[HN Gopher] Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale...
___________________________________________________________________
Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, Human Rights
Watch claims
Author : cratermoon
Score : 121 points
Date : 2023-12-23 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| mc32 wrote:
| What was it we used to hear? Their platform, their rules?
|
| The fact is people are unprincipled and will either complain
| about free speech or will clamor for it, or complain about
| censorship or clamor for it depending on point of view.
|
| I wish people were principled and stood on principle and not what
| dog they have in a fight.
| djohnston wrote:
| Yep, everyone is full of shit and self interested. Accepting
| that makes it easy to tune out weak rhetoric from all sides.
| g8oz wrote:
| You could try paying attention to human rights reports
| instead of assuming a false equivalence.
| djohnston wrote:
| You submit to weak rhetoric from one side.
| CM30 wrote:
| Sadly I agree with this. It seems like the best summary of how
| most people treat free speech is basically:
|
| "If my side is the underdog, talk about how important it is and
| complain that we're being censored, and if my side is winning,
| talk about how it's not necessary and those people can go
| elsewhere"
|
| It was extremely obvious when Twitter was bought by Musk and
| the rules changed to favour far right wing content and
| rhetoric. Suddenly all the folks talking about that XKDC comic
| and no free speech on a private platform had a very different
| tune once their side was the one getting banned or censored
| there...
|
| If you disagree with how a platform is run, go somewhere else.
| zen928 wrote:
| I agree that it's sad you agree with this.
| Tadpole9181 wrote:
| The vast majority of people are principled on outcomes, not the
| details of how to get there.
|
| So when aiding in an attempted coup or a coordinated effort to
| manipulate votes to subvert democratic institutions, their
| principles are focused on stopping that from happening. But we
| simultaneously admire the founding fathers - who committed a
| coup and massaged democracy to embed their own power and
| ideals. And it's regularly asked (though less commonly with
| time) why Germans didn't just "kill Hitler", by people who
| would call the assassination of Abraham Lincoln appalling.
| Because it aligns with their principles for the outcome of "a
| better world for people", which is what they actually care
| about.
|
| Being dogmatic on the implementation details is important as a
| preventative measure for abuse by bad actors later, mostly. But
| forgetting that the end goal is a more just world is just as
| deadly, because it can let institutions be warped and abused,
| even if they _technically_ don 't break "principles". Plus, I
| think the last 100 years have made it fairly clear that the
| real threats and tyrant don't care, they'll just break your
| principled rules and just... Do it?
|
| Anyway, I find it curious that you call "being against an
| active genocide of a race of people, the murder of innocent
| women and children in their open-air prison" a simple "dog in
| the fight". As if stopping thousands of deaths isn't worth
| breaking a principle or two? Now I don't know enough about the
| situation to say that's what's happening or not, but that's
| what these people are the very least _feel_. Try to use that
| perspective when engaging the discussion.
| whats_a_quasar wrote:
| The platforms are large enough now that there is a public
| interest in the moderation decisions that they make. Like a
| utility or a mail carrier or an internet service provider, if
| you reach a certain size in an industry that tends towards a
| natural monopoly, then the public has an interest in regulating
| your behavior towards neutrality.
| Qem wrote:
| Not the first genocide Meta abetted:
| https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
| deadbabe wrote:
| The problem with pro-Palestinian content is that a lot of it is
| too difficult to distinguish from blatant anti-semitism, shielded
| with "for the children!" type messaging.
|
| Frankly, given that there have been _actual_ genocides in the
| recent past that have gone largely ignored, the over
| representation of Palestinian views in today's media is likely
| the work of bad faith actors strategically planting or promoting
| viral content to turn public opinion against their enemy, rather
| than any genuine concerns.
|
| A lot of Palestinian content descends straight into hyperbole.
| People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians
| being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a
| "genocide". This is the consequence of totally unmoderated
| content. There is no "genocide" in Palestine, the correct term is
| conflict.
| g8oz wrote:
| I urge you to look up the definition of a genocide as defined
| by the United Nations. It's not just an accusation being thrown
| around for rhetorical purposes. This slaughter meets all the
| criteria.
| physicles wrote:
| It does not. The war is being waged with the intent to
| destroy Hamas (which has itself stated that its goal is to
| destroy Israel, if given the chance), not to kill every last
| Palestinian. See also https://youtu.be/L9n77DPJ7AE
| sschueller wrote:
| "People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians
| being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a
| "genocide""
|
| Per UN definition[1]:
|
| In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following
| acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
| national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
| - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily
| or mental harm to members of the group; - Deliberately
| inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
| about its physical destruction in whole or in part; -
| Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
| - Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
|
| If what is currently going on in Gaza isn't that then what is a
| genocide?
