how that will work out for them, considering the quasi permanent nature of internet history.
- ars 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - geraneum 3y ago
    Chances are, if something causes rage, the algorithm amplifies it (for you) because it may drive more engagement and increase ad revenue. It’s sometimes hard to know what’s actually happening on social media.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Plus, partisans of one side will always display the nuts on the other side, it's an easy slam dunk.
  - meticulous_gal 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    Here you go. Some saying it: https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/michelle-bachmann-charlie-kirk-its-time-gaza-ends-2-million-people-who-live-there-they https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/michelle-bachmann-... https://nypost.com/2023/11/21/metro/stuart-seldowitz-harasses-halal-cart-vendor-says-killing-of-4000-palestinian-kids-wasnt-enough/ https://nypost.com/2023/11/21/metro/stuart-seldowitz-harasse... While others do it: https://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-claims-israeli-soldiers-204952517.html https://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-claims-israeli-soldiers...
cthaeh 3y ago
Can someone explain how every single post about Palestine/Israel is flagged and removed the instant it hits front page? I have seen this with around 4-5 threads personally and who knows how many I missed
- dang 3y ago
  Users are flagging them. I don't think it's hard to understand why: it's a divisive and flameprone topic. Two positions that people urge us to take (different people, obviously) are (1) treat it as off topic and flag everything; or (2) have no limits, which means letting it dominate the front page. Neither of these positions are viable for HN. For reasons why I say that, see past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... - these are general explanations, not specifically about Gaza, but they apply to that also. HN has had at least two major related threads so far: The pro-Israel information war - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572675 - Dec 2023 (1673 comments) 'Like we were lesser humans': Gaza boys, men recall Israeli arrest, torture - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616550 - Dec 2023 (1309 comments) Here are some explanations I posted the last time this question of flags came up, in case helpful at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 Obviously we want commenters to have thoughtful, respectful, open conversation with each other rather than just fighting a war on HN. Equally obviously, it's pretty hard to avoid the latter. These things can only be 'graded on a curve', i.e. moderation has to shift somewhat, relative to the topic - not to do that would be expecting people not to be human, which is a losing proposition. But that does not mean the rules somehow switch off. Accounts that break the HN guidelines egregiously (such as by getting aggressive or posting in the flamewar style) are going to get warned and/or banned, regardless of who they're battling for or against. More than that, I'm not sure what we can do.
  - user982 3y ago
    Have you noticed any patterns or organization in the flagging and voting of this subject, or does it all look organic?
riku_iki 3y ago
[flagged]
- mustafa_pasi 3y ago
  No, actually it is not. Stop with this dehumanization of Palestinians. They are human beings. They are not worth less than you just because they are on the other side of the fence.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Well yes, but what if they support the initial terror attacks? Massacring dance festival attendants and people in their homes is not self defence, it is terrorism.
    - Qem 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "So if IDF massacred dance festival attendants and people in their homes" Where is the proof for that? A tank shooting at houses where enemy fighters were dug in? On the other side there are lots of videos showing Hamas murdering people.
    - catlover76 3y ago
      > Well yes, but what if they support the initial terror attacks? Even steel manning your position and assuming most of the women and children being killed (and worse) by Israel cheered the attacks (which we have no evidence is true) , no, actually, you aren't justified in massacring people just because they took pleasure in an evil thing that happened to you.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        But you would have more moral justification to limit spreading their hate and propaganda which this was about. Also, it seems you are shadowbanned. You might want to reread and reflect some of your comments and then contact dang.
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
This post was flagged, but I don't think it should have been and I hope it stays up. I have been grateful that HN hasn't had the same level of animosity about the conflict in Gaza as other places on the internet. But this news article is about a core issue in tech, and should be discussed on HN. The whole world now uses social media to communicate, which means that when there's a war, partisans of both sides will be motivated to fight out the propaganda war on the platforms that tech built. I wonder if there will ever be a way for a global-sized platform which uses algorithmic content feeds to convincingly show moderation neutrality on a topic like this. The HRW report has 1,000 examples of peaceful pro-Palestinian content that was removed by Meta. But only Meta themselves has the information to know whether there is systematic bias. So we get a situation where people sympathetic to both sides both come away feeling that the platform is biased. I think the U.S. culture war has similar dynamics. My engineer brain wants to solve this by giving users more visibility into moderation decisions. Maybe statistics on deleted posts, more legible moderation rules, publicly posted justifications for moderation decisions. Another part of my brain thinks that maybe this is just an unsolvable problem for social reasons in a community that's global-scale. I'm not sure. I do feel like this is still Meta's job, part of their cost of doing business, and if they put something like 5% of their revenue into moderation the situation would be a lot better. In the meantime I find myself personally trying to cut out as many algorithmic feeds as I can from my life. I prefer the curation of a news website or podcast, small group discussions, or 1:1 communication with people I trust. Algorithmic feeds are easy but so far have never done a good job covering issues where there is real conflict between two groups.
- throwaway55479 3y ago
  That is "the beauty" of this conflict (if something this heinous could ever have a beautiful side): It poses many interesting technical challenges. But, quite understandably, people everywhere (including HN) are fast to move the "warring" right onto our screens (hence the flagging). So, as you mentioned, algorithmic feeds is one of them. There are many others like how to create temporary infrastructure for such a besieged, war-torn city [0]. I suppose many would say, "This goes for all wars, what is special about this one?" Well, I would argue this is a "special conflict". It is one of (if not THE) longest-running military occupation in the world [1], where, coincidentally, the US spends its largest tax-payers-funded foreign aid [2]. Edit: And because many are now commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, it is worth recalling that it is also special for being that birth's place (spiritually, if not literally). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38673300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38673300 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations [2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/which-countries-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/which-countries-receive-...
dlubarov 3y ago
Are you saying that changes on Israel's part could cause Hamas to stop their aggression? That seems very unlikely - Hamas doesn't even pretend to be open to peaceful coexistence with Israel. Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. Or that it could lead to Gazans overthrowing Hamas? It's possible, but it would take a violent rebellion since Hamas doesn't hold elections, and realistically it would probably take generations for sentiment to change. It would be hard for Israelis to just accept that they will be attacked for generations, with increasing sophistication (mainly thanks to Iran's support), with no response.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  This is greatly complicated by the fact that Israel materially supported Hamas and saw it as useful. Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. On the other hand, Israel is not facing good geopolitical headwinds. As Yemen demonstrated, they are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. One day, in the not so distant future, the US won't be able to intercept all the missiles of Israel's enemies on its behalf, and Israel will have to contend with the threat of a total blockade. So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical. It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli. That of course doesn't justify Hamas's inhuman war crimes, but acting as if war is unprovoked is not consistent with reality - Israel has never, by the definitions in international law, stopped actively waging war against Gaza.
  - dlubarov 3y ago
    I agree Israel ought to be able to prevent similar ground invasions, but what about rockets? The Iron Dome has been relatively effective so far, but the technological gap won't last forever. Hamas has already acquired rockets like the Fajr-5, despite the blockade. Once they start using guidance systems, the destruction will be much greater, and 90% interception rate won't be good enough. Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem politically viable to just tolerate repeated attacks with no response. So I think it's inevitable that Israel will have to remove Hamas from power, no matter the geopolitical cost.
jules-jules 3y ago
[flagged]
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Maybe because the discussion is not of very high quality? Look how many downvotes there are already, it is an emotional topic and yes, even here people are having problems with maintaining a civil debate about a controversial topic. And others don't want all that flame war here, so they flag it, simple as that.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    The mechanism of downvoting is supposed to remove low quality posts. If someone if uncivil, downvote or flag them. Soon enough they'll get the hint or be warned. > others don't want all that flame war here That doesn't make sense. If you don't want to participate, then ignore the post. actively preventing others participating is something else - I think "censor" is more appropriate in that case.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Well, the space on the front page is limited. And there are lots of other controversial topics - potentially taking all the space. And some want only technical topics or mainly technical. So "curating" is more appropriate I think. (But personally I did participate ... so much that I am rate limited again)
      - Chris2048 3y ago
        the front page isn't limited. Hit "next" and you see as many more posts as you like. Most front-page posts are tech related, we are far from being overrun with controversial posts.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        It is not the frontpage by definition anymore, if one has to click "next" ..
llamaInSouth 3y ago
[flagged]
seydor 3y ago
[dead]
londons_explore 3y ago
One day, there will be a bigish war, and comms between the sides will be cut off, either by law, or all comms links severed. At that point, every global business will have to figure out how to split their business in two, their database in two, their server infrastructure in two, etc. and have both halves work. I suspect that few businesses have prepared for such an eventuality, and I suspect severe disruption can be expected when it happens. For anyone designing something new today, the main prep you can do is to never use sequences for database ID's. By using random id's, you can mostly let your replicated database partition itself, and a later merge isn't too hard as long as most users have been operating on only one side of the divide.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > At that point, every global business will have to figure out how to split their business in two, their database in two, their server infrastructure in two, etc. and have both halves work. Or give up serving one side. Probably the one the executives of the company don't live in. Like how many companies stopped operating in Russia after their war in Ukraine got into high gear.
