21 ms·
I'd like to see examples of actual posts that were taken down, rather than talk of the quantity, or who filed the reports.
by googlryas 2y ago
I'd like to see examples of actual posts that were taken down, rather than talk of the quantity, or who filed the reports.
- mef51 2y agoThe HRW report[1] goes into details, at least on the 1050 takedowns they documented > A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report investigating Meta’s moderation of pro-Palestine content post-October 7th found that, of 1,050 posts HRW documented as taken-down or suppressed on Facebook or Instagram, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine, while just one post was content in support of Israel." [1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
- PathOfEclipse 2y ago[flagged]
- smt88 2y agoIf a human rights org were highly critical of Russia but not Ukraine, is that a bias as well? Reality isn't politically neutral.
- PathOfEclipse 2y agoBias means you're more likely to amplify facts in your favor and discount those against you. I said nothing about reality. I 100% agree that the political left is far more detached from reality than the right, especially when it comes to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
- TimorousBestie 2y agoI cannot read your paywalled Atlantic link, but the other link is an account from an aggrieved ex-employee and should also be taken with a grain of salt.
- PathOfEclipse 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- miltonlost 2y ago[flagged]
- einszwei 2y agoNGO Monitor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO_Monitor From Wikipedia: > NGO Monitor is a right-wing organization based in Jerusalem that reports on international NGO (non-governmental organisation) activity from a pro-Israel perspective <wikipedia page goes in lot more detail> I'll trust HRW on this one. No thanks.
- latentcall 2y agoThey’re blowing up children. If I am against that, is that now a bad thing? This is how far we’ve fallen. We have a nation state committing a genocide of an indigenous people and the Human Rights Watch is accused of being biased against the genociders. “I feel this organization is biased against the Nazi party” is essentially the same sentence.
- PathOfEclipse 2y ago[flagged]
- computerthings 2y ago[dead]
- ang_cire 2y ago3 opinion pieces as evidence. Not beating the allegations. "You shouldn't trust the internationally-recognized and acclaimed and trusted Human Rights Watch, here are some opinions pieces that tell you the REAL truth!"
- PathOfEclipse 2y agohttps://effectiviology.com/credentials-fallacy/ https://effectiviology.com/credentials-fallacy/ Also I've provided more than ample evidence that HRW is deeply compromised on this issue and has been for many years: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/29/human-rights-watch-ngo-israel https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/29/human-rights-w...
- ang_cire 2y agoOh look, the "ample evidence" link you provide is ALSO an opinion statement, and it's written by... > Elie Wiesel, Prof Alan Dershowitz, R James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, Tom Gross, Prof Judea Pearl, Douglas Murray Hmmmm, none of those people are famously biased towards Israel.... Also, you are misusing Credentials Fallacy to dismiss the difference between factual reporting and opinion. If I dismissed a peer-reviewed study you posted by saying that YOU aren't a scientist/expert, THAT would be Credential Fallacy. It doesn't just mean that you have to accept all sources and claims as equal. "You just dismissed my Infowars link without even providing a detailed refutation, and just trusted the CDC instead! Fallacy!"