|
| [1] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
| riku_iki wrote:
| IDF doesn't have intent to destroy palestinian group, they
| have intent to destroy Hamas, so probably you only can call
| it genocide against Hamas.
|
| Genocide was in Ukraine for example, when Russia targeted
| powerplants during winter, which didn't have any military
| value.
| sschueller wrote:
| That is propaganda for the west. If it where the case they
| would not be dropping 2000 pound bombs on civilians [1].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fP-J8m-BF0 [NY Times:
| Visual Evidence Shows Israel Dropped Bombs Where It Ordered
| Gaza Civilians to Go ]
| riku_iki wrote:
| I don't think GBU-39 suggested by journalist to be used
| instead can target deep underground facilities.
| za3faran wrote:
| Israel deliberately cut off power, water, and all crossings
| into Gaza for delivering food and aid. Even worse than what
| Russia did to the power plants. Literal collective
| punishment, another war crime to add to their list.
| riku_iki wrote:
| Israel cut power and water they provided before to the
| territory which attacked them. Sounds like many countries
| did such thing in the past.
| megaman821 wrote:
| For contrast is there a conflict where people have been
| killed that doesn't meet that definition of genocide?
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Yes, any conflict where the aim is not to "destroy, in
| whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
| group".
| megaman821 wrote:
| Feel free to actually list a couple so we can dive into
| the specifics.
| irishloop wrote:
| Surely there's a scale?
|
| Technically, any "killing a member of a group" would be a
| genocide under this definition.
|
| Even if someone commits a mass murder against a group, we
| typically call it mass murder or a hate crime -- not
| genocide.
|
| So there has to be some idea of what genocide is -- what is
| the scale, what is the intent? Is it to wipe out a people? Or
| is it something else?
|
| 25,000 death is a lot. I'd say its a war crime. An atrocity,
| perhaps. But a genocide? Against a population of 2 million?
| Idk. Maybe?
|
| It seems that we have no common definition of the word
| sschueller wrote:
| There is a very high risk of famine[1] and there is already
| an extreme food shortage. If the Israelis don't allow more
| food to enter and open more borders/allow see access a
| famine is guaranteed. The UN resolution that passed
| yesterday should prevent that but we have to wait and see
| if Israel accepts it. IMO starving a population is a
| genocide.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67799527
| llimos wrote:
| > with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
| ethnical, racial or religious group
|
| What is your proof of the intent?
|
| Hamas, on the other hand, make their genocidal intent very
| clear, every chance they get. "then what is a genocide?" That
| is.
| deadbabe wrote:
| The target is Hamas. Some innocents are dying, but the intent
| isn't to deliberately kill them. And there is no evidence any
| of those other criteria are even happening.
| sschueller wrote:
| There is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fP-J8m-BF0 , NY
| Times: Visual Evidence Shows Israel Dropped Bombs Where It
| Ordered Gaza Civilians to Go
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Where It Ordered Gaza Civilians to Go
|
| to be specific: actual content says Israel asked
| civilians to move to South Gaza, while claim is that they
| still targeted targets there.
| dlubarov wrote:
| So there are two explanations
|
| 1) Israel asked civilians to move south to be relatively
| safer, some important Hamas officers moved south along
| with them, and Israel targeted them.
|
| 2) The strikes weren't about Hamas officers, but just a
| deliberate killing of civilians.
|
| If you're saying this is evidence of genocide, that means
| you're discounting (1) and assuming (2)? Why?
|
| I'm not condoning (1), which suggests IDF is prioritizing
| its concerns (expediency etc) over civilian lives, but
| that clearly doesn't meet the definition of genocide.
| Xelbair wrote:
| So you are saying that genocide is fine as long as it is
| someone who you deem as not innocent?
|
| Interesting.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > The target is Hamas
|
| "Two Thirds of Gaza War Dead Are Women and Children"
|
| -- https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15503.doc.htm
| riku_iki wrote:
| that person didn't provide source of information. Likely
| this is data from local authorities, aka Hamas.
| C6JEsQeQa5fCjE wrote:
| > Some innocents are dying
|
| It is estimated that about 70% of killed people (which has
| gone over 20000 recently) are women and children. Those are
| not Hamas fighters. Even if you assume that every adult
| male that has been killed was a Hamas fighter (which is
| obviously not going to be the case), that is still 70% of
| people who are killed by IDF being innocent civilians.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-
| palestini...
|
| > the intent isn't to deliberately kill them. And there is
| no evidence any of those other criteria are even happening
|
| On the contrary, even the mere evidence in form of public
| statements by the leaders of Israel strongly suggests
| intent to harm civilians. The statements suggest that they
| are pursuing revenge on the whole Gaza strip, and aiming to
| inflict as many casualties as they can get away with.