  - hx8 3y ago
    In such a situation, I foresee something more like the splitting of the Roman Empire. There's no reason to stop serving global customers just because the users are separated from HQ. Especially if the servers are already on both sides of the geo-political border.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
      The Roman Empire split was relatively friendly. Theodosius split it between his two sons.
      - ithkuil 3y ago
        The Roman empire had a tradition of splitting the control of the areas between multiple people at several points starting from Diocletian's tetrarchy onward. The last east/west split was different on that it was that last one. In a way, you could look at the period of absolute control by a single person as an exception in Roman history.
magwa101 3y ago
[dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
akkendmdn 3y ago
[flagged]
orenlindsey 3y ago
Censorship has been done to both people with right-wing views and left-wing views. It's not a question of if it's been done. We need to stop censorship of people on both sides. Obviously, this is very hard (or it would have been done by now). My idealist brain wants some big, overarching solution but I don't think that's really possible.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  There’s a good piece from someone (formerly?) at Reddit about how to do moderation without consideration if content; I’m not expressing a take either way behind it being worth a look.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- boston_clone 3y ago
  I'm not sure it's correct to classify this particular instance as either left- or right-wing; additionally, misinformation should be censored. From the article: >Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam This issue seems almost parallel to the paradox of tolerance in that algorithms which promote content at a global scale - largely without human oversight - should not be unregulated. It is factual to say that human rights violations are occurring in Palestine. It is also factual to say that people have a right to defend themselves, and to recognize that atrocities are atrocious. But to silence the already-oppressed furthers oppression, and Meta is to blame here, again. We should also consider the potential implications that Meta, with a market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars, has in regard to US foreign policy vis-a-vis support of Israel.
  - orenlindsey 3y ago
    Supporting Palestine is generally a left-wing view (proof: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/07/11/american-views-of-israel/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/07/11/american-views...). So Meta is censoring a mostly left-wing viewpoint.
CommanderData 3y ago
[flagged]
- ipaddr 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    Genuinely asking… what has worked in getting hostages beyond the temporary peace deal? I saw Israel had already accidentally shot their own hostages who managed to escape Hamas. In a war like that, how can Israel even free the hostages by this dropping bombs method, if the hostages get out they will be shot by their own military?
    - Qem 3y ago
      > I saw Israel had already accidentally shot their own hostages who managed to escape Hamas. For me, the most tragic aspect is that those three hostages where gunned down while shirtless, in civilian pants, waving white flags, because they were mistaken for three shirtless Palestinian civilians, trying to surrender waving white flags. The execution wouldn't be justified in either case, and is damning evidence of the treatment Israeli forces give Palestinian civilians.
    - ipaddr 3y ago
      The one thing that has worked is bombing and overwhelming them into temporary ceasefire solder exchange.
      - tdeck 3y ago
        The hostages themselves have said they were most afraid of being killed by the IDF's bombing campaign.
        Aeolun 3y ago
        Apparently it’s a military doctrine? The hannibal directive, or something like that.
sgift 3y ago
[flagged]
- k1m 3y ago
  Chomsky: 'if “they” do it, it’s terrorism; if “we” do it, it’s counterterrorism. That’s a historical universal.'
  - sgift 3y ago
    I don't remember the incident where Israel killed 1200 Palestinians on a music festival with unmarked troops. I'm sure Chomsky would find some justification for that too, but that's why the only thing I care about he did is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy - from there it's all been downhill, especially in the last few years. Before that it was at least from time to time worth thinking about.
    - Sporktacular 3y ago
      Get your numbers straight and then read a history book. You'll find many times that number if you only care to look.
    - lossolo 3y ago
      > I don't remember the incident where Israel killed 1200 Palestinians on a music festival with unmarked troops. You mean 364 on festival? The final death toll from the 7th October attack is now thought to be 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      that’s the cool part about being the hegemon: you get to wear uniforms while doing your atrocities, and you have tanks and planes and ambassadors wielding real power at the UN to prevent consequences. Just like the US killing hundreds of thousands of people in the firebombing campaigns of Japan was probably a war-crime. We wore uniforms while doing it. What are you gonna do about it? You already lost the war, not like you have any leverage.
psyman 3y ago
Not only Meta, but Reddit, Google as well
rightbyte 3y ago
It boils down to the algorithmic feed, where Zuckerberg decides what the users see and not the users. Old Facebook didn't have that problem, where there more or less was a chronological order of friends' post. That systems also did not have any problem with "troll farms" (do those even exist, anyway?) since those could not reach you in the first place. On places like Reddit, I get this feeling that some bot network control most subs. It seems to be major manipulation of down votes and upvotes. The atmosphere is way to aligned to be real.
- octacat 3y ago
  In the incoming world of AI generated garbage content, Meta decided to kill feeds from your friends and pages you follow. That is "great" strategic planning.
- hipadev23 3y ago
  > The atmosphere is way to aligned to be real. I think it’s identical here on HN. Upvoting, downvoting, and using flagging to suppress contrary opinions is rampant and has a huge negative impact toward discussion. I think it’s just the topic du jour on HN is less escalated (usually opinions of tech choices) so it doesn’t seem as extreme.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    Be sure to turn on showdead, it absolutely should be enabled with the amount of suppression and brigading and rules-lawyering that takes place
  - smt88 3y ago
    > using flagging to suppress contrary opinions is rampant and has a huge negative impact toward discussion I've had showdead turned on for years and have rarely seen contrary opinions flagged, if ever. The main things I see flagged are personal attacks, open bigotry, flaming, etc. Occasionally I used to see anti-CCP comments flagged, but I haven't seen that in a while. I'd be interested to see some examples where you think something was unjustly flagged.
wslh 3y ago
On another news, the UN, which is a political international organization, and not a company or an "app", have a large blind spot for many attrocities around the world. It is important to criticize those apps but most important to look at the reality you really face, like "Denmark and Germany arrest terror suspects planning attacks in Europe" [1]. Also, you can follow by the HRW 2023 report [2]. I think they forgot to put an executive summary that gives you a quick glance around the world. [3] helps. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2023/12/14/denmark-germany-arrest-hamas-suspects-planning-attacks_6344720_143.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2023/12/14/denmark-... [2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023 https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023 [3] https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/01/World%20Report%202023_ETR_v4.pdf https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/01/World%...
- karim79 3y ago
  Whataboutism[0] at its finest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
zawaideh 3y ago
Hashtags like #GazaStarving got banned on Instagram for no reason. Yea there is bad censorship.
- oldpersonintx 3y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- taskforcegemini 3y ago
  are the pictures of the hostages being removed for no reason?
gumballindie 3y ago
I have nearly no followers on Threads and follow only 2-3 people yet somehow I am bombarded with pro palestine content on the odd occasion i open it. I somehow doubt the guardian is right on this one. This “newspaper” is known to gave all sorts of dubious agendas.
dventimi 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20181105214850/https://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-human-rights-watch-close-your-revolving-door-us-government https://web.archive.org/web/20181105214850/https://www.alter...
23B1 3y ago
People still use Facebook?
- ignoramous 3y ago
  Instagram, yes. Some billion of them, I'd hazard a guess.
- b0ner_t0ner 3y ago
  (Depending on your country) Whatsapp has Channels, some of those news channels' views are completely one-sided.
ThinkBeat 3y ago
This is something people have to relearn over and over again. A lot of the people who are not upset with Meta limiting opinions and content related to the war in Gaza¹. Were gloating and happy when Meta limited opinions and content from right wing politicians² not so long ago. Once you invite censorship for content you dont like, how can you expect it wont bite you in the ass later on. This is why freedom of speech is an important principle. That overshadows how someone "feels" about speech. Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech. ""Dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, were in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -Noam Chomsky Slightly related though originating from a different context. First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller Which in this context I use it to highlight that the protection of freedom of speech is not something you can ignore because you dont care about a topic. One must speak out against censorship and against limiting freedom of speech, whenever it is being limited. If we dont, then it becomes a bit more limited, and a little bit more, and eventually it will strike upon something you do care about, and it is far too late to speak up. ¹,² For this post I am assuming this is accurate. But i cannot prove either.
- sgregnt 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - karim79 3y ago
    There needs to be a a new button on the various social media channels. One click and it fills a reply with: "One can advocate for the Palestinian State and the rights of its people, seeking a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict, without being aligned with Hamas. Furthermore, employing a false dichotomy, where one is either labeled as a supporter of a cause or, or that of an extremist group, is counter-productive. It oversimplifies complex issues and stifles meaningful dialogue."
hello_dang 3y ago
[dead]
trhway 3y ago
May it be that Meta is just doing it job by weeding out fakes? Most of the pro-Hamas/pro-Palestinian propaganda that I saw contradicts the facts to say the least (or in the best case is only single-sourced with the source being either Hamas itself or a cozy affiliate of a Hamas like those Gaza offices of UN agencies). Btw, Meta is outlawed (declared "extremist", it is somewhat like "material supporter of terrorism" status in US) in Russia for refusing to bend to Russian authorities and to carry only official Russian, completely false, propaganda.
- LtWorf 3y ago
  It might be that outside of your circles, people do have different opinions, without them being bots. Last elections fb was spamming me with trump propaganda. I don't know anyone who voted for trump, for the simple reason that I don't live in USA. And yet I still got the propaganda… I understand the russians might not want USA propaganda and might want their own instead.
  - trhway 3y ago
