3 ms·

If you have valid rules but in practice only enforce them against a single group, then in some sense you are asking the wrong question. In other words, for peo

If you have valid rules but in practice only enforce them against a single group, then in some sense you are asking the wrong question. In other words, for people who assume rule enforcement is supposed to be fair, they see unfair enforcement as hypocrisy. However, if you just see enforcement as another tool to wield against enemies, hypocrisy is irrelevant. What matters is power. It’s my basketball, I make the rules.

bawolff 2y ago
> If you have valid rules but in practice only enforce them against a single group I'd agree. Is there any evidence that that is happening here? The article reports on israeli take down requests but does not report on take down requests from other groups. Meta could very well be using the same rules against pro-israel groups, we just dont know because the leak didn't include that information.
- MasterIdiot 2y ago
  anecdotally Meta has pretty lax moderation against anti-palestinian in Hebrew, allowing tons of extremely racist/violent speech.
  - xg15 2y ago
    Yeah, probably because it's Hebrew and no one outside Israel will read it anyway.
- xg15 2y ago
  Read the article again. According to the whistleblowers, governments in general get privileged access vs regular users and Israel gets privileged access vs other governments: > Governments and organizations, on the other hand, have privileged channels to trigger content review. Reports submitted through these channels receive higher priority and are almost always reviewed by human moderators rather than AI. Once reviewed by humans, the reviews are fed back into Meta’s AI system to help it better assess similar content in the future. While everyday users can also file TDRs, they are rarely acted upon. Government-submitted TDRs are far more likely to result in content removal. Meta has overwhelmingly complied with Israel’s requests, making an exception for the government account by taking down posts without human reviews, according to the whistleblowers, while still feeding that data back into Meta’s AI.

bawolff 2y ago

> If you have valid rules but in practice only enforce them against a single group I'd agree. Is there any evidence that that is happening here? The article reports on israeli take down requests but does not report on take down requests from other groups. Meta could very well be using the same rules against pro-israel groups, we just dont know because the leak didn't include that information.

MasterIdiot 2y ago
anecdotally Meta has pretty lax moderation against anti-palestinian in Hebrew, allowing tons of extremely racist/violent speech.
- xg15 2y ago
  Yeah, probably because it's Hebrew and no one outside Israel will read it anyway.
xg15 2y ago
Read the article again. According to the whistleblowers, governments in general get privileged access vs regular users and Israel gets privileged access vs other governments: > Governments and organizations, on the other hand, have privileged channels to trigger content review. Reports submitted through these channels receive higher priority and are almost always reviewed by human moderators rather than AI. Once reviewed by humans, the reviews are fed back into Meta’s AI system to help it better assess similar content in the future. While everyday users can also file TDRs, they are rarely acted upon. Government-submitted TDRs are far more likely to result in content removal. Meta has overwhelmingly complied with Israel’s requests, making an exception for the government account by taking down posts without human reviews, according to the whistleblowers, while still feeding that data back into Meta’s AI.