|
| - Prime Minister Netanyahu pledged to reduce parts of Gaza
| "to rubble" and invoked the people of Amalek, the foe that
| God ordered the ancient Israelites to genocide in the
| Bible, in a recent speech. [1]
|
| - Defense minister Yoav Gallant called for a "complete
| siege" on Gaza and stated that "we are fighting human
| animals, and we are acting accordingly." [1]
|
| - Army spokesperson Daniel Hagari said forces would turn
| Gaza into a "city of tents" and admitted that Israel's
| "emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy" in dropping
| hundreds of tons of bombs on Gaza. [1]
|
| - Ariel Kallner, a member of parliament from Netanyahu's
| Likud party, wrote on X after the Hamas attack: "Right now,
| one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of
| 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join!"
| [2]
|
| - Giora Eiland, a reservist major general and former head
| of the Israeli National Security Council, wrote in a
| popular Hebrew-language newspaper, "The State of Israel has
| no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily
| or permanently impossible to live in." Elsewhere, he
| specified that "Israel needs to create a humanitarian
| crisis in Gaza, compelling tens of thousands or even
| hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Egypt or the Gulf"
| and indeed that Israel must demand that "The entire
| population of Gaza will either move to Egypt or move to the
| Gulf." Finally, he said that "Gaza will become a place
| where no human being can exist." [2]
|
| - "Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no
| electricity and no water [in Gaza], there will only be
| destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.", IDF
| general Ghassan Aliyan [3]
|
| - Revital Gotliv, a Parliament member from Netanyahu's
| ruling Likud party, called for Israel to use nuclear
| weapons in Gaza: "It's time for a doomsday weapon. Shooting
| powerful missiles without limit. Not flattening a
| neighborhood. Crushing and flattening Gaza." [1]
|
| - Galit Distel Atbaryan, also of Likud, posted on X in
| Hebrew that Israelis should invest their energy in one
| thing: "Erasing all of Gaza from the face of the earth" and
| forcing the "Gazan monsters" either to flee the strip to
| Egypt or to face their death. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.vox.com/world-
| politics/2023/11/13/23954731/genoc...
|
| [2] https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23933707/israel-
| palestine...
|
| [3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/cogat-
| chief-add...
| za3faran wrote:
| The Israelis admitted that they are fighting "human
| animals" (remember who else used dehumanization tactics in
| WWII?), and that their goal was "damage, not accuracy".
| tzs wrote:
| A couple weeks or so ago after some UN official was in the
| news for resigning in protest over what was happening in Gaza
| and called it a genocide, NPR interviewed someone who has
| actually prosecuted genocide cases and asked him if the UN
| official was right.
|
| According to the prosecutor he didn't think a case could be
| made. The key is that "intent to destroy, in whole or in
| part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
| such" part.
|
| To prove that you need statements from officials that show
| they intended such destruction, and those need to be
| officials that also had the means to carry out or cause to be
| carried out that destruction. Prime ministers and generals,
| for example.
|
| If someone is going after legitimate military targets but a
| lot of members of some national, ethnical, racial or
| religious group is getting killed as collateral damage that
| is not enough to support a genocide charge. You need to
| statement of intent.
|
| He added that there is a genocide case that can be made in
| the region--against Hamas. They have stated their intent to
| wipe out a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and
| thousands of their attacks on Israel over the last 20+ years
| have been directed at purely civilian targets.
| Qem wrote:
| > According to the prosecutor he didn't think a case could
| be made. The key is that "intent to destroy, in whole or in
| part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
| such" part.
|
| Moreno Ocampo, the former ICC prosecutor interviewed,
| actually said the opposite you're claiming. See https://www
| .aljazeera.com/program/upfront/2023/12/1/former-i...
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Not sure why you're being downvoted. It's as if people have
| forgotten that October 7th happened. Israel has a right to
| defend itself and if that means killing Hamas and the people
| protecting them, so be it.
| DeIlliad wrote:
| Given your stance, if a murderer runs in your house then
| you'll understand when the police break the door down and
| kill you and everyone inside right?
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| If a murderer lives in your house for decades and you knew
| they were a murderer and were plotting more murders but you
| did nothing to root them out yourself, maybe you're an
| accessory.
|
| It probably doesn't justify the death penalty, but it also
| doesn't help.
| it_citizen wrote:
| So you would kill civilians, women and children on a
| "maybe" and would indiscriminately judge 500k people the
| same way.