    I'm not talking about opinions. I'm taking about propaganda and facts which that propaganda contradicts. For illustration, I've just posted an example of such propaganda and the facts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882
mgraczyk 3y ago
Interestingly if you read the actual report from HRW, it sounds like most of the material they are referring too was legitimately taken down because it supported violence, according to Meta's policies. For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many, so it was taken down. In other cases the content praised attacks by Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US government. From HRWs descriptions it sounds like the bulk of the "1049" content removals were clear violations of Meta's policies against support for violence. Regardless of whether you agree, these don't seem surprising to me on light of Meta's own rules. There are of course a small number of exceptions listed.
- wslh 3y ago
  [flagged]
- zardo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - wslh 3y ago
    [flagged]
- myth_drannon 3y ago
  [flagged]
- rayiner 3y ago
  > For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many The phrase has its origins in Arab nationalism. It was coined in 1960 by the PLO to refer to the goal of an Arab state that occupies the entirety of what was Mandatory Palestine. If you ignore the subtext of “what happens to the Jews in that situation” I suppose you can make a case for it. It’s like the confederate flag. In the 20th century there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism. And that’s the only connotation lots of people have of it. But it has a pretty unpleasant historical context. At the very least it’s a dog whistle to the large fraction of the Muslim world that hates Jews: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/adls-global-100-survey-what-does-it-actually-say-about-muslim-attitudes-toward-jews https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/adls-global-100-survey-wh.... Americans who use this phrase should really travel to the Muslim world to understand the antisemitism that’s just in the air. You can’t travel to my “moderate Muslim” country with an Israeli passport. Guess why that is?
cf1241290841 3y ago
I believe its relevant to mention that this doesnt have to be ill intent on part of Meta. Israeli intelligence is spending a lot of resources on influencing narratives. Its not surprising that this would include exploiting and influencing moderation. And its not like social media sites figured out perfect moderation yet, they are an easy target for such determined influences.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- underdeserver 3y ago
  Israeli intelligence is likely spending virtually no resources at all on influencing narratives. And if they are, they are failing spectacularly. More likely, the ministry of the exterior, the IDF spokesperson office, and civilian operations are trying to influence narratives. From what I can tell these other efforts are not doing so well either.
  - cf1241290841 3y ago
    I think you are wrong on both parts. Cognitive / Narrative warfare has become part of standard doctrine for most major militaries. Earlier discussion about "corporate" spin offs from the intelligence sector. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34803779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34803779 Looking how many countries backed the current Israeli government for how long despite targeting the civilian population, as well as stuff like OP on most major platforms they seem to be horrifically effective.
    - underdeserver 3y ago
      Hyperlocal public opinion bot campaigns in third world countries are different from swaying public opinion in the west. I would not say any governments other than the US government "back" the Israeli government. The most the Israelis get is a cold neutrality, and an occasional abstention instead of yea vote in the many UN general assembly votes against Israel.
asylteltine 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
xenospn 3y ago
Odd. When I open instagram reels all I see are pro-Palestinian posts, including the now intolerable “threads” box. I doubt that report is accurate.
bawolff 3y ago
Kind of a click-bait headline. To quote the actual report: "This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship." They asked people to self-report instances. There is probably selection bias (maybe they advertised only to the pro-palestian crowd. Maybe the israeli crowd thinks HRW is biased and didn't want to engage. Maybe something else). There is probably also base rate falacy involved which isn't accounted for. This just isnt the right type of study to determine if meta has a bias in censorship.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  The paragraph in question: > Human Rights Watch solicited cases of any type of online censorship and of any type of viewpoint related to Israel and Palestine. Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 cases documented involved examples of online censorship and suppression of content in support of Palestine, while one case contained an example of removal of content in support of Israel.[2] This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship. So HRW may as well not have looked at the other side of the issue. They also complained that Meta's policies are informed by the United States' designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. I get the sense these sorts of reports are designed to turn into headlines.
  - zer0zzz 3y ago
    > I get the sense these sorts of reports are designed to turn into headlines. Bingo.
- kar5pt 3y ago
  HRW has a reputation for being biased against Israel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Wa... . Regardless of whether that's true, it could explain why pro-Israel folks wouldn't want to engage with them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
kar5pt 3y ago
Their methodology seems really flawed. They cherry picked a thousand instances of wrongly removed content, but how many posts do you think there are about the conflict on Facebook and Instagram? Tens of millions? They have no way of knowing how representative that sample is.
- underdeserver 3y ago
  Exactly. Whatever your opinions on Israel and Gaza, putting out a report so cherry-picked on such a small, unrepresentative sample only serves to show HRW's biases.
- havelhovel 3y ago
  > Human Rights Watch published a call for evidence of online censorship…from the main Human Rights Watch accounts on Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter), and TikTok. I don’t see how HRW can post this in good conscience without acknowledging the huge potential for voluntary response bias in this survey. Pro-Israel voices have been skeptical of HRW’s perceived Anti-Israel bias[1] for over a decade. They are not going to be following or engaging with HRW accounts, and their voices are most likely fewer in number overall[2]. The fact that 1,049 of the 1,050 comments submitted for HRW’s review were Pro-Palestine should be a red flag, not the core piece of evidence. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204619004574318... [2] https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/support-for-palestine-skyrocketing-among-young-voters-poll-shows-tiktok-bin-laden-college-students-americans-quinnipiac-university-survey-hamas-israel-gaza-war https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/support-for-palestine...
mathgradthrow 3y ago
I have a suspicion that this article is vaguely a response to the previous report that TikTok overwhelmingly censors content in accordance with China's official position.
- kredd 3y ago
  That entire report was very weird as they compared some uploaded videos with specific hashtags on TikTok vs Instagram. I just don’t understand how that methodology can fly when TikTok is banned in some places, while IG is banned in different ones. So obviously you’ll get stuff anout Hong Kong protests on IG, but not on TikTok since it’s not available in Hong Kong. There’s also no reliable way of finding where the data is being uploaded from, so huge bot-farms in India wouldn’t push much in TikTok either, cause again, it’s banned there. As much as I hate TT/IG, we shouldn’t try to prove our point with extremely unreliable studies.
oglop 3y ago
This comment section is a blast. Btw, just saying “this phrase is considered hateful by many” is inane. Many people find many things hateful but they don’t get the same weird instant “you bigot!” label as some of what I see directed towards Palestinian supporters. It’s nuts. I have no dog in the fight. Just giving some useless anecdotes for people to get angry over. But also, 1000 is not that many in the grand scheme of things like Meta said.
yolkedgeek 3y ago
Meta is as rigged and rotten as it gets. I live in Iran and whenever I have posted something political (not just rants, something serious) or any serious about the gov, it always got taken down. During the Woman,Life,Freedom movement everybody reported how instagram would take down important rebel news and posts and journalisms. you would think meta would work against something like the Islamic republic but it seems like it love all corrupt dictator governments. Let it be Islamic republic or Israel. Thank god I have left all meta platforms for about 3 years now. But anyone who claims Meta is not pure evil is either evil themself or really really stupid.
ChatGTP 3y ago
Hamas is a terrorist organization, apparently backed by Iran, and are constantly spreading misinformation online, this is why it's censored? I sometimes open "The Guardian" and the amount of times they quote "The Gaza Health Ministry", which would be no more trust worthy than the North Korean or Chinese health ministry, is fucking ridiculous. If people thought about thing more critically then we wouldn't have to sensor everything but people don't they eat it up, and get all conspiratorial. On the other hand, I think Meta have built a shit product that requires an insane level of censoring to keep even remotely civil. Unfortunately this flawed product has dire impacts on democratic societies.
- tmnvix 3y ago
  > Hamas is a terrorist organization You seem to be making the mistake that many do and conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people. The article is not about posts in support of Hamas.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Good luck just "untangling" Hamas and the palestinians though.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
welzel 3y ago
Sometimes i feel that reporters should be needed to add a basic statistical analysis before they are allowed to claim something like censorship. How much content is posted every day on meta? How many content removal decisions are taken every day by meta? Hint: Over 1 billion Stories are posted every day. So even if 1049 content removals would happen on a single day - but this "evidence" is collected over a much longer time period. You have to read about HRW and its campaign against Israel to maybe understand why HRW continue to post this type of propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watc... The guardian did a very bad job at picking up this biased content.
- mvuijlst 3y ago
  Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_foreign_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_for... etc. Does the existence of these Wikipedia articles now mean that I can call any information put out by Israel or the United States "biased content" and just disregard it?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - havelhovel 3y ago
    No. The comment you're replying to explicitly calls out the poor methodology this report is based on and the lack of subject matter expertise shown by the authors. The Wikipedia article is supplementary information that situates this critique within a wider context. They are not saying you should dismiss the report simply because of the Wikipedia article.
oort-cloud9 3y ago
[dead]
stuckinhell 3y ago
extremely disturbing
happytiger 3y ago
No matter what your views, we should all be very concerned that a technology company that specializes in social connections is controlling what people can say to one another. This combined with the close government coordination that was recently exposed is deeply concerning. ‘Disinformation’ seems to be more and more just ‘opinions we don’t like or support’ and this episode should serve as a warning to use all to limit their power before it’s too late. And I don’t care if you like Triden or Brump: this shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
invig 3y ago
Trying to keep everyone happy is keeping no one happy.
nikolay 3y ago
Meta and YouTube seem to have started to shadowban pro-Palestine sentiment materials.

