[HN Gopher] Israeli group claims it's using back channels to cen...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Israeli group claims it's using back channels to censor
       "inflammatory" content
        
       Author : ilamont
       Score  : 125 points
       Date   : 2024-01-10 18:43 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (theintercept.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (theintercept.com)
        
       | Qem wrote:
       | Archived:
       | http://web.archive.org/web/20240110185343/https://theinterce...
        
       | jjulius wrote:
       | For what it's worth, The Intercept has not been able to verify
       | what this group is claiming.
       | 
       | >A SMALL GROUP of volunteers from Israel's tech sector is working
       | tirelessly to remove content it says doesn't belong on platforms
       | like Facebook and TikTok, tapping personal connections at those
       | and other Big Tech companies to have posts deleted outside
       | official channels, the project's founder told The Intercept.
       | 
       | >The Intercept was unable to independently confirm that
       | sympathetic workers at Big Tech firms are responding to the
       | group's complaints or verify that the group was behind the
       | removal of the content it has taken credit for having deleted.
        
         | cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
         | Although this is in the grand scheme of things hard to verify.
         | Who is going to admit to that? To a news organisation?
        
       | mrguyorama wrote:
       | Anyone who has ever posted a "I need help" here on HN and gotten
       | support has also used "backchannels".
       | 
       | An actual concern would be if this "backchannel" turned out to be
       | messaging an insider who acts outside of policy. We know the
       | Saudis and other state backed groups had insiders in Twitter at
       | least, but I'm much less inclined to believe there are any pro-
       | israel insiders in say, TikTok.
        
         | octopoc wrote:
         | FTA:
         | 
         | > Iron Truth members have flagged thousands of posts for
         | removal, from clearly racist or false content to posts that
         | _are merely sympathetic to Palestinians_.
         | 
         | (emphasis added)
         | 
         | If you aren't connected enough to get Google to fix your email,
         | your business is disrupted. It's unfair but life moves on.
         | Maybe next time you don't use Gmail.
         | 
         | The stakes are much higher here in an actual war / genocide.
         | People are starving, dying, having their homes stolen, etc. and
         | this is an attempt to deny them a voice.
         | 
         | Also FTA:
         | 
         | > I copied the URL of the video and sent it to a team in
         | [Facebook parent company] Meta, some Israelis that work for
         | Meta, and I told them that this video needs to be removed and
         | actually they removed it after a few days."
         | 
         | American companies should not engage in propaganda for a
         | foreign country. I find it reprehensible that foreign nationals
         | from a nation currently engaged in conflict are deliberately
         | working together to push a foreign agenda on the people of the
         | entire world.
         | 
         | This is way, way different than not being able to use Google
         | apps for business.
        
           | baz00 wrote:
           | I think it would be safer to remove all political posts from
           | social media (both sides) as policy. There is a massive
           | propaganda war on both sides and all it does is amplify
           | sentiment, create further division, hurt more people and
           | compromise security over time.
           | 
           | The press are bad enough at coming up with verified claims
           | from the right people. Social media is 1000x worse.
           | 
           | Of course our current American social media dictators are
           | pretty lax on doing anything positive for society as a whole
           | while it benefits them.
        
             | shadowgovt wrote:
             | How do you disambiguate "political" content from "content
             | people want to share?"
             | 
             | The hard thing about "getting politics out of X" is that
             | every time people are involved, politics is involved.
             | Politics is just what people think the group should be.
             | 
             | > The press are bad enough at coming up with verified
             | claims from the right people. Social media is 1000x worse.
             | 
             | No doubt. One of these days we might successfully drill
             | into people's skulls "Stop getting your news from social
             | media; that's not news that's rumors."
        
               | macintux wrote:
               | > No doubt. One of these days we might successfully drill
               | into people's skulls "Stop getting your news from social
               | media; that's not news that's rumors."
               | 
               | It's much worse than rumors: it's often deliberately
               | misconstrued/out of context, or outright lies.
               | 
               | Rumors I don't mind so much, since they're usually pretty
               | obvious.
        
