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.

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.