648 points by cratermoon 3y ago

Qem 3y ago

[flagged]

baobun 3y ago
More on the same for those out of the loop: https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-i-the-setup (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37709284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37709284)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mc32 3y ago

What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? The fact is people are unprincipled and will either complain about free speech or will clamor for it, or complain about censorship or clamor for it depending on point of view. I wish people were principled and stood on principle and not what dog they have in a fight.

djohnston 3y ago
Yep, everyone is full of shit and self interested. Accepting that makes it easy to tune out weak rhetoric from all sides.
- g8oz 3y ago
  You could try paying attention to human rights reports instead of assuming a false equivalence.
  - djohnston 3y ago
    [flagged]
CM30 3y ago
Sadly I agree with this. It seems like the best summary of how most people treat free speech is basically: "If my side is the underdog, talk about how important it is and complain that we're being censored, and if my side is winning, talk about how it's not necessary and those people can go elsewhere" It was extremely obvious when Twitter was bought by Musk and the rules changed to favour far right wing content and rhetoric. Suddenly all the folks talking about that XKDC comic and no free speech on a private platform had a very different tune once their side was the one getting banned or censored there... If you disagree with how a platform is run, go somewhere else.
- zen928 3y ago
  I agree that it's sad you agree with this.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    No matter what people say it's a private company and they can censor or use your data anyway they wish. If you don't like it go elsewhere. I hate that idea but I accept it. If I didn't accept this then I am in favor of random political entities dictating what is accept content.
Tadpole9181 3y ago
The vast majority of people are principled on outcomes, not the details of how to get there. So when aiding in an attempted coup or a coordinated effort to manipulate votes to subvert democratic institutions, their principles are focused on stopping that from happening. But we simultaneously admire the founding fathers - who committed a coup and massaged democracy to embed their own power and ideals. And it's regularly asked (though less commonly with time) why Germans didn't just "kill Hitler", by people who would call the assassination of Abraham Lincoln appalling. Because it aligns with their principles for the outcome of "a better world for people", which is what they actually care about. Being dogmatic on the implementation details is important as a preventative measure for abuse by bad actors later, mostly. But forgetting that the end goal is a more just world is just as deadly, because it can let institutions be warped and abused, even if they technically don't break "principles". Plus, I think the last 100 years have made it fairly clear that the real threats and tyrant don't care, they'll just break your principled rules and just... Do it? Anyway, I find it curious that you call "being against an active genocide of a race of people, the murder of innocent women and children in their open-air prison" a simple "dog in the fight". As if stopping thousands of deaths isn't worth breaking a principle or two? Now I don't know enough about the situation to say that's what's happening or not, but that's what these people are the very least feel. Try to use that perspective when engaging the discussion.
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
The platforms are large enough now that there is a public interest in the moderation decisions that they make. Like a utility or a mail carrier or an internet service provider, if you reach a certain size in an industry that tends towards a natural monopoly, then the public has an interest in regulating your behavior towards neutrality.
- hfaklimarse 3y ago
  [flagged]
Chris2048 3y ago
> Their platform, their rules? This works at a national level too: "our country, our rules (laws)" And FB and the like have been found to break a number of laws in the past: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-facebook-result-edpb-binding-decision_en https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2023/12-billion-euro-fine-f... Perhaps alternative planforms would have a better chance if FB played fair?
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules? Yes, and it's absolutely still their platform and their rules. And people also have every right to criticize that platform and its rules, as they're doing. What Meta is doing is wrong, but it should emphatically not be illegal.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  > What Meta is doing is wrong The very first example in the report is "river to the sea" which is arguably a dog whistle for genocide. Parts of liberal Europe have banned this slogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Lega...

deadbabe 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
g8oz 3y ago
I urge you to look up the definition of a genocide as defined by the United Nations. It's not just an accusation being thrown around for rhetorical purposes. This slaughter meets all the criteria.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- physicles 3y ago
  It does not. The war is being waged with the intent to destroy Hamas (which has itself stated that its goal is to destroy Israel, if given the chance), not to kill every last Palestinian. See also https://youtu.be/L9n77DPJ7AE https://youtu.be/L9n77DPJ7AE
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    Not a bad video, but I think there is missing context. It also doesn't really "absolve" Israel on what might be a technicality (Genocide vs other Crimes AH). There is a pretty good comment there though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE&lc=Ugxo07TPIYWoI148FS94AaABAg.9xhFBBTfTX99xkainw_87e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9n77DPJ7AE&lc=Ugxo07TPIYWoI... I think the quotes there are pretty telling: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank." -- Netanyahu, via theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister
  - g8oz 3y ago
    You're taking Israeli intent at face value. Anyone paying attention to the discourse in Israeli society and amongst their leadership class will understand that this is a war against the Palestinian people.They have been quite open about destroying systems of life to create a self-sustaining humanitarian catastrophe that will force the relocation of Gazans to the Sinai. And the virtual certainty of eye-watering civilian casualties is baked into their rules of engagement. Kill 300 people to get one Hamas fighter? Sure! They have been coddled and shielded by the United States to the point where they genuinely don't seem to understand that this is a war crime.