               | baz00 wrote:
               | Indeed. Then again "the news" is well known for carefully
               | editorialising things and conflating unverified sources
               | as facts on and off. General journalistic standards have
               | been compromised because there's a race to get the
               | information in front of people faster than social media
               | and it is now seen as ok to correct it later. This is
               | mostly online though. Print and televised media is
               | usually not as real time.
               | 
               | Everything is a shit show.
        
         | Qem wrote:
         | > We know the Saudis and other state backed groups had insiders
         | in Twitter at least
         | 
         | That former twitter employee was found guilty of acting as an
         | agent of a foreign government. So far the Israeli lobby has a
         | free pass to meddle in without triggering the same treatment.
         | See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-twitter-employee-
         | found...
        
         | yorwba wrote:
         | Lots of open positions
         | https://careers.tiktok.com/m/position?keywords=content%20mod...
         | If you really need an insider, you can probably just recruit
         | someone who's already working there, but getting someone new in
         | is also unlikely to be difficult.
        
         | maratc wrote:
         | TikTok has an office in Tel-Aviv.
        
           | xenospn wrote:
           | They all do.
        
         | dijit wrote:
         | > I'm much less inclined to believe there are any pro-israel
         | insiders in say, TikTok.
         | 
         | The sheer volume of pro-palestine, pro-hamas (those are not the
         | same), pro-islam and anti-jewish sentiment I am bombarded with
         | on Tiktok tells me that either:
         | 
         | * there is no moderation
         | 
         | * There is absurdly overwhelming pro-terrorism and racist
         | sentiment
         | 
         | * The bot/spam farms are in full war mode.
         | 
         | I find it hard to believe that content is being moderated with
         | any pro-israel bias on tiktok.
        
       | baz00 wrote:
       | Someone's got to try and take out the trash seeing as the social
       | network owners don't bother policing their own estate while there
       | are clicks and revenue rolling in.
       | 
       | I tried to take out one 5G nutjob who was telling people to burn
       | down phone towers and nothing happened. This was after my local
       | 4G tower was actually burned down and we were without phone
       | service for a week because someone decided to copy the idiot.
       | 
       | There are real consequences for real people for posting this
       | shit.
       | 
       | Edit: not sure why this is now flagged? Would a moderator care to
       | comment before I'm silenced permanently?
        
       | shmatt wrote:
       | I thought this was common knowledge?
       | 
       | I often see posts in technical groups im in from people asking
       | for help re-opening their hacked instagram or facebook accounts.
       | Apparently there is an internal-only form for Meta employees to
       | speed up the process for friends/family
        
         | xenospn wrote:
         | Correct. I did exactly that for my friend.
        
         | tazu wrote:
         | > Apparently there is an internal-only form for Meta employees
         | to speed up the process for friends/family
         | 
         | You can also sleep with those employees to speed it up [1].
         | 
         | [1]: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/kittylixo-onlyfans-instagram-
         | em...
        
       | octopoc wrote:
       | Many of us are in the tech industry. Has anyone seen this sort of
       | thing happen? Or is this something we wouldn't be aware of since
       | it's usually on the "content moderation" side of the house? (I
       | haven't ever worked in social media, so not really familiar with
       | content moderation other than removing the occasional dick pic)
       | 
       | Edit:
       | 
       | > Most of them are product managers, software developers. ...
       | They work with the policy teams with an internal set of tools to
       | forward links and explanations about why they need to be removed.
        
         | kornhole wrote:
         | If you look at the extensive reporting done by racket.news
         | around the Twitter Files and Facebook Files, you can learn
         | about the direct back channels many government agencies had to
         | directly report thousands of people to be banned or shadow
         | banned. A federal court judge concluded that it was the biggest
         | violation of free speech in modern history. He ordered the
         | government to no longer contact the social media companies
         | unless something is found to be illegal. This applied to
         | government agencies but does not apply to these groups that
         | might be organized or funded by a foreign government.
        
