[mef51]

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/...

[cypherpunks01]

> 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]

[googlryas]

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 :)"

[breppp]

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-...

[2] https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/1700763578-human-...

[3] https://www.memri.org/reports/raven-project-leaks-alleged-qa...

[someotherperson]

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#Isra...

[breppp]

The Israeli government allowed transfer of Qatari money to Hamas as a mean to buy quiet, stemmed from the belief Hamas is a rational organization that strives to improve Palestinian life through its government of the Gaza Strip, an awful mistake.

Qatar however is a supporter of the islamist Muslim Brotherhood ideology behind Hamas, financier and a host for most of its leadership.

Furthermore involved in other terror financing in the region such as the Taliban, IRGC and Al-Qaeda [1][2].

My point here is the HRW has shown before to be corrupted and flexible with their ethics in relation to the middle east, and there is evidence it took money from Qatar, a country deeply involved in this conflict and in the past used bribery in corruption to influence western politics [3]

[1] https://thearabweekly.com/ahmadinejad-reveals-qatar-paid-ran...

[2] https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/an-analysis-of-qatari-...

[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-qatargat...

[FireBeyond]

> The Israeli government allowed transfer of Qatari money to Hamas as a mean to buy quiet, stemmed from the belief Hamas is a rational organization that strives to improve Palestinian life through its government of the Gaza Strip, an awful mistake.

Horseshit. Israeli support for Hamas increased as the PLA/PLO became much more moderate and looking for peaceable solutions.

Arafat and those organizations were absolutely responsible for many violent, reprehensible, terrorist acts.

For whatever reason, they became more willing to sit at the table and work toward reasonable peace.

To the Israeli hard right, this was an awkward position to be in. Because now they'd be seen as the intransigents, the unmoving, the ones unwilling to work toward peace.

So they started supporting Hamas, directly and indirectly, because Hamas did take a harder line, and was a more easily denounced group, much as the PLA/PLO of old.

This PR spin that "really, we hoped that Hamas wanted the best for everyone and they betrayed us all" is complete garbage.

[breppp]

You believe that Arafat and his organizations were more violent than Hamas? An organization that without taking the recent massacre into account has pioneered suicide bombings against civilians? This really does not compute.

I think this is an extremely simplified look at the last two decades. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and removed all its settlements under a Likud government, was that also a conspiracy to strengthen hamas?

What actually happened is that Israel did not want the Gaza strip, or to manage any of the millions there, so it withdrew.

However, Hamas being hamas continued firing rockets at Israeli towns, which required going to war to protect these.

This left Israel in an awkward situation of having to reoccupy the gaza strip with the thousand dead gazans that will die in the process (a lesser version of what we see now) and having to occupy the strip back.

Because no one wanted to do that, together with a negligent leadership, this system of half-operations started, where every two years they would bomb and sign a cease fire. Enough to stop the rockets for a while but not enough to anger anyone internationally. Later on culminating in actually allowing Qatar terror money, in order to keep the quiet.

Ironically half of the reason of reaching to the point where so many people had died in this war, is the international community sensitivity to casualties, very similar to pre-ww2 appeasement. Where it is only accepted for Israel to destroy such an organization is after it already conducts its mass killings (and even that is apparently contested)

[nickff]

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

[someotherperson]

> 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.

[nickff]

You're asserting a dog-whistle for anti-arab racism, or anti-islam discrimination? Those references seem more like whataboutism than some sort of dog-whistle.