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| I don't particularly know what to think about the common
| separation of woman from the population in these
| discussions.
|
| I understand that Palestine is probably somewhat
| misogynistic compared to my American sensibilities, so I
| might be completely off base, but it feels like women
| would have a lot of political influence, even if it's
| soft.
|
| Or maybe they're just treated like property and don't
| know better due to poor educational prospects and
| tradition.
| broast wrote:
| Both sides in every violent conflict ever have probably
| used this same line of reasoning, simultaneously. It
| doesn't help.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I would note that no one in Palestine has chosen for
| Hamas to be there. They are more like a criminal
| organization with populist propaganda, with a focus on
| smuggling and sanctions evasion as a business model. Even
| the election they "won," they really didn't in the
| conventional sense, and there hasn't been another in 10
| years.
|
| I'm not taking sides, as someone raised Quaker and a
| later life Buddhist, I know everyone killing others is
| wrong and there's no excuse for everything horrible
| that's happening. But no one listens to the guy in the
| corner saying "could we just stop killing each other?"
|
| But it's absurd to say that somehow Hamas is a legitimate
| democratically elected government and the populace has
| had any say in the things they've done in their name.
|
| Hamas decided to do October 7 assuming Israel would do
| something awful so they could martyr their own people for
| propaganda purposes. They didn't ask anyone's permission
| to volunteer the lives of the 20,000 people killed, nor
| the horrors of October 7.
|
| Israel played directly, and in greater magnitude, into
| their stated goals of inciting Israel into atrocities.
| The goal isn't to defeat Israel militarily but to destroy
| its international standing and by proxy the US. They
| wanted to end the idea of a two state solution forever
| and make the only options destruction of Israel or
| genocide of Palestinians.
|
| The general populace of Palestine has no desire to be
| wiped out, they don't want to live like this. They want
| to live a normal life like everyone does. But they don't
| get to choose if Hamas controls their fate. Sitting in a
| western democracy it seems inconceivable that you can't
| choose your government. But most of the world can't, and
| they are at the mercy of whoever has the most guns and
| psychopaths to hold them.
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| Thank you for the color and the insight. It's really
| helpful to remind myself how lucky we are to live in
| western democracies, a relatively new invention, and how
| 99% of humans who have ever lived have had no agency in
| the rules of the world they inhabit.
|
| I am curious what you think should be done in this israel
| conflict. What are the paths forward?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I don't know. I don't think there is a path forward left,
| just a path backwards. But sometimes in history you go
| backwards to go forwards.
| salawat wrote:
| Hamas is a strategic asset to the current set of
| hardliners in control of the Israeli government. They are
| "the town murderer" pointed to by the authorities, but
| conspicuously done nothing about as a justification of
| why they are the only sane choice to run things. Hamas
| and Israel's government are thus in a symbiotic
| relationship.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| So you are saying the ~14,000 women and children killed
| are accessories, b/c they failed to personally expel
| Hamas? Do you believe "There are no innocent
| Palestinians"?
|
| It's also funny how the label "murderer" works,
| apparently not applying to Israel. Can we at least hold
| Israel to account for the extrajudicial assassinations
| conducted by Mossad?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
| of_Israeli_assassinations
|
| "Mossad had assassinated Salameh. However, the blast also
| killed four innocent bystanders, including a British
| student and a German nun, and injured 18 other people in
| the vicinity. Immediately following the operation the
| three Mossad officers fled without trace, as well as up
| to 14 other agents believed to have been involved in the
| operation" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad_assass
| inations_followin...
| megaman821 wrote:
| Expand that a bit, if the murder runs into your house and
| then uses it as a staging ground to start killing your
| neighbors, there is a high risk the SWAT team is coming in
| guns a blazing.
| seo-speedwagon wrote:
| South Africa has the right to defend itself, and if that
| means killing the ANC and the people protecting them, so be
| it
| miramba wrote:
| So as long as it's just a few thousand civilians being killed,
| and someone calls that genocide, it's ok to censor that? That's
| a pretty cynic view.
| alerighi wrote:
| > A lot of Palestinian content descends straight into
| hyperbole. People have somehow been convinced a small amount of
| civilians being killed relative to the whole population is
| somehow a "genocide". This is the consequence of totally
| unmoderated content.
|
| A genocide is the indiscriminate distruction of a population,
| that is exactly what Israel (with the support of the USA) is
| doing to Palestine.
| deadbabe wrote:
| No, there are clear criteria for genocide as stated in other
| posts.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Words have meanings. You truly think the current targeting
| has absolutely no distinction from just chunking bombs into a
| population centers at random.
|
| If you actually want to engage people on this topic, you are
| going to have to learn to moderate your language. Saying
| Israel is not using enough discretion when picking targets
| and the number of civilian casualties is too high, actually
| invites a nuanced discussion.