           | Yoric wrote:
           | I remember browsing through the Twitter Files and finding
           | nothing interesting in them.
           | 
           | Yes, all social media have open channels with law
           | enforcement. That's because social media have legal
           | obligations and when someone comes to a moderator claiming to
           | be a law enforcement officer working on a kidnapping or
           | preventing a terrorist attack and needing time-sensitive help
           | to save lives, you don't want the moderator to have to guess
           | whether that's a real emergency or a hoax.
           | 
           | It's... not a secret. If you live in a democracy, you can
           | quickly find out the name of these channels, they have
           | websites.
           | 
           | Source: I've been part of a moderation team. Not on something
           | that large, though.
        
         | Yoric wrote:
         | I've been part of a moderation team in a (much) smaller
         | context. Most people want to do good work, but in the end,
         | we're all human, so of course anybody could be influenced,
         | especially in such volatile situations.
         | 
         | How far people are actually influenced and in which
         | direction... that's anybody's guess.
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | What if there is pressure from bosses, from outsiders,
           | socially. What if they say, 'are you supporting terrorists?'
        
         | kevingadd wrote:
         | only one data point, but fwiw when I worked for Google I found
         | some actively toxic youtube content w/upwards of 500k views
         | that was telling children to off themselves, and despite using
         | my employee back-channel connections the most I was able to get
         | was an eventual "I'm not allowed to do anything about this"
         | from a YouTube moderator, though it seemed to be for technical
         | reasons (all the nasty content was in annotations, which
         | apparently weren't wired into the moderation pipeline). There
         | definitely wasn't a red button for me to hit as an employee to
         | get it taken down.
        
       | GrumpySloth wrote:
       | _> Iron Truth claims its tech industry back channels have led to
       | the removal of roughly 1,000 posts tagged by its members as
       | false, antisemitic, or "pro-terrorist" across platforms such as
       | X, YouTube, and TikTok._
       | 
       | Does anyone know if that's a lot? I don't know either way. I just
       | have a gut feeling that compared to the number of posts made by
       | bots on any political matter it barely matters.
       | 
       | I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient to counter with more
       | bots going in the other direction with likes and posts.
        
         | strulovich wrote:
         | My experience is that it's a drop in the bucket.
         | 
         | But, there's a power law distribution for virality, so removing
         | the top 1000 most viral posts might still be impactful.
        
         | ars wrote:
         | 1,000 posts is absolutely nothing. If that's all they removed
         | then I don't get why this article even exists.
        
           | xenospn wrote:
           | My thoughts exactly. TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook (Reddit
           | as well) probably add more than 1000 posts each on this topic
           | every hour.
        
             | Yoric wrote:
             | I suspect that we're closer to 1,000 per second.
        
             | cma wrote:
             | You have to multiply the post count by their reach. If it
             | is a strong exponent power law the top 1000 may be the vast
             | majority of what people see on the topic, but they may
             | apply greater scrutiny in removing posts with high reach
             | too.
        
           | dralley wrote:
           | Not only that, but there is more than enough _legitimately_
           | antisemitic or pro-terrorism content on these platforms for
           | this to be fully legitimate reporting behavior.
           | 
           | It could be 100,000 posts and this would still be near
           | meaningless without actual context on what is being reported.
           | 1000 posts is a joke.
        
         | bjourne wrote:
         | You have to measure the effect by summing the reach of every
         | removed post. Removing a post from n account with ten followers
         | is not the same as removing one from an account with ten
         | million followers.
        
           | klyrs wrote:
           | Deleting 1000 of my posts: inconsequential. Deleting 1000 of
           | Musk's posts: inconceivable.
        
           | GrumpySloth wrote:
           | Wouldn't deleting posts of high-profile users be easily
           | noticed and lead to Streisand effect? The article says it
           | didn't manage to verify the cited claims.
        
