[notavalleyman]

Where in the linked pdf is any evidence that the reported content was actually innocent?

If the content which Israel reported to meta was truly pro-terror, then surely there's no problem here - a nation who is the target of a terrorist group, can spend their taxes reducing pro-terror group content online. It's only a problem if, as the report alleges, the content was not pro-terror, but that's not actually evidenced anywhere

[icw_nru]

Human rights watch's report covers more individual examples.

To quote: "Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel."

This leak aims at looking at the bigger picture across all of Meta's 3 billion users.

Of course, Meta can chose examples of actually violating posts removed and show that as counter proof, or even posts that are violating that are not yet removed. But anyone familiar with how ML models work knows that false positives / false negatives exists.

Its the degree to which the ML models primarily censor almost any content related to Israel/Palestine, the systemic nature of targeting specific countries, such as Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, and the fact that per-capita, Israel is the country that most abuses the content enforcement system (3x more than any other country).

[notavalleyman]

> Of course, Meta can chose examples of actually violating posts removed and show that are counter proof, or even posts that are violating that are not yet removed

No, meta don't need to prove anything to anyone.

It's you who alleges that the content should have stayed up, so what's your evidence?

You're telling me I need to go and read a HRW pdf instead? Okay where is that?

[icw_nru]

The report: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

Unfortunately links to individual posts can't be accessed as the posts themselves are removed. The HRW report is excellent as they documented this individual cases and recorded them.

[notavalleyman]

Okay well you don't have any proof, any in general, I would consider it a good use of tax shekels to reduce the number of pro-hamas posts on social media. So until you can dig up any proof, I'm considering this whole post to be a nothing burger

[icw_nru]

Did you look at the article? This investigation directly corroborates existing reports from third parties like Human Rights Watch. There is even an intake form directly from the Israeli government calling for the censorship posts of posts at Meta. We even posted their phone and fax number in case anyone is interested in having a friendly chat with them.

All data collected is directly from Meta, and the whisteblowers themselves are open to sharing this data with any authority or court willing to look into this. Everything is well documented. Where and how the data was obtained is also documented as well.

Or alternatively, you can wait for the next leak.

[text0404]

google search for "human rights watch israel censorship" turned this up: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2023/12/ip_met...

check "illustrative examples" section.

[alangibson]

Wow, is almost like you're committed to obfuscation what Israel is doing. Couldn't possibly be that tho...

[strulovich]

All 1049 posts were peaceful? The pdf mentions this was mostly after October 7th, a terrorist (as in, meant to induce fear by targeting civilians) attack which was live streamed on Facebook and posted repeatedly during that day.

I’m surprised the Israelis are so capable with intelligence, yet bungled this so much that not one post they pointed out was violent?

I’m happy to stand corrected, but when someone shows a perfect record in a data review I’m naturally suspicious.

EDIT: I’m confusing the linked PDF and HRW’s report. But I still have doubts about HRW’s numbers.

[whatshisface]

In this case it's being alleged that sending a thousand false takedown requests which were then acted on would not be a bungling, but rather a success.

[parineum]

This was my takeaway as well.

The pdf says there's a 95% accept rate on their takedown requests. They use that as evidence of censorship but, to me, that looks like evidence of judicious requests that meta agrees with.

Without data on what was taken down, there's no way to explain the difference. There's no reason not to make the entire dataset public (anonymized if you'd like but, since the content is implied to be benign, what's the harm in not?) and show some examples.

The implication that, because Israel submits the most requests that they must be acting in bad faith makes sense only of all countries had an equal amount of content generated that they'd like filtered. It's very easy for me to believe that Israel would have more content directed towards it that violated the Meta TOS.

[rsoto2]

Israel is not the target of a terrorist group. It is a terrorist state subjugating a trapped population to forced starvation and hunger. It's a second holocaust live streamed to your phone and you still think they are acting rationally.

Oppressed people have the right to violence just because they're brown doesn't make them "terrorists," that's actually quite the racist worldview.

[lenerdenator]

> Israel is not the target of a terrorist group.

Most would disagree, not the least of which are people in that region. Hamas does not have many friends outside of Iran because most governments in the region see them as a destabilizing force. And they are. The

> It is a terrorist state subjugating a trapped population to forced starvation and hunger.

