I’m shocked I tell you… Shocked!!!
Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, claims Human Rights Watch.
Submitted 10 months ago by Mrkawfee@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
IbnLemmy@feddit.uk 10 months ago
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I know right? Who would have thought centralised social media owned by surveillance capitalist billionaires could do this?
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 10 months ago
And we want to allow them to integrate with the Fediverse why, exactly?
yuki2501@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Note for those enlightened centrists in here who want Facebook/Meta to federate with us and for everyone in here to merely “wait and see” 🙄
blunderworld@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Boycott Meta.
BaardFigur@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I could, but certainly not be to support Palestine. Nor Israel for that matter
blunderworld@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Your choice of course, no judgment. However, I personally don’t there’s anything controversial about being pro-palestine, since they aren’t synonymous with Hamas.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
not the related reason lib
blunderworld@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I feel seen
jsh@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
[deleted]flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
It’s hard to claim either way - for example my bubble is also mostly pro-palestinian. Suspiciously missing pro-isreaeli side actually.
But that doesn’t mean it’s what the algorithm serves on average. No one outside some teams in Meta actually knows, any outside attempt to analyze it would expose you to the same bubble-creating mechanism
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 10 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Meta has engaged in a “systemic and global” censorship of pro-Palestinian content since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza war on 7 October, according to a new report from Human Rights Watch (HRW).
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”, where the visibility and reach of a person’s material is significantly reduced, according to HRW.
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”.
In a statement to the Guardian, Meta acknowledged it makes errors that are “frustrating” for people, but said that “the implication that we deliberately and systemically suppress a particular voice is false.
Meta said it was the only company in the world to have publicly released human rights due diligence on issues related to Israel and Palestine .
Last week Elizabeth Warren, Democratic senator for Massachusetts, wrote to Meta’s co-founder and chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg, demanding information following hundreds of reports from Instagram users dating back to October that their content was demoted or removed, and their accounts subjected to shadow banning.
The original article contains 568 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
Internet before mid-2010s: The Internet is breaking down barriers of nations, enabling everyone to freely communicate with each other, even outright plan uprisings against authorities (Arab Spring)! There are hardly any limits to what we can discuss, if you have an idea, you can publish it right now and maybe change the world with it!
Internet now: Social media companies make sure, through their algorithms and moderation decisions, that the Overton window is exactly where they decide, nowhere else. They are under constant and evolving pressure to censor more of this, censor less of that, with no end in sight to not getting it “right” in someone’s opinion.
I hope the fediverse succeeds in maybe restoring the old vision of the Internet.
Steve@communick.news 10 months ago
Does 1000 seem small for an intentional, global, censorship campaign? That seems very small to me. That seems like a rounding error on a days worth of reported posts.
WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 10 months ago
What percent of facebook users would document their content and report their removal to HRW? 1000 reporting to HRW because their comments got removed from facebook seems funny. I certainly wouldn't think to report technology@lemmy.world's mods to a human rights organization if they removed this comment or banned me for posting something pro-palestine on another community.
ethan@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Most of this entire report is patently ridiculous. They asked people who follow HRW’s social media to please send them instances of censorship on social media, get about 1,500 random examples from a self-selecting population, then publish a big expose about it.
There’s no intensive comparative analysis (statistical or otherwise) to other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past. They allege, for example, that some people didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown- is that standard policy? Does it happen in other cases? Is it a bug? They don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.
The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive portrayal of terrorist organizations with political wings like the PFLP and Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but cherry picking a couple thousand taken down posts doesn’t make that discussion any more productive in any way.
rockSlayer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s not enough to prove a pattern of behavior, but it’s enough to call out as a disturbing trend.
Steve@communick.news 10 months ago
Is it? We’d need to know a lot more about how often this happens to other random groups to determine that.
eclectic_electron@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Indeed. It would be interesting to run the same analysis for censorship of pro Israel content and compare the differences between the two, though the data would likely still be noisy and inconclusive.
BlueBockser@programming.dev 10 months ago
The fact that you’re being downvoted for calling for a more thorough and objective investigation really says it all.