             | kevingadd wrote:
             | Yeah, but the reposts of it would be from lower-reach
             | follower accounts that would also potentially be vulnerable
             | to deletion if they spread
        
       | DarkByte wrote:
       | If this "Iron Truth" is a smoke screen to remove any information
       | that is true and sympathetic to Palestinians through mis-
       | categorizing and mis-labeling and that is not hateful then it is
       | a system of oppression and must be stopped.
        
       | smoothjazz wrote:
       | You can see this happen out in the open when Paul Graham (or
       | anyone else) posts statistics about who's been killed, raw
       | footage... he's immediately swarmed by people, some major players
       | in the industry, accusing him of "antisemitism", which it most
       | definitely is not.
        
       | rthkljlkrj wrote:
       | Of course they are. Anyone who's seen that documentary about
       | Israel meddling in UK politics know that these people have a lot
       | of power that isn't just military.
        
         | ok123456 wrote:
         | "The Labour Files" is on youtube:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiODoWurA64
        
       | myth_drannon wrote:
       | I stopped reading The Intercept when it became a Russian
       | propaganda mouthpiece. Had high hopes for Greenwald after the
       | Snowden affair, but alas he found his niche.
       | 
       | This "Iron Truth" thing is blown out of proportion. A lot of
       | techies are organizing and helping in many different ways. Iron
       | Truth is one of them, I saw messages from them. Not sure how
       | successful it is, the internet is drowning in so much vile
       | propaganda. There are better ways to spend the energy than
       | cleaning up a garbage dump. IMHO the main point of Iron Truth is
       | to troll the Hamas supporters (who believe the old antisemitic
       | trope that Jews control the media) not to achieve any kind of
       | cleanup. Based on comments here, plenty are foaming at the mouth
       | feeling vindicated "See, we told you so! They do control it!".
       | Mission accomplished I guess?
        
         | hax0ron3 wrote:
         | Russian propaganda such as what? Do you have any specific
         | examples?
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | Huh? Greenwald left The Intercept in a big huff when they
         | pushed _back_ on his attempts to do that.
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Resignation_of_G...
        
       | bjourne wrote:
       | Three days ago a number of accounts with massive followings were
       | suspended from Twitter; @zei_squirrel, @AlanRMacLeod,
       | @kenklipperstein, and @TrueAnonPod. They were later reinstated
       | and Twitter claimed its algorithms had misidentified them as spam
       | accounts. Strange how that so frequently happens to pro-
       | Palestinian accounts, but never to Zionist accounts. Clearly,
       | there are well-organized and well-funded (and possbly even state-
       | sponsored) "flagging campaigns" working to remove as much pro-
       | Palestinian content as possible.
        
       | davidf18 wrote:
       | Pulitzer Prize Winner, and Snowdon interviewer, and Intercept co-
       | founder Gleen Greenwald left the Intercept because of censorship
       | of his article by editorial staff.
       | 
       | https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-int...
       | 
       | "The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological
       | homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed
       | the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my
       | own articles."
       | 
       | If The Intercept was willing to censor Greenwald, exactly how
       | much can we rely on the Intercept to give us a complete message?
       | How can we say that they're a trustworthy source?
       | 
       | We live in a world where Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, filmed
       | their killing and raping of women on bodycams/helmet cams, killed
       | 360 at an overnight festival, and kidnapped over 200, including
       | children and elderly women.
       | 
       | Not only was their brutality surprising, but most surprising is
       | that people across the world supported Hamas and their deeds,
       | they tore down posters of people who had been kidnapped. This
       | happened in my country, the USA, of all places. It is hard to
       | understand Americans saying, "From the river to the sea...." the
       | protests blocking traffic, on college campuses.
       | 
       | None of these people addressed the attempt to commit genocide
       | against Jews in 1948 against the resurrected Jewish nation by
       | some Palestinians and 5 Arab armies. In the process of the
       | attempt at Jewish genocide, this time not by Germans but by
       | Arabs, the Palestinian state was destroyed. Had there been no
       | attempt at genocide by the Arabs, The Palestinian state would
       | have existed since 1948.
        