They are using tactics that, if put up to scrutiny in a trial in an international court of law, would probably be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity. The same would probably be true of Hamas' tactics on October 7th, 2023.

> Oppressed people have the right to violence just because they're brown doesn't make them "terrorists," that's actually quite the racist worldview.

Ultimately you have two Semitic peoples - Palestinians and Jews - who want to establish an ethnostate in what used to be Mandatory Palestine. Both have some ancestral title to at least some of the region. Quite a few Jewish subgroups, like Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, would be considered "brown", to borrow your term.

The way forward will require both parties to recognize each other's right to at least some of the land. It's worth noting that this has not been, and still is not, a view held by either party's governments.

[halflife]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_...

Would you say that this list is incorrect? Or that any attack on civilians in Israel is justified and thus not a terrorist attack?

[rsoto2]

Do you think Israel was created through peace or through zionist bombing attacks? Do you think only the brown bombers should be labelled terrorists?

You sound racist and like you're ok enabling the killing of children. As a doctor Tarek Loubani reported today "I've been to many wars, it has never felt like the war is against children"

[halflife]

Before the state of Israel, Jewish groups were bombing British mandate offices. Not civilians, and definitely not on purpose. But I’m trying to understand your logic. Attacking innocent civilians is legitimate if your goal is to establish a state?

And BTW, you don’t know me personally, ad hominem attacks just weaken your argument

[oa335]

Do you believe these events were terrorist attacks?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sunday_(1937)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_al-Shaykh_massacre

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zzFlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MIkN...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Thy_Bread

[halflife]

Well yeah, the 30s and 40s were a horrible time of terror attacks from both groups against each other.

[cogman10]

No, you see, it's not terror when the bomb falls from a jet fighter or a drone /s.

[monocasa]

Or when it's biological warfare on civilians for the purpose of depopulation either apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cast_Thy_Bread

[rsoto2]

Is killing a child terrorism? Because israel has killed over 18000 in the last few years.

[halflife]

You didn’t answer my question

[cogman10]

I can fully grant the list as accurate and even undercounting the number of attacks that have happened.

It, frankly, pales in comparison to the number of civilians the IDF has killed and is currently killing. No amount of terrorist attacks can justify starving a population or dropping bombs on the tents of refuges.

Like, I'm sorry, but an attack in 2024 that injures 20 people and an attack in 2023 that kills 1000 is simply not comparable. There are literally 1000s dying weekly right now in gaza. The IDF is daily shooting starving children that go to the Israel's ran aid sites.

Israel does not have the right to commit genocide.

[halflife]

The OP said that Israel is not a target of terror attacks.

[albumen]

Yes, very good, OP's wrong and you're right.

Now, if you'd address the 8,000,000lb elephant in the room that would be great.

[cogman10]

Sure, I don't agree with that assessment, but I get where it comes from.

I find the "what-about"ism somewhat tiring at this point. What Israel is currently doing is unconscionable.

This is really not unlike trying to criticize the war crimes committed during the Warsaw uprising or the actions of John Brown. Were they wrong? Yes. Were they understandable? Absolutely. Bringing them up whenever someone brings up the actions of the Nazis or the slave owners is what's problematic. It tries to strip away the humanity of people that are being slaughtered in order to justify the slaughtering.

[halflife]

I pointed out the error in his post, everybody else is “what-about”ing at me in response.

[alangibson]

This is whataboutism. Either address the parent comment or go away.

[halflife]

How is this whataboutism? He said that Israel is not a target of terror attacks. In response I provided a list of terror attacks against Israel, this is exactly on topic

[alangibson]

You don't have to convince me that you don't get it. I believe you. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm calling what you say out for the benefit of others.

[chimineycricket]

It's whataboutism because the statement also included that Israel is a terrorist state. By giving a list of attacks on Israel as a rebuttal, you are saying Israel is not a terrorist state because it's been attacked by Hamas. Do you see how silly that sounds? Since Hamas is a terrorist group for all of its viscousness, Israel must be as well, because the viciousness of Israel is more than 10 times that of Hamas.

[rsoto2]

self determination, through-violence*

[alangibson]

In the words of the ancient Spartans: If