- cypherpunks01 2y ago> Human Rights Watch also found repeated inaccurate application of the “adult nudity and sexual activity” policy for content related to Palestine. In every one of the cases, we reviewed where this policy was invoked, the content included images of dead Palestinians over ruins in Gaza that were clothed, not naked. For example, multiple users reported their Instagram stories being removed under this policy when they posted the same image of a Palestinian father in Gaza who was killed while he was holding his clothed daughter, who was also killed. > While “hate speech,” “bullying and harassment,” and “violence and incitement” policies[74] were less commonly invoked in the cases Human Rights Watch documented, the handful of cases where they were applied stood out as erroneous. For example, a Facebook user post that said, “How can anyone justify supporting the killing of babies and innocent civilians…” was removed under Community Standards on “bullying and harassment.”[75] Another user posted an image on Instagram of a dead child in a hospital in Gaza with the comment, “Israel bombs the Baptist Hospital in Gaza City killing over 500…” which was removed under Community Guidelines on “violence and incitement.”[76]
- somedude895 2y ago[flagged]
- cypherpunks01 2y agoThe first sentence explains what the rest of the article is about: "A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel—or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians—was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel, according to internal Meta data obtained by Drop Site News." The government of Israel does not want anyone to see photos of war victims, yes that's correct.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- breppp 2y agoHRW is a "complicated" organization. It took money from Saudis in return for not advocating for LGBT rights in the middle east [1]. It agreed to take money from the Qatari government, a government that also supports Hamas [2][3] and is involved in corruption cases and buying of politicians all over the world. [1] https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/human-rights-watch-took-money-from-saudi-businessman-after-documenting-his-coercive-labor-practices/ https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/human-rights-watch-took-... [2] https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/1700763578-human-rights-watch-under-fire-for-allegedly-accepting-millions-in-qatar-funds https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/1700763578-human-... [3] https://www.memri.org/reports/raven-project-leaks-alleged-qatari-support-3-million-euros-human-rights-watch#_edn1 https://www.memri.org/reports/raven-project-leaks-alleged-qa...
- someotherperson 2y agoThis feels like a dog whistle rather than providing something substantive. The Israeli government also helped facilitate Qatar's support for Hamas[0], what's your point here? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Israeli_backing_of_Qatar_sending_millions_of_dollars_to_Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Isra...
- nickff 2y agoNot previously involved in this discussion, but what exactly is the 'dog-whistle' you're calling out here? It seems that you're engaging in whataboutism; is that what you believe the parent is doing as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- someotherperson 2y ago> In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition The nonsensical references to Qatar and Hamas while pushing conspiracies around a human rights group are standard Hasbara talking points.
- googlryas 2y agoThis is exactly why I want to see the posts, because I don't really trust 3rd parties to accurately classify "peaceful content in support of Palestine". It's possible Facebook is wrong. It's also possible that it's filled with content that is peaceful in only the most shallow, ignorant reading possible. e.g. (paraphrasing from my facebook feed last year, on a post which was not taken down): "I'm planning a celebration on October 7th in support of my Palestinian friends, who wants to join me :)"
- thomassmith65 2y agoThe article mentions requests to remove posts quoting Ghassan Kanafani. The article introduces Kanafani as a literary figure, but then discusses his involvement in the PFLP. I don't know if they want the reader to form a particular judgement about this, or if they're just reporting the facts.
- Cyph0n 2y agoImagine actively censoring a revolutionary your government assassinated 50 years ago. Is the dude haunting this person or something?
- abeppu 2y agoIt sounds like you're using the fact that the posts aren't available for you to view to evaluate as a weakness of the reporting on this suppression campaign, but of course they're not available because of the suppression campaign. Surely the burden should be on the censors to establish clearly that something is in fact incitement to violence, rather than on external reporters to magically show that content which has been taken down is not incitement?
- bawolff 2y agoGenerally i hold the burden to prove wrong-doing is on the party allegging wrong-doing. Otherwise we get in a situation where it can be effectively impossible for the accused to prove their innocence, as it is much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive.
- abeppu 2y ago... and you're absolutely right, innocent people had basically no recourse when Meta took down their content, or shadow-banned them etc on the claim that they were inciting violence, pro-terrorist, engaging in hate-speech etc. The accused cannot publicly point to their post which merely used a palestinian flag emoji, or mentioned an assassinated writer. The burden should have been much higher for Meta when casting such accusations about.
- bawolff 2y agoBoth of these things can be true.
- abeppu 2y agoSure the burden _should_ be high in both directions. But the journalists seem to be doing a decent job of announcing and describing the data they have, and confirming it with multiple sources within Meta. They're engaged in a seemingly earnest and forthright effort to make the case. And to the degree that it's limited, it seems those limits are due to Meta itself. Meta, on the other hand, excepting these whistleblowers, makes very little information available about their take-down actions both at the level of individual cases or at the level of their systematic responses to governments. The whistleblowers claim that Meta regularly took down posts without human review when requested by the Israelis. That's the exact opposite of the high burden of proof that you're asking for.
