[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?

[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.

[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]

self determination, through-violence*

[alangibson]

In the words of the ancient Spartans: If