coryrc 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

newsclues 3y ago

[flagged]

hanniabu 3y ago

[flagged]

Sporktacular 3y ago
It's not an absurd proposition. Students have been paid to post in online forums with set talking points.
cratermoon 3y ago
¿Por que no los dos?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

UrineSqueegee 3y ago

Eh this is really tricky, for exampe if I open instagram, Threads or tiktok 9/10 posts will be pro-palestinian with 1 being pro-israeli. Then some of the propalestinian post will be calling for genocide or celebrating the massacre of oct 7. IMO you shouldn't censor anything. That's the only solution. When something is propaganda or false just quickly tag it as such with why it is false like Xitter does.

rottencupcakes 3y ago
Twitter has surprisingly become much better since Elon purchased it. The community tags are great and non-partisan, they fairly report on all inaccuracy. Even advertisers aren’t immune, I’ve seen community tags on paid ads calling them out for being drop shippers.
- throwuxiytayq 3y ago
  [flagged]
- GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  Notably, Community Notes (formerly Birdwatch) was released in Jan 2021. Elon just flipped the feature flag.
  - junofan 3y ago
    Worth noting Birdwatch launched alongside the ability to report tweets for misinformation, a feature Elon disabled. For that reason it’s difficult to conceive of Community Notes today as a simple continuation of the Birdwatch effort.
    - GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
      I think he was right to disable the ability for Community Notes to actually report and remove tweets. First, it's a vector for abuse. Second, misinformation is a loaded term and having the context along side the content is more important for an informed public. Of course anything illegal or against ToS should be removed and only be the purview of Twitter's moderation team (or what's left of it).

iddan 3y ago

[flagged]

hutzlibu 3y ago
"Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam, the report said." But yes, I would have liked to see some concrete examples.
mort96 3y ago
[flagged]
- josephcsible 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mort96 3y ago
    I'm not sure it's possible to look at what Israel is doing and say it's not terror. So, charitably, I guess you're saying the IDF is not an organization?
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      Is every country in the world wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... doesn't have a single country that calls the IDF a terror organization.
      - mort96 3y ago
        Countries are careful about calling other countries terror organisations. That's a weak argument. To convince me, you have to argue that their actions aren't terroristic. Usually, you can argue that a state's actions aren't "terrorism" because most definitions of "terrorism" involve the requirement that the action is illegal. But saying that the IDF is regularly committing war crimes isn't even controversial at this point. So what exactly separates their illegal actions intended to instil terror from all the other terror organizations?

vitalurk 3y ago

[flagged]

mort96 3y ago
What exactly are you trying to say
- black6 3y ago
  That war is a racket where children's lives are acceptable collateral.
  - mort96 3y ago
    No I'm pretty sure that there's some deeper meaning, but I'm not sure exactly what. For example, what exactly is meant by "Viral content? Fuck this"? Is this Guardian article the "viral content"? Or the Human Rights Watch posts? Or what? What exactly is being criticized?
    - black6 3y ago
      Viral media (videos, memes, etc) are largely propaganda, and they're being used by both sides to encourage and glorify conflict. Conflict, the result of which is dead citizens, many of them children, while those who beat the war drums do so from positions of security while they profit off of the war.
    - vitalurk 3y ago
      I'm seeing a bunch of techies use terms normally utilized for TikTok dances, and I'm just saying maybe we should stop. What deeper meaning do you need? Bombing of Palestinian children is what I'm being critical of.

perfectritone 3y ago

At the beginning of the conflict I noticed my feed was fully leaning towards supporting Israel, even if it was only the posts of 3 people. Somehow the 30+ people demanding the stop to the bombing of civilians didn't really start appearing until late November. They were posting the entire time, but Meta's algorithm decided not to show it to me.

rasz 3y ago
[flagged]
- porkbeer 3y ago
  Yes, most condemn ALL violence.
  - salawat 3y ago
    [flagged]
- salawat 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  Please stop taking HN threads further into flamewar. Your account has a long history of doing this, and we've warned you many times. To continue doing it is not ok, and on this topic least of all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34460722 (Jan 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33209948 (Oct 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32922335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32922335 (Sept 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31010834 (April 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927198 (July 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27089584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27089584 (May 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26857484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26857484 (April 2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21875867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21875867 (Dec 2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15143690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15143690 (Aug 2017) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mustafa_pasi 3y ago

[flagged]

aaomidi 3y ago
[flagged]
- mustafa_pasi 3y ago
  For sure. And you know what will be disgusting to witness? A lot of the ones supporting this evil, will claim to have been against the injustice all along. Plain lies. Like the German NAZIs did after the Holocaust. I wonder how that will work out for them, considering the quasi permanent nature of internet history.
ars 3y ago
[flagged]
- geraneum 3y ago
  Chances are, if something causes rage, the algorithm amplifies it (for you) because it may drive more engagement and increase ad revenue. It’s sometimes hard to know what’s actually happening on social media.
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Plus, partisans of one side will always display the nuts on the other side, it's an easy slam dunk.
- meticulous_gal 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  Here you go. Some saying it: https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/michelle-bachmann-charlie-kirk-its-time-gaza-ends-2-million-people-who-live-there-they https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/michelle-bachmann-... https://nypost.com/2023/11/21/metro/stuart-seldowitz-harasses-halal-cart-vendor-says-killing-of-4000-palestinian-kids-wasnt-enough/ https://nypost.com/2023/11/21/metro/stuart-seldowitz-harasse... While others do it: https://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-claims-israeli-soldiers-204952517.html https://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-claims-israeli-soldiers...

cthaeh 3y ago

Can someone explain how every single post about Palestine/Israel is flagged and removed the instant it hits front page? I have seen this with around 4-5 threads personally and who knows how many I missed

dang 3y ago
Users are flagging them. I don't think it's hard to understand why: it's a divisive and flameprone topic. Two positions that people urge us to take (different people, obviously) are (1) treat it as off topic and flag everything; or (2) have no limits, which means letting it dominate the front page. Neither of these positions are viable for HN. For reasons why I say that, see past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... - these are general explanations, not specifically about Gaza, but they apply to that also. HN has had at least two major related threads so far: The pro-Israel information war - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572675 - Dec 2023 (1673 comments) 'Like we were lesser humans': Gaza boys, men recall Israeli arrest, torture - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38616550 - Dec 2023 (1309 comments) Here are some explanations I posted the last time this question of flags came up, in case helpful at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 Obviously we want commenters to have thoughtful, respectful, open conversation with each other rather than just fighting a war on HN. Equally obviously, it's pretty hard to avoid the latter. These things can only be 'graded on a curve', i.e. moderation has to shift somewhat, relative to the topic - not to do that would be expecting people not to be human, which is a losing proposition. But that does not mean the rules somehow switch off. Accounts that break the HN guidelines egregiously (such as by getting aggressive or posting in the flamewar style) are going to get warned and/or banned, regardless of who they're battling for or against. More than that, I'm not sure what we can do.
- user982 3y ago
  Have you noticed any patterns or organization in the flagging and voting of this subject, or does it all look organic?

riku_iki 3y ago

[flagged]

mustafa_pasi 3y ago
No, actually it is not. Stop with this dehumanization of Palestinians. They are human beings. They are not worth less than you just because they are on the other side of the fence.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Well yes, but what if they support the initial terror attacks? Massacring dance festival attendants and people in their homes is not self defence, it is terrorism.
  - Qem 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "So if IDF massacred dance festival attendants and people in their homes" Where is the proof for that? A tank shooting at houses where enemy fighters were dug in? On the other side there are lots of videos showing Hamas murdering people.
  - catlover76 3y ago
    > Well yes, but what if they support the initial terror attacks? Even steel manning your position and assuming most of the women and children being killed (and worse) by Israel cheered the attacks (which we have no evidence is true) , no, actually, you aren't justified in massacring people just because they took pleasure in an evil thing that happened to you.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      But you would have more moral justification to limit spreading their hate and propaganda which this was about. Also, it seems you are shadowbanned. You might want to reread and reflect some of your comments and then contact dang.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

