3 ms·
I think without actual access to the material it's pretty hard to say. For example, the report highlights that someone commented with nothing but a series of Pa
by reissbaker 3y ago
I think without actual access to the material it's pretty hard to say. For example, the report highlights that someone commented with nothing but a series of Palestinian flags to someone's post, and their comment was flagged and removed. However, they don't share what the original post was; responding with a series of Palestinian flags to an Israeli hostage relative's post about their kidnapped sibling, for example, would be clear harassment and abuse. (And these kinds of abusive comments are extremely common.)
The report also has some pretty strange language, like mentioning that a post which was flagged for nudity contained a picture of a dead woman, and a fully-clothed man holding her body. But... There are so, so many pictures of fully-clothed, male members of Hamas holding nude or partially-nude dead women they abducted and/or raped before murdering. Why does the report only say that the man was fully clothed? Maybe it's just a grammatical error, but they're really light on the details, and releasing the underlying data would answer a lot of questions.
Personally I am suspicious of HRW's report, since they've been caught releasing misleading reports in the past, and the director of HRW's Israel/Palestine division is a BDS activist [1]. Obviously your viewpoint may be different, but without access to the underlying information it's pretty hard to make a compelling case to either side... Which to me points to the report being more worthy of suspicion, since if it was clear-cut, they'd easily convince more people of their correctness by releasing the data.
1: https://www.ngo-monitor.org/fact-sheet-on-omar-shakirs-bds-campaigns/ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/fact-sheet-on-omar-shakirs-bds-c...
- selcuka 3y agoThis is a bit too much of reading between the lines, suspiciously so. > Why does the report only say that the man was fully clothed? It does not. This is misrepresenting what is written in the report, to say the least. There are two such examples in the report (not sure if they refer to the same image): The first one is "image of a Palestinian father in Gaza who was killed while he was holding his clothed daughter, who was also killed" and the other one is "an image of a fully clothed man holding a girl, both deceased". Obviously in both pictures both man and the woman are dead, debunking your "male members of Hamas holding nude or partially-nude dead women" theory. > However, they don't share what the original post was; responding with a series of Palestinian flags to an Israeli hostage relative's post about their kidnapped sibling, for example, would be clear harassment and abuse. Again, this is just a guess and not factual information. In fact, the report has a link to the original source in footnote 78 (https://theintercept.com/2023/10/28/instagram-palestinian-flag-emoji/ https://theintercept.com/2023/10/28/instagram-palestinian-fl...) and one of the comments Instagram has hidden was on a pro-Palestinian post: > In one, a user commented on an Instagram video of a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Jordan with green, white, and black heart emojis corresponding to the colors of the Palestinian flag, along with emojis of the Moroccan and Palestinian flags. Also: > The Intercept reviewed several hidden comments containing the Palestinian flag emoji that had no reference to Hamas or any other banned group.
- dang 3y agoPlease make your substantive points without swipes such as "Again, you are making up things". This is against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. When someone else's information is wrong, you're of course welcome to correct it, but please do so by providing correct information and omit swipes and other flamebait, which only degrade discussion and evoke worse from others. I know that's not easy to do when emotions are running high, but it's something we all need to work on—and it's the same for everyone, regardless of which side they're on in any conflict.
- selcuka 3y agoFair point, I think the latest edit is more civilised.
- cool_dude85 3y agoBut it's not that the guy's "information is wrong", it's that he has produced some hypothetical examples of things that might be the case, but also might not. "responding with a series of Palestinian flags to an Israeli hostage relative's post about their kidnapped sibling, for example, would be clear harassment and abuse." This is a hypothetical. The poster is literally "making up things."
- dang 3y agoOk, but it doesn't change the moderation point about swipes. Commenters here need to edit them out* because they move conversations flameward and evoke worse from others. As one can always make one's substantive points without resorting to them, this shouldn't be a problem. * This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- reissbaker 3y agoYou are misquoting the source — I'm not "making up things." I referenced the three Palestinian flags, not the heart emojis: > In another, a user posted just three Palestinian flag emojis. Another screenshot seen by The Intercept showed two hidden comments consisting only of the hashtags #Gaza, #gazaunderattack, #freepalestine, and #ceasefirenow. The Intercept does not provide the context on the posts that the flag comments were on, or the hashtags — and visibly-Jewish people across social media have been barraged since Oct. 7th by strangers brigading their completely-unrelated posts with comments like this, and are targeted for harassment just for being Jewish; I think being suspicious of the context is fairly natural. And please refrain from personal attacks. Re: the man holding the girl — yes, I am referring to the one in which both are deceased, but only the man is referenced as being fully-clothed; members of Hamas can be deceased too. Maybe the girl is also fully-clothed, but not releasing any of the data doesn't help build confidence.
- bjourne 3y agoNGO Monitor is itself not a credible source. See http://policyworkinggroup.org.il/report_en.pdf http://policyworkinggroup.org.il/report_en.pdf
- reissbaker 3y agoOkay, here's the BDS movement itself quoting Omar Shakir (the director of HRW's Israel/Palestine division) speaking at a SPER meeting where he promotes BDS: https://bdsmovement.net/news/divestment-debate-continues https://bdsmovement.net/news/divestment-debate-continues
- Arctic_fly 3y agoThanks for the source. Shakir’s perspective makes sense. Stanford shouldn’t be supporting Israel’s strikes on Palestinian civilians.
- Qiu_Zhanxuan 3y agoTo be honest, anybody professionally well versed in the question of apartheid and human's right would be in favor of a BDS campaign against an apartheid state.
- bjourne 3y agoRegarding nudity, here is a tweet from Palestinian journalist MoTaz showing how photos of wounded Palestinians are incorrectly labelled as nudity: https://twitter.com/VyprCEO/status/1739180449295913096 https://twitter.com/VyprCEO/status/1739180449295913096
- Arctic_fly 3y agoThanks for the source.