| salawat wrote:
| ...In the same sense that not calling a spade a spade ends
| up channeling everyone else's energies away from dealing
| with a spade problem, and into needless quibbling on
| defintions to provide an aggressor someone might sympathize
| with some "intellectual cover"?
|
| Is that what you mean by invites "nuanced" discussion?
|
| Because what you're coaching to have happen is not even
| "nuanced". It's just intellectual judo. If it weren't you
| wouldn't be refusing to deal with it as is.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Sorry, you can't redefine every word and have useful
| discussions with people. If you think using the correct
| terms for things so people can have a better
| understanding of what you are talking about is
| "intellectual judo", I don't know what to say.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians
| being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a
| "genocide". This is the consequence of totally unmoderated
| content."
|
| There is a lot of hyperbole and hypocracy, sure, but there are
| also official statements from israeli politicians and the IDF,
| to give up all military restraint. And statements wanting to
| make Gaza inhabitable.
|
| That goes in the direction of (modern definition of) genozide,
| when you want to permanently destroy the land of other people,
| so they have to go away. As they then cannot exist as a culture
| anymore.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| "The UN says more than 1 in 4 people in Gaza are starving
| because of war"
|
| https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-12-21-2023-...
| whats_a_quasar wrote:
| > Frankly, given that there have been actual genocides in the
| recent past that have gone largely ignored, the over
| representation of Palestinian views in today's media is likely
| the work of bad faith actors ...
|
| This argument is made often on the internet, but the Occam's
| Razor explanation is that people are paying attention to Gaza
| because it's much easier to do reporting from Israel than from
| other conflict zones. Israel is a developed country with
| functioning airports, communications, roads, and legal
| protections. It's quite a bit harder to report from the Tigray
| region of Ethiopia, Shan State in Myanmar, or Darfur in Sudan
|
| I read a post a few weeks ago on the Sudan subreddit where an
| OP asked if people were frustrated with how much attention Gaza
| was getting compared to the Sudanese civil war. The Sudanese
| diaspora responses were overwhelmingly happy to see the
| coverage of Gaza, and they wished they had the same level of
| information out of Sudan. It's almost impossible to tell what's
| happening on the ground.
|
| Additionally, people care because America is a party to the
| conflict by backing the Israeli government. So the conflict in
| Gaza matters to the international world in a way that other
| internal civil wars just don't, unfortunately.
|
| The devastation in Gaza is staggering. It is quite a stretch to
| say that people are paying attention because of bad faith
| actors instead of genuine concerns. Of course people will care
| when a war of this size, supported by the U.S., happens in
| plain view.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Also because it's been an ongoing thing for 75 years. The
| logistics for reporting have been setup.
| sterlind wrote:
| You can't dismiss "think of the children" as a talking point
| when children are actually dying. This isn't FOSTA, this is an
| actual war with bullets and bombs and dead children on both
| sides. You should be thinking about the children.
| deadbabe wrote:
| There is no reason to think about children any more than any
| regular innocent civilian. It is purely a play on emotion.
| Like kicking a puppy is somehow worse than kicking a grown
| dog?
| aaomidi wrote:
| Children have always been treated differently because they
| are fully and absolutely dependent on their care givers.
|
| A puppy and a grown dog don't actually apply here because
| we're talking about humans and not dogs. It's not even
| appropriate to make that comparison here.
| salawat wrote:
| You anthroprocentric chauvinist. Just because you've
| firmly categorized everything else as "an inferior being"
| with a lesser claim to remaining alive doesn't mean
| that's actually the case.
|
| It just means you're selfishly unconcerned with the
| consequences of collateral damage up until it might be
| something that could figure out a way to waltz over and
| bite back.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Actually, I haven't. I said that the comparison of a
| human child to a dog is not appropriate. Considering that
| exact language (e.g. "they are animals") has helped
| perpetuate a genocide of Palestinians.
|
| I'm not entirely sure if you're even disagreeing with me
| here tbh.
| cthaeh wrote:
| It's because children are by definition blameless, innocent
| actors.
|
| It's impossible for a 5 year old to do evil, so it's
| universally agreed that even 1 child dying in a war is too
| many.
|
| At least that used to be the case before this conflict.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| The reason is you can kill a group of adult males and later
| claim they were Hamas. This same tactic doesn't work with
| children (not that it hasn't been tried, "No innocent
| civilians in Gaza").