This post was flagged, but I don't think it should have been and I hope it stays up. I have been grateful that HN hasn't had the same level of animosity about the conflict in Gaza as other places on the internet. But this news article is about a core issue in tech, and should be discussed on HN. The whole world now uses social media to communicate, which means that when there's a war, partisans of both sides will be motivated to fight out the propaganda war on the platforms that tech built. I wonder if there will ever be a way for a global-sized platform which uses algorithmic content feeds to convincingly show moderation neutrality on a topic like this. The HRW report has 1,000 examples of peaceful pro-Palestinian content that was removed by Meta. But only Meta themselves has the information to know whether there is systematic bias. So we get a situation where people sympathetic to both sides both come away feeling that the platform is biased. I think the U.S. culture war has similar dynamics. My engineer brain wants to solve this by giving users more visibility into moderation decisions. Maybe statistics on deleted posts, more legible moderation rules, publicly posted justifications for moderation decisions. Another part of my brain thinks that maybe this is just an unsolvable problem for social reasons in a community that's global-scale. I'm not sure. I do feel like this is still Meta's job, part of their cost of doing business, and if they put something like 5% of their revenue into moderation the situation would be a lot better. In the meantime I find myself personally trying to cut out as many algorithmic feeds as I can from my life. I prefer the curation of a news website or podcast, small group discussions, or 1:1 communication with people I trust. Algorithmic feeds are easy but so far have never done a good job covering issues where there is real conflict between two groups.

throwaway55479 3y ago
That is "the beauty" of this conflict (if something this heinous could ever have a beautiful side): It poses many interesting technical challenges. But, quite understandably, people everywhere (including HN) are fast to move the "warring" right onto our screens (hence the flagging). So, as you mentioned, algorithmic feeds is one of them. There are many others like how to create temporary infrastructure for such a besieged, war-torn city [0]. I suppose many would say, "This goes for all wars, what is special about this one?" Well, I would argue this is a "special conflict". It is one of (if not THE) longest-running military occupation in the world [1], where, coincidentally, the US spends its largest tax-payers-funded foreign aid [2]. Edit: And because many are now commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, it is worth recalling that it is also special for being that birth's place (spiritually, if not literally). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38673300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38673300 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations [2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/which-countries-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-u-s/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/which-countries-receive-...

dlubarov 3y ago

Are you saying that changes on Israel's part could cause Hamas to stop their aggression? That seems very unlikely - Hamas doesn't even pretend to be open to peaceful coexistence with Israel. Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. Or that it could lead to Gazans overthrowing Hamas? It's possible, but it would take a violent rebellion since Hamas doesn't hold elections, and realistically it would probably take generations for sentiment to change. It would be hard for Israelis to just accept that they will be attacked for generations, with increasing sophistication (mainly thanks to Iran's support), with no response.

sudosysgen 3y ago
This is greatly complicated by the fact that Israel materially supported Hamas and saw it as useful. Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. On the other hand, Israel is not facing good geopolitical headwinds. As Yemen demonstrated, they are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. One day, in the not so distant future, the US won't be able to intercept all the missiles of Israel's enemies on its behalf, and Israel will have to contend with the threat of a total blockade. So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical. It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli. That of course doesn't justify Hamas's inhuman war crimes, but acting as if war is unprovoked is not consistent with reality - Israel has never, by the definitions in international law, stopped actively waging war against Gaza.
- dlubarov 3y ago
  I agree Israel ought to be able to prevent similar ground invasions, but what about rockets? The Iron Dome has been relatively effective so far, but the technological gap won't last forever. Hamas has already acquired rockets like the Fajr-5, despite the blockade. Once they start using guidance systems, the destruction will be much greater, and 90% interception rate won't be good enough. Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem politically viable to just tolerate repeated attacks with no response. So I think it's inevitable that Israel will have to remove Hamas from power, no matter the geopolitical cost.

jules-jules 3y ago

[flagged]

hutzlibu 3y ago
Maybe because the discussion is not of very high quality? Look how many downvotes there are already, it is an emotional topic and yes, even here people are having problems with maintaining a civil debate about a controversial topic. And others don't want all that flame war here, so they flag it, simple as that.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  The mechanism of downvoting is supposed to remove low quality posts. If someone if uncivil, downvote or flag them. Soon enough they'll get the hint or be warned. > others don't want all that flame war here That doesn't make sense. If you don't want to participate, then ignore the post. actively preventing others participating is something else - I think "censor" is more appropriate in that case.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Well, the space on the front page is limited. And there are lots of other controversial topics - potentially taking all the space. And some want only technical topics or mainly technical. So "curating" is more appropriate I think. (But personally I did participate ... so much that I am rate limited again)
    - Chris2048 3y ago
      the front page isn't limited. Hit "next" and you see as many more posts as you like. Most front-page posts are tech related, we are far from being overrun with controversial posts.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        It is not the frontpage by definition anymore, if one has to click "next" ..

llamaInSouth 3y ago

[flagged]

seydor 3y ago

[dead]

londons_explore 3y ago

One day, there will be a bigish war, and comms between the sides will be cut off, either by law, or all comms links severed. At that point, every global business will have to figure out how to split their business in two, their database in two, their server infrastructure in two, etc. and have both halves work. I suspect that few businesses have prepared for such an eventuality, and I suspect severe disruption can be expected when it happens. For anyone designing something new today, the main prep you can do is to never use sequences for database ID's. By using random id's, you can mostly let your replicated database partition itself, and a later merge isn't too hard as long as most users have been operating on only one side of the divide.

krisoft 3y ago
> At that point, every global business will have to figure out how to split their business in two, their database in two, their server infrastructure in two, etc. and have both halves work. Or give up serving one side. Probably the one the executives of the company don't live in. Like how many companies stopped operating in Russia after their war in Ukraine got into high gear.
- hx8 3y ago
  In such a situation, I foresee something more like the splitting of the Roman Empire. There's no reason to stop serving global customers just because the users are separated from HQ. Especially if the servers are already on both sides of the geo-political border.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    The Roman Empire split was relatively friendly. Theodosius split it between his two sons.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      The Roman empire had a tradition of splitting the control of the areas between multiple people at several points starting from Diocletian's tetrarchy onward. The last east/west split was different on that it was that last one. In a way, you could look at the period of absolute control by a single person as an exception in Roman history.

magwa101 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

akkendmdn 3y ago

[flagged]

orenlindsey 3y ago

Censorship has been done to both people with right-wing views and left-wing views. It's not a question of if it's been done. We need to stop censorship of people on both sides. Obviously, this is very hard (or it would have been done by now). My idealist brain wants some big, overarching solution but I don't think that's really possible.

RangerScience 3y ago
There’s a good piece from someone (formerly?) at Reddit about how to do moderation without consideration if content; I’m not expressing a take either way behind it being worth a look.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
boston_clone 3y ago
I'm not sure it's correct to classify this particular instance as either left- or right-wing; additionally, misinformation should be censored. From the article: >Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam This issue seems almost parallel to the paradox of tolerance in that algorithms which promote content at a global scale - largely without human oversight - should not be unregulated. It is factual to say that human rights violations are occurring in Palestine. It is also factual to say that people have a right to defend themselves, and to recognize that atrocities are atrocious. But to silence the already-oppressed furthers oppression, and Meta is to blame here, again. We should also consider the potential implications that Meta, with a market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars, has in regard to US foreign policy vis-a-vis support of Israel.
- orenlindsey 3y ago
  Supporting Palestine is generally a left-wing view (proof: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/07/11/american-views-of-israel/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/07/11/american-views...). So Meta is censoring a mostly left-wing viewpoint.