         | adhamsalama wrote:
         | "If Palestinians had accepted being killed and colonized, they
         | would have had a state since 1948. Since they weren't okay with
         | that, we will keep killing them and steal their home and land
         | to build illegal settlements".
        
       | FergusArgyll wrote:
       | The concept of free speech as a value that is good in and of
       | itself is something that barely exists outside of the USA. It's
       | hard for an American to grok this, but the more you travel (or
       | read foreign news) the more you'll realize this.
       | 
       | If you ask an Israeli (or a European or even Canadian) "which do
       | you prefer the law prioritize, 'Truth' or free speech" you will
       | most likely get, the former.
        
         | commandlinefan wrote:
         | Maybe they're afraid to be honest about which they prefer?
        
         | JacobThreeThree wrote:
         | That doesn't really fit with my experience in Canada,
         | especially given that Canadian law has robust freedom of
         | expression provisions in the charter of rights and freedoms.
         | 
         | https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...
        
           | FergusArgyll wrote:
           | I don't want to start a shouting match and have to prove my
           | case for every country but this is from Wikipedia.
           | 
           | "Hate speech, obscenity, and defamation are common categories
           | of restricted speech in Canada. During the 1970 October
           | Crisis, the War Measures Act was used to limit speech from
           | the militant political opposition."
        
             | wolverine876 wrote:
             | Free speech doesn't mean unlimited speech. In the US you
             | are not free to defraud, slander, physically endanger, etc.
             | And everywhere, in everything, there are failures and
             | imperfections.
        
               | FergusArgyll wrote:
               | If "hate speech and obscenity" aren't covered by free
               | speech protections, what is?
        
         | DarkByte wrote:
         | I would argue free speech is much more preferred as a citizen
         | of one of these countries as too many are walking around
         | convinced their understanding of facts is truth when it is in
         | truth not.
         | 
         | Free speech is a necessity learned from the past horrors of
         | fascism.
        
         | ajhurliman wrote:
         | So your argument is "other countries don't care about free
         | speech, America should be more like other countries? This is a
         | bizarre take, I was with you up until the last word.
        
           | FergusArgyll wrote:
           | No, I am firmly in the free-speech camp. Which is why 'truth'
           | is in quotes...
        
         | wolverine876 wrote:
         | > The concept of free speech as a value that is good in and of
         | itself is something that barely exists outside of the USA.
         | 
         | That's demonstrably false; rights like free speech are
         | enshrined in societies all over the world. Other countries
         | don't have a First Amendment, but they have free speech, free
         | press, etc.
        
       | bhouston wrote:
       | I have found a lot of pro-Palestinian YouTube videos are put
       | behind warnings pages unnecessarily - the preventing them from
       | going viral.
       | 
       | Here is a great example, this Chris Hayes of MSNBC news segment
       | on the MSNBC YouTube channel:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WTHVseqZdw
       | 
       | Notice the warning says:
       | 
       | "The following content may contain graphic or violent imagery"
       | 
       | But there is no graphic or violent imagery in the video at all,
       | it is just quotes from Israeli leaders.
       | 
       | This to me seems to be unfair censorship because once that
       | warning is on a video, it will not be recommended to others in
       | any way - basically it can not go viral.
       | 
       | There are no such warnings on the official MSNBC website on this
       | video, thus it is specific to YouTube: https://www.msn.com/en-
       | us/news/other/chris-hayes-the-war-in-...
       | 
       | I've seen this happen on another video, one calling on the games
       | industry to be supportive of the Palestinian struggle:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDB_wYdn5f4
        
         | mtalantikite wrote:
         | I was asked to sign in to watch that video, since it has a
         | content warning. Is that something that happens to other news
         | broadcasts dealing with war footage?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-10 23:00 UTC)