7 ms·

The 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-

by mef51 1y ago

The 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 1y ago
[flagged]
- smt88 1y ago
  If a human rights org were highly critical of Russia but not Ukraine, is that a bias as well? Reality isn't politically neutral.
  - PathOfEclipse 1y ago
    Bias 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 1y ago
  I 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 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - miltonlost 1y ago
      [flagged]
- einszwei 1y ago
  NGO 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 1y ago
  They’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 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]
    - ang_cire 1y ago
      3 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 1y ago
        https://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 1y ago
        Oh 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 1y 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 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - cypherpunks01 1y ago
    The 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 1y ago
  [deleted]
breppp 1y ago
HRW 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 1y ago
  This 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 1y ago
    Not 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 1y 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 1y ago
This 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 :)"

by mef51 1y ago

PathOfEclipse 1y ago

[flagged]

smt88 1y ago
If a human rights org were highly critical of Russia but not Ukraine, is that a bias as well? Reality isn't politically neutral.
- PathOfEclipse 1y ago
  Bias 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 1y ago
I 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 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - miltonlost 1y ago
    [flagged]
einszwei 1y ago
NGO 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 1y ago
They’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 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - computerthings 1y ago
    [dead]
  - ang_cire 1y ago
    3 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 1y ago
      https://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 1y ago
        Oh 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 1y 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 1y ago
[flagged]
- cypherpunks01 1y ago
  The 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 1y ago
[deleted]

breppp 1y ago

HRW 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 1y ago
This 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 1y ago
  Not 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 1y 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 1y ago

This 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 :)"