CommanderData 3y ago

[flagged]

ipaddr 3y ago
[flagged]
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  Genuinely asking… what has worked in getting hostages beyond the temporary peace deal? I saw Israel had already accidentally shot their own hostages who managed to escape Hamas. In a war like that, how can Israel even free the hostages by this dropping bombs method, if the hostages get out they will be shot by their own military?
  - Qem 3y ago
    > I saw Israel had already accidentally shot their own hostages who managed to escape Hamas. For me, the most tragic aspect is that those three hostages where gunned down while shirtless, in civilian pants, waving white flags, because they were mistaken for three shirtless Palestinian civilians, trying to surrender waving white flags. The execution wouldn't be justified in either case, and is damning evidence of the treatment Israeli forces give Palestinian civilians.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    The one thing that has worked is bombing and overwhelming them into temporary ceasefire solder exchange.
    - tdeck 3y ago
      The hostages themselves have said they were most afraid of being killed by the IDF's bombing campaign.
      - Aeolun 3y ago
        Apparently it’s a military doctrine? The hannibal directive, or something like that.

sgift 3y ago

[flagged]

k1m 3y ago
Chomsky: 'if “they” do it, it’s terrorism; if “we” do it, it’s counterterrorism. That’s a historical universal.'
- sgift 3y ago
  I don't remember the incident where Israel killed 1200 Palestinians on a music festival with unmarked troops. I'm sure Chomsky would find some justification for that too, but that's why the only thing I care about he did is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy - from there it's all been downhill, especially in the last few years. Before that it was at least from time to time worth thinking about.
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    Get your numbers straight and then read a history book. You'll find many times that number if you only care to look.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    > I don't remember the incident where Israel killed 1200 Palestinians on a music festival with unmarked troops. You mean 364 on festival? The final death toll from the 7th October attack is now thought to be 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    that’s the cool part about being the hegemon: you get to wear uniforms while doing your atrocities, and you have tanks and planes and ambassadors wielding real power at the UN to prevent consequences. Just like the US killing hundreds of thousands of people in the firebombing campaigns of Japan was probably a war-crime. We wore uniforms while doing it. What are you gonna do about it? You already lost the war, not like you have any leverage.

psyman 3y ago

Not only Meta, but Reddit, Google as well

rightbyte 3y ago

It boils down to the algorithmic feed, where Zuckerberg decides what the users see and not the users. Old Facebook didn't have that problem, where there more or less was a chronological order of friends' post. That systems also did not have any problem with "troll farms" (do those even exist, anyway?) since those could not reach you in the first place. On places like Reddit, I get this feeling that some bot network control most subs. It seems to be major manipulation of down votes and upvotes. The atmosphere is way to aligned to be real.

octacat 3y ago
In the incoming world of AI generated garbage content, Meta decided to kill feeds from your friends and pages you follow. That is "great" strategic planning.
hipadev23 3y ago
> The atmosphere is way to aligned to be real. I think it’s identical here on HN. Upvoting, downvoting, and using flagging to suppress contrary opinions is rampant and has a huge negative impact toward discussion. I think it’s just the topic du jour on HN is less escalated (usually opinions of tech choices) so it doesn’t seem as extreme.
- paulmd 3y ago
  Be sure to turn on showdead, it absolutely should be enabled with the amount of suppression and brigading and rules-lawyering that takes place
- smt88 3y ago
  > using flagging to suppress contrary opinions is rampant and has a huge negative impact toward discussion I've had showdead turned on for years and have rarely seen contrary opinions flagged, if ever. The main things I see flagged are personal attacks, open bigotry, flaming, etc. Occasionally I used to see anti-CCP comments flagged, but I haven't seen that in a while. I'd be interested to see some examples where you think something was unjustly flagged.

wslh 3y ago

On another news, the UN, which is a political international organization, and not a company or an "app", have a large blind spot for many attrocities around the world. It is important to criticize those apps but most important to look at the reality you really face, like "Denmark and Germany arrest terror suspects planning attacks in Europe" [1]. Also, you can follow by the HRW 2023 report [2]. I think they forgot to put an executive summary that gives you a quick glance around the world. [3] helps. [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2023/12/14/denmark-germany-arrest-hamas-suspects-planning-attacks_6344720_143.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/europe/article/2023/12/14/denmark-... [2] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023 https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023 [3] https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/01/World%20Report%202023_ETR_v4.pdf https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/01/World%...

karim79 3y ago
Whataboutism[0] at its finest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

zawaideh 3y ago

Hashtags like #GazaStarving got banned on Instagram for no reason. Yea there is bad censorship.

oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
taskforcegemini 3y ago
are the pictures of the hostages being removed for no reason?

gumballindie 3y ago

I have nearly no followers on Threads and follow only 2-3 people yet somehow I am bombarded with pro palestine content on the odd occasion i open it. I somehow doubt the guardian is right on this one. This “newspaper” is known to gave all sorts of dubious agendas.

dventimi 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20181105214850/https://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-human-rights-watch-close-your-revolving-door-us-government https://web.archive.org/web/20181105214850/https://www.alter...

23B1 3y ago

People still use Facebook?

ignoramous 3y ago
Instagram, yes. Some billion of them, I'd hazard a guess.
b0ner_t0ner 3y ago
(Depending on your country) Whatsapp has Channels, some of those news channels' views are completely one-sided.

ThinkBeat 3y ago

This is something people have to relearn over and over again. A lot of the people who are not upset with Meta limiting opinions and content related to the war in Gaza¹. Were gloating and happy when Meta limited opinions and content from right wing politicians² not so long ago. Once you invite censorship for content you dont like, how can you expect it wont bite you in the ass later on. This is why freedom of speech is an important principle. That overshadows how someone "feels" about speech. Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech. ""Dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, were in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -Noam Chomsky Slightly related though originating from a different context. First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller Which in this context I use it to highlight that the protection of freedom of speech is not something you can ignore because you dont care about a topic. One must speak out against censorship and against limiting freedom of speech, whenever it is being limited. If we dont, then it becomes a bit more limited, and a little bit more, and eventually it will strike upon something you do care about, and it is far too late to speak up. ¹,² For this post I am assuming this is accurate. But i cannot prove either.

sgregnt 3y ago
[flagged]
- karim79 3y ago
  There needs to be a a new button on the various social media channels. One click and it fills a reply with: "One can advocate for the Palestinian State and the rights of its people, seeking a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict, without being aligned with Hamas. Furthermore, employing a false dichotomy, where one is either labeled as a supporter of a cause or, or that of an extremist group, is counter-productive. It oversimplifies complex issues and stifles meaningful dialogue."

hello_dang 3y ago

[dead]

trhway 3y ago

May it be that Meta is just doing it job by weeding out fakes? Most of the pro-Hamas/pro-Palestinian propaganda that I saw contradicts the facts to say the least (or in the best case is only single-sourced with the source being either Hamas itself or a cozy affiliate of a Hamas like those Gaza offices of UN agencies). Btw, Meta is outlawed (declared "extremist", it is somewhat like "material supporter of terrorism" status in US) in Russia for refusing to bend to Russian authorities and to carry only official Russian, completely false, propaganda.

LtWorf 3y ago
It might be that outside of your circles, people do have different opinions, without them being bots. Last elections fb was spamming me with trump propaganda. I don't know anyone who voted for trump, for the simple reason that I don't live in USA. And yet I still got the propaganda… I understand the russians might not want USA propaganda and might want their own instead.
- trhway 3y ago
  I'm not talking about opinions. I'm taking about propaganda and facts which that propaganda contradicts. For illustration, I've just posted an example of such propaganda and the facts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882

mgraczyk 3y ago

Interestingly if you read the actual report from HRW, it sounds like most of the material they are referring too was legitimately taken down because it supported violence, according to Meta's policies. For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many, so it was taken down. In other cases the content praised attacks by Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US government. From HRWs descriptions it sounds like the bulk of the "1049" content removals were clear violations of Meta's policies against support for violence. Regardless of whether you agree, these don't seem surprising to me on light of Meta's own rules. There are of course a small number of exceptions listed.

wslh 3y ago
[flagged]
zardo 3y ago
[flagged]
- wslh 3y ago
  [flagged]
myth_drannon 3y ago
[flagged]
rayiner 3y ago
> For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many The phrase has its origins in Arab nationalism. It was coined in 1960 by the PLO to refer to the goal of an Arab state that occupies the entirety of what was Mandatory Palestine. If you ignore the subtext of “what happens to the Jews in that situation” I suppose you can make a case for it. It’s like the confederate flag. In the 20th century there was an effort to rehabilitate it (as in the Dukes of Hazzard) as a symbol of anti-authoritarianism. And that’s the only connotation lots of people have of it. But it has a pretty unpleasant historical context. At the very least it’s a dog whistle to the large fraction of the Muslim world that hates Jews: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/adls-global-100-survey-what-does-it-actually-say-about-muslim-attitudes-toward-jews https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/adls-global-100-survey-wh.... Americans who use this phrase should really travel to the Muslim world to understand the antisemitism that’s just in the air. You can’t travel to my “moderate Muslim” country with an Israeli passport. Guess why that is?