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > People have somehow been convinced a small amount of
| civilians being killed relative to the whole population
|
| Nearly 7 times the amount of people than died in 9/11, and
| using illegal tactics such as starvation, along with
| hateful/genocidal rhetoric ("We are fighting human animals",
| "put to death men and women, children and infants").
|
| Is it relevant that there are a lot more Palestinians left to
| suffer; Or does that make it more urgent to end it?
|
| Here's one definition of the term:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention It doesn't
| mention anything about percentages.
| coryrc wrote:
| Pro-Palestinian quickly becomes pro-Hamas, a terrorist
| organization sanctioned by the country Meta is HQ'd in. Would you
| be surprised to find TikTok suppressing "Uighur genocide" claims?
| (We already know they're pushing pro-Hamas views).
| newsclues wrote:
| I only want platforms to censor the content I don't want others
| to see! lol
| hanniabu wrote:
| > The company exhibited "six key patterns of undue censorship" of
| content in support of Palestine and Palestinians, including the
| taking down of posts, stories and comments; disabling accounts;
| restricting users' ability to interact with others' posts; and
| "shadow banning"
|
| Is this Meta making this decision? Or is it a byproduct of the
| Israeli bot army reporting pro-Palestinian content?
| cratermoon wrote:
| ?Por que no los dos?
| UrineSqueegee wrote:
| Eh this is really tricky, for exampe if I open instagram, Threads
| or tiktok 9/10 posts will be pro-palestinian with 1 being pro-
| israeli. Then some of the propalestinian post will be calling for
| genocide or celebrating the massacre of oct 7.
|
| IMO you shouldn't censor anything. That's the only solution. When
| something is propaganda or false just quickly tag it as such with
| why it is false like Xitter does.
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| Twitter has surprisingly become much better since Elon
| purchased it. The community tags are great and non-partisan,
| they fairly report on all inaccuracy.
|
| Even advertisers aren't immune, I've seen community tags on
| paid ads calling them out for being drop shippers.
| iddan wrote:
| If pro Hamas is considered pro Palestinian by the author then
| there's nothing wrong with it. FB blocks any content that
| promotes violence and terror attacks (on the Israeli side as
| well). Posts supporting rape and violence against civilians have
| no place on Facebook and that's the way it should be
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "Examples it cites include content originating from more than
| 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in "peaceful support
| of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways". Even HRW's own posts
| seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam, the
| report said."
|
| But yes, I would have liked to see some concrete examples.
| mort96 wrote:
| This is a war where both sides are represented by terror
| organizations: Israel and Hamas. If the pro Hamas voice is
| silenced but the pro Israel voice is not, that's a problem in
| itself (maybe ideally, both should be censored, but I digress).
|
| But Hamas isn't mentioned once in the article. If the only
| views which are silenced are pro-Hamas voices, and pro-
| Palestine voices which aren't also pro-Hamas are left
| uncensored, then this article is dishonest to the point of
| lying. Plus, HRW claims that they themselves have experienced
| censorship in relation to this conflict, and I can't imagine
| that the Human Rights Watch would outright post pro-Hamas
| content.
|
| I'm disappointed that your comment with nothing but unfounded
| pro-Israel speculation is at the top of this thread.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > This is a war where both sides are represented by terror
| organizations: Israel and Hamas.
|
| No, only Hamas is a terror organization. The IDF is not.
| mort96 wrote:
| I'm not sure it's possible to look at what Israel is doing
| and say it's not terror. So, charitably, I guess you're
| saying the IDF is not an organization?
| josephcsible wrote:
| Is every country in the world wrong? https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... doesn't have
| a single country that calls the IDF a terror
| organization.
| mort96 wrote:
| Countries are careful about calling other countries
| terror organisations. That's a weak argument. To convince
| me, you have to argue that their actions aren't
| terroristic.
|
| Usually, you can argue that a state's actions aren't
| "terrorism" because most definitions of "terrorism"
| involve the requirement that the action is illegal. But
| saying that the IDF is regularly committing war crimes
| isn't even controversial at this point. So what exactly
| separates their illegal actions intended to instil terror
| from all the other terror organizations?
| vitehozonage wrote:
| Taiwan isnt a country too? Geopolitics leads to some
| crazy claims of truth. It couldn't be more clear that
| there is extreme pressure for states to support Israel,
| especially due to USA's position. Argument from authority
| is rightfully considered a logical fallacy
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| Even the Pope called them terrorists. They were literally
| funded by two terrorists organizations (Irgun and Lehi).
| And over the past 70 years their main occupation has been
| the terrorizing of the few remaining Palestinians. How more
| plainly terroristic do you have to be? And now they are
| here on HN funding posts like yours trying to justify the
| mass murder of children and women as a form of collective
| punishment.
|
| Maybe we should call them torturers instead. Maybe that is
| more fitting.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Even the Pope called them terrorists.
|
| Pope referred to specific case of two women got killed
| during firefight allegedly by IDF sniper.