- esalman 2y agoI am part of a neighborhood group where I grew up in Bangladesh and lived until 5th grade in the 90s. The group admin this morning let us know via Facebook post that he has received warnings frm Facebook. The group is "at a risk of being suspended" because way too many posts relating to "dangerous organization and individuals" have been removed. He wants everyone to be extra careful when posting about p*l*s*i*e, I*r*e*, g*z*, j*w* etc. He used asterisks himself just to be extra careful himself. Not to mention my country is dealing with rohingya crisis, which was fueled by Facebook and WhatsApp misinformation campaigns, and Facebook had 2 moderators for the whole country of Myanmar and refused to do anything about said misinformation campaigns. But they sure make exceptions for I*r*e*.
- Capricorn2481 2y ago> Not to mention my country is dealing with rohingya crisis, which was fueled by Facebook and WhatsApp misinformation campaigns, and Facebook had 2 moderators for the whole country of Myanmar and refused to do anything about said misinformation campaigns. But they sure make exceptions for Ire* Not sure why you're downvoted. This is all true.
- ipv6ipv4 2y agoMakes you wonder what kind of posts about Jews a local Bangladeshi group is posting... Or why.
- esalman 2y agoThey're writing posts on Facebook, not dropping bomb on anyone. Relax.
- ipv6ipv4 2y agoTo explain further. I can't imagine why anyone would post about Jews on my local NextDoor or FB group. It's just not a topic that comes up outside of Jewish community events, like holidays. There are certainly no Jewish community events in Bangladesh. If they are writing posts about Jews like were posted about Rohingya, then maybe it's not just "posts on Facebook". You are the one who seems to be uptight, bringing up the topic of bombs (?!), and scolding me to relax. Maybe you should relax. P.S. for those wondering, my flagged comment simply asked why Jews would come up as a topic at all on a local Bangladeshi group. The irony of it being flagged in a post about censorship is piquant.
- shihab 2y agoAs a recent example, the instagram of guardian journalist Owen jones (well known Israel critic) was suddenly suspended without any explanation today. It has been since restored, after a predictable twitter storm.
- nashashmi 2y agoEvery pro Palestinian protestor has experienced some form of awareness suppression and content removal. They have known this was a thing long before anyone else did. Same thing happened during 9/11. Muslims saw suppression, bullying by the police and no one covered it. Then the tables turned on maga republicans after j6.
- dijit 2y agoI’m too stupid to navigate this topic in anything other than a crude and adolescent way, however I think it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations. My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.
- throw310822 2y ago> it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations Any excuse is good when you have power and want to justify repression. For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. Quite a jump. (Meanwhile, the Likud's platform says "from the river to the sea there will be only Israel" but that's fine). > if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes They killed much less civilians than the IDF did, and they are not invaders nor illegal occupiers of someone else's country. What is acceptable or unacceptable is decided by those who are in power, and they are currently protecting a country whose prime minister in charge is wanted for crimes against humanity.
- jl6 2y ago> For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. It’s actually just German for “The Bart, The”.
- 2y ago
- chacham15 2y agoSince nobody here has actually read the article, it states that the reason the posts were taken down was "prohibits incitement to terrorism praise for acts of terrorism and identification or support of terror organizations." This type of speech (incitement) is illegal in the United States and support is very borderline depending on the type and meaning of "support". Now, if the reason doesnt match the actual content removed that should definitely be addressed which is your point, but I think that the reason is valid.
- janalsncm 2y agoYou can see some examples here (linked in the OP): https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/... On the one hand there are comments from users that want to “turn Gaza into a parking lot” or worse and were not removed because they don’t violate the community guidelines. On the other hand there are people posting educational explainers about Palestinian human rights censored under hate speech or dangerous individuals rules.
- janalsncm 2y agoThe article links to a much longer article from Human Rights Watch with a good number of examples: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...