cf1241290841 3y ago

I believe its relevant to mention that this doesnt have to be ill intent on part of Meta. Israeli intelligence is spending a lot of resources on influencing narratives. Its not surprising that this would include exploiting and influencing moderation. And its not like social media sites figured out perfect moderation yet, they are an easy target for such determined influences.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
underdeserver 3y ago
Israeli intelligence is likely spending virtually no resources at all on influencing narratives. And if they are, they are failing spectacularly. More likely, the ministry of the exterior, the IDF spokesperson office, and civilian operations are trying to influence narratives. From what I can tell these other efforts are not doing so well either.
- cf1241290841 3y ago
  I think you are wrong on both parts. Cognitive / Narrative warfare has become part of standard doctrine for most major militaries. Earlier discussion about "corporate" spin offs from the intelligence sector. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34803779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34803779 Looking how many countries backed the current Israeli government for how long despite targeting the civilian population, as well as stuff like OP on most major platforms they seem to be horrifically effective.
  - underdeserver 3y ago
    Hyperlocal public opinion bot campaigns in third world countries are different from swaying public opinion in the west. I would not say any governments other than the US government "back" the Israeli government. The most the Israelis get is a cold neutrality, and an occasional abstention instead of yea vote in the many UN general assembly votes against Israel.

asylteltine 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

xenospn 3y ago

Odd. When I open instagram reels all I see are pro-Palestinian posts, including the now intolerable “threads” box. I doubt that report is accurate.

bawolff 3y ago

Kind of a click-bait headline. To quote the actual report: "This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship." They asked people to self-report instances. There is probably selection bias (maybe they advertised only to the pro-palestian crowd. Maybe the israeli crowd thinks HRW is biased and didn't want to engage. Maybe something else). There is probably also base rate falacy involved which isn't accounted for. This just isnt the right type of study to determine if meta has a bias in censorship.

nosefurhairdo 3y ago
The paragraph in question: > Human Rights Watch solicited cases of any type of online censorship and of any type of viewpoint related to Israel and Palestine. Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 cases documented involved examples of online censorship and suppression of content in support of Palestine, while one case contained an example of removal of content in support of Israel.[2] This distribution of cases does not necessarily reflect the overall distribution of censorship. So HRW may as well not have looked at the other side of the issue. They also complained that Meta's policies are informed by the United States' designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. I get the sense these sorts of reports are designed to turn into headlines.
- zer0zzz 3y ago
  > I get the sense these sorts of reports are designed to turn into headlines. Bingo.
kar5pt 3y ago
HRW has a reputation for being biased against Israel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Wa... . Regardless of whether that's true, it could explain why pro-Israel folks wouldn't want to engage with them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kar5pt 3y ago

Their methodology seems really flawed. They cherry picked a thousand instances of wrongly removed content, but how many posts do you think there are about the conflict on Facebook and Instagram? Tens of millions? They have no way of knowing how representative that sample is.

underdeserver 3y ago
Exactly. Whatever your opinions on Israel and Gaza, putting out a report so cherry-picked on such a small, unrepresentative sample only serves to show HRW's biases.
havelhovel 3y ago
> Human Rights Watch published a call for evidence of online censorship…from the main Human Rights Watch accounts on Instagram, X (formerly known as Twitter), and TikTok. I don’t see how HRW can post this in good conscience without acknowledging the huge potential for voluntary response bias in this survey. Pro-Israel voices have been skeptical of HRW’s perceived Anti-Israel bias[1] for over a decade. They are not going to be following or engaging with HRW accounts, and their voices are most likely fewer in number overall[2]. The fact that 1,049 of the 1,050 comments submitted for HRW’s review were Pro-Palestine should be a red flag, not the core piece of evidence. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204619004574318... [2] https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/support-for-palestine-skyrocketing-among-young-voters-poll-shows-tiktok-bin-laden-college-students-americans-quinnipiac-university-survey-hamas-israel-gaza-war https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/support-for-palestine...

mathgradthrow 3y ago

I have a suspicion that this article is vaguely a response to the previous report that TikTok overwhelmingly censors content in accordance with China's official position.

kredd 3y ago
That entire report was very weird as they compared some uploaded videos with specific hashtags on TikTok vs Instagram. I just don’t understand how that methodology can fly when TikTok is banned in some places, while IG is banned in different ones. So obviously you’ll get stuff anout Hong Kong protests on IG, but not on TikTok since it’s not available in Hong Kong. There’s also no reliable way of finding where the data is being uploaded from, so huge bot-farms in India wouldn’t push much in TikTok either, cause again, it’s banned there. As much as I hate TT/IG, we shouldn’t try to prove our point with extremely unreliable studies.

oglop 3y ago

This comment section is a blast. Btw, just saying “this phrase is considered hateful by many” is inane. Many people find many things hateful but they don’t get the same weird instant “you bigot!” label as some of what I see directed towards Palestinian supporters. It’s nuts. I have no dog in the fight. Just giving some useless anecdotes for people to get angry over. But also, 1000 is not that many in the grand scheme of things like Meta said.

yolkedgeek 3y ago

Meta is as rigged and rotten as it gets. I live in Iran and whenever I have posted something political (not just rants, something serious) or any serious about the gov, it always got taken down. During the Woman,Life,Freedom movement everybody reported how instagram would take down important rebel news and posts and journalisms. you would think meta would work against something like the Islamic republic but it seems like it love all corrupt dictator governments. Let it be Islamic republic or Israel. Thank god I have left all meta platforms for about 3 years now. But anyone who claims Meta is not pure evil is either evil themself or really really stupid.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Hamas is a terrorist organization, apparently backed by Iran, and are constantly spreading misinformation online, this is why it's censored? I sometimes open "The Guardian" and the amount of times they quote "The Gaza Health Ministry", which would be no more trust worthy than the North Korean or Chinese health ministry, is fucking ridiculous. If people thought about thing more critically then we wouldn't have to sensor everything but people don't they eat it up, and get all conspiratorial. On the other hand, I think Meta have built a shit product that requires an insane level of censoring to keep even remotely civil. Unfortunately this flawed product has dire impacts on democratic societies.

tmnvix 3y ago
> Hamas is a terrorist organization You seem to be making the mistake that many do and conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people. The article is not about posts in support of Hamas.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Good luck just "untangling" Hamas and the palestinians though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

welzel 3y ago

Sometimes i feel that reporters should be needed to add a basic statistical analysis before they are allowed to claim something like censorship. How much content is posted every day on meta? How many content removal decisions are taken every day by meta? Hint: Over 1 billion Stories are posted every day. So even if 1049 content removals would happen on a single day - but this "evidence" is collected over a much longer time period. You have to read about HRW and its campaign against Israel to maybe understand why HRW continue to post this type of propaganda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watc... The guardian did a very bad job at picking up this biased content.

mvuijlst 3y ago
Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_foreign_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_for... etc. Does the existence of these Wikipedia articles now mean that I can call any information put out by Israel or the United States "biased content" and just disregard it?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- havelhovel 3y ago
  No. The comment you're replying to explicitly calls out the poor methodology this report is based on and the lack of subject matter expertise shown by the authors. The Wikipedia article is supplementary information that situates this critique within a wider context. They are not saying you should dismiss the report simply because of the Wikipedia article.

oort-cloud9 3y ago

[dead]

stuckinhell 3y ago

extremely disturbing

happytiger 3y ago

No matter what your views, we should all be very concerned that a technology company that specializes in social connections is controlling what people can say to one another. This combined with the close government coordination that was recently exposed is deeply concerning. ‘Disinformation’ seems to be more and more just ‘opinions we don’t like or support’ and this episode should serve as a warning to use all to limit their power before it’s too late. And I don’t care if you like Triden or Brump: this shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

invig 3y ago

Trying to keep everyone happy is keeping no one happy.

nikolay 3y ago

Meta and YouTube seem to have started to shadowban pro-Palestine sentiment materials.