|
| There is no clear evidence that they were killed by IDF,
| only Palestinian priest words.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| It is not the words of one "priest", but of all the
| Catholics in the compound. And I love how you appended
| "Palestinian" to try to discredit him, as if a
| Palestinian's word is not worth much, but the word of the
| IDF, who have been caught lying through their teeth about
| almost everything that has happened on and since 7/10 is.
| And you are wrong. The compound hosts more than just
| Palestinian Christians. Catholics from around the world
| serve in Gaza.
|
| And how is that justified? The murder of two old women in
| a Catholic church compound, by a sniper no less. And one
| of them was murdered while trying to retrieve the body of
| her mother.
| riku_iki wrote:
| > It is not the words of one "priest", but of all the
| Catholics in the compound
|
| evidence on the record is only priest words in interview.
| I highly doubt if they were killed by actual sniper,
| anyone in compound had ability to identify which sniper
| it was.
|
| > if a Palestinian's word is not worth much, but the word
| of the IDF
|
| It indicates that that person is biased with high
| probability, and his words should not be taken into
| account without hard evidence. Strong judgement and
| manipulation without any hard evidence in this case is
| very good proof of that.
| za3faran wrote:
| Just as there was no clear evidence that Shireen Abu
| Akleh was killed by israeli snipers before they admitted
| it many months down the line? There are countless videos
| and accounts of unarmed old men and young boys being
| sniped by them.
| riku_iki wrote:
| yes, civilians are killed when caught on the middle of
| firefights, often it is hard to identify who killed them.
| za3faran wrote:
| In what's happening today, it's not hard to identify who
| is killing tens of thousands of civilians
| indiscriminately.
| riku_iki wrote:
| and who uses them as cannon fodder.
| vitehozonage wrote:
| By what definition?
| josephcsible wrote:
| For Hamas being one: basically the entire Western world
| (Canada, US, UK, EU, Japan, Australia) has declared them
| as one.
|
| For the IDF not being one: literally no country, not even
| Iran, has declared them as one.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terroris
| t_g...
| davidguetta wrote:
| Heres the video where Netanyahou brags that his strategy is
| to hurt palestinian (civilians) as hard as possible Into
| submission, and that he was negociating the peace accords
| in Bad faith : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&r
| ct=j&opi=8997844...
|
| Im not sure what better fits the definition of terrorism
| for you
|
| At the end of the day most israelis would be fine with a
| two state solution. This guy and other religious extremists
| like Bennet have taken hostage the israeli people
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Heres the video where Netanyahou brags that his
| strategy is to hurt palestinian (civilians)
|
| More context: per some video from 2001 according to
| translation from Turkish regime propaganda broadcaster.
|
| > At the end of the day most israelis would be fine with
| a two state solution
|
| Is Hamas Ok with two states?
| camdenlock wrote:
| That this comment is being so heavily downvoted is a
| damning indictment of HN. I didn't realize moral confusion
| was so rampant here.
| tamimio wrote:
| Hamas is part if the resistance that by international law have
| all rights to fight the occupier by any means necessary
| including armed struggle
|
| > United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982,
| "reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
| independence, territorial integrity, national unity and
| liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign
| occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
|
| And Geneva Conventions >(2) Members of other militias and
| members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized
| resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and
| operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
| territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer
| corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
| the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a
| person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a
| fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of
| carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations
| in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
|
| Meanwhile, Israel is committing all sort of war crimes (1) for
| 70years and that's barely 10% of the reality and not even
| including the genocide this past 2 months, all based on a
| fairytale of a "promised land" -which is a lie even from
| religious perspective- that if you are a jew you have the right
| to take any house or land without consequences, most of the
| people in Israel aren't even Semites, one of the reasons why
| DNA tests are illegal in Israel.
|
| (1)
| https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-...
| riku_iki wrote:
| > Hamas is part if the resistance that by international law
| have all rights to fight the occupier by any means necessary
| including armed struggle
|
| But not by deliberately targeting civilians.
| vitalurk wrote:
| Maybe I'm just a jaded combat infantryman, but I think we should
| value children's lives more than bullshit superstitions or team-
| based angry baby spats. We are god damn monkeys, first and
| foremost in our behavior. Viral content? Fuck this.
| mort96 wrote:
| What exactly are you trying to say
| black6 wrote:
| That war is a racket where children's lives are acceptable
| collateral.
| mort96 wrote:
| No I'm pretty sure that there's some deeper meaning, but
| I'm not sure exactly what. For example, what exactly is
| meant by "Viral content? Fuck this"? Is this Guardian
| article the "viral content"? Or the Human Rights Watch
| posts? Or what? What exactly is being criticized?
| black6 wrote:
| Viral media (videos, memes, etc) are largely propaganda,
| and they're being used by both sides to encourage and
| glorify conflict. Conflict, the result of which is dead
| citizens, many of them children, while those who beat the
| war drums do so from positions of security while they
| profit off of the war.
| vitalurk wrote:
| I'm seeing a bunch of techies use terms normally utilized
| for TikTok dances, and I'm just saying maybe we should
| stop. What deeper meaning do you need?
|
| Bombing of Palestinian children is what I'm being
| critical of.
| perfectritone wrote:
| At the beginning of the conflict I noticed my feed was fully
| leaning towards supporting Israel, even if it was only the posts
| of 3 people. Somehow the 30+ people demanding the stop to the
| bombing of civilians didn't really start appearing until late
| November.
|
| They were posting the entire time, but Meta's algorithm decided
| not to show it to me.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| Where is the outcry against the thousands of Israelis and
| Americans on social media calling for violence and applauding the
| death of children in the most gruesome ways? Even calling for
| outright genocide, openly and plainly.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Probably in a few decades. Liberals will be crying out never
| again while perpetuating the new genocide of their time.
|
| The next generation is going to look with disgust at us, and
| we're going to deserve it.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| For sure. And you know what will be disgusting to witness? A
| lot of the ones supporting this evil, will claim to have been
| against the injustice all along. Plain lies. Like the German
| NAZIs did after the Holocaust. I wonder how that will work
| out for them, considering the quasi permanent nature of
| internet history.
| whats_a_quasar wrote:
| This post was flagged, but I don't think it should have been and
| I hope it stays up. I have been grateful that HN hasn't had the
| same level of animosity about the conflict in Gaza as other
| places on the internet. But this news article is about a core
| issue in tech, and should be discussed on HN. The whole world now
| uses social media to communicate, which means that when there's a
| war, partisans of both sides will be motivated to fight out the
| propaganda war on the platforms that tech built.
|
| I wonder if there will ever be a way for a global-sized platform
| which uses algorithmic content feeds to convincingly show
| moderation neutrality on a topic like this. The HRW report has
| 1,000 examples of peaceful pro-Palestinian content that was
| removed by Meta. But only Meta themselves has the information to
| know whether there is systematic bias. So we get a situation
| where people sympathetic to both sides both come away feeling
| that the platform is biased. I think the U.S. culture war has
| similar dynamics.
|
| My engineer brain wants to solve this by giving users more
| visibility into moderation decisions. Maybe statistics on deleted
| posts, more legible moderation rules, publicly posted
| justifications for moderation decisions. Another part of my brain
| thinks that maybe this is just an unsolvable problem for social
| reasons in a community that's global-scale. I'm not sure. I do
| feel like this is still Meta's job, part of their cost of doing
| business, and if they put something like 5% of their revenue into
| moderation the situation would be a lot better.
|
| In the meantime I find myself personally trying to cut out as
| many algorithmic feeds as I can from my life. I prefer the
| curation of a news website or podcast, small group discussions,
| or 1:1 communication with people I trust. Algorithmic feeds are
| easy but so far have never done a good job covering issues where
| there is real conflict between two groups.
| throwaway55479 wrote:
| That is "the beauty" of this conflict (if something this
| heinous could ever have a beautiful side): It poses many
| interesting technical challenges. But, quite understandably,
| people everywhere (including HN) are fast to move the "warring"
| right onto our screens (hence the flagging).
|
| So, as you mentioned, algorithmic feeds is one of them. There
| are many others like how to create temporary infrastructure for
| such a besieged, war-torn city [0].
|
| I suppose many would say, "This goes for all wars, what is
| special about this one?" Well, I would argue this is a "special
| conflict". It is one of (if not THE) longest-running military
| occupation in the world [1], where, coincidentally, the US
| spends its largest tax-payers-funded foreign aid [2].
|
| Edit: And because many are now commemorating the birth of Jesus
| Christ, it is worth recalling that it is also special for being
| that birth's place (spiritually, if not literally).
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38673300
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations
|
| [2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/which-countries-
| receive-...
| jules-jules wrote:
| Absolute joke that posts like these are flagged to death on here.
| I thought this place was trying to be a little different.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Maybe because the discussion is not of very high quality? Look
| how many downvotes there are already, it is an emotional topic
| and yes, even here people are having problems with maintaining
| a civil debate about a controversial topic. And others don't
| want all that flame war here, so they flag it, simple as that.
| llamaInSouth wrote:
| Do they also censor anti-Israeli views? because they do deserve
| some hate for all the innocent people that they kill.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-23 23:00 UTC)