Most active commenters
  • wqaatwt(3)

←back to thread

Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

(www.dropsitenews.com)
1210 points jbegley | 17 comments | 11 Apr 25 16:24 UTC | HN request time: 1.439s | source | bottom
Show context
aucisson_masque ◴[11 Apr 25 18:25 UTC] No.43656830[source]▶
I like to think we are in a better place than russia for instance with all its propaganda and jailed journalists, but then i see these kind of article come over and over....

Most of the people in the 'free world' goes on mainstream media, like facebook to get their news. These companies are enticed to 'suck up' to the government because at the end they are business, they need to be in good term with ruling class.

you end up with most media complying with the official story pushed by government and friends, and most people believing that because no one has the time to fact check everything.

One could argue that the difference with russia is that someone can actually look for real information, but even in russia people have access to vpn to bypass the censorship.

Another difference would be that you are allowed to express your opinion, whereas in russia you would be put to jail, that's true but only in a very limited way. Since everyone goes on mainstream media and they enforce the government narrative, you can't speak there. you are merely allowed to speak out in your little corner out of reach to anyone, and even then since most people believe the government propaganda, your arguments won't be heard at all.

The more i think about it, the less difference i see.

replies(28): >>43656906 #>>43656916 #>>43656934 #>>43656946 #>>43656968 #>>43656989 #>>43657304 #>>43657562 #>>43657645 #>>43658191 #>>43658886 #>>43659133 #>>43660757 #>>43661511 #>>43661686 #>>43662234 #>>43662676 #>>43663016 #>>43663274 #>>43663600 #>>43665341 #>>43667845 #>>43669651 #>>43672708 #>>43675307 #>>43680694 #>>43701378 #>>43726510 #
uniqueuid ◴[11 Apr 25 18:35 UTC] No.43656934[source]▶
You’re not arrested for posting this, so that is a pretty big difference to Russia (and other authoritarian nations like China and Turkey), no?

https://rsf.org/en/country/russia

replies(26): >>43656957 #>>43656976 #>>43656996 #>>43657006 #>>43657319 #>>43657386 #>>43657520 #>>43657558 #>>43657618 #>>43657630 #>>43657641 #>>43657749 #>>43657850 #>>43657855 #>>43658054 #>>43658206 #>>43658306 #>>43658499 #>>43658650 #>>43658692 #>>43659388 #>>43660949 #>>43662179 #>>43663648 #>>43666029 #>>43726511 #
perihelions ◴[11 Apr 25 18:41 UTC] No.43657006[source]▶
America's arrested rather a large number of people in recent weeks—university students, mostly—for expressing viewpoints on the I/P conflict. The current Administration is claiming, and no one's yet stopped them, that First Amendment rights don't apply to non-citizens such as international students.

- "You’re not arrested for posting this"

For what it's worth, it's widely reported that ICE is trawling social media to find targets (targeted for their speech/viewpoints). HN itself is one of their known targets.

replies(5): >>43657318 #>>43657428 #>>43657733 #>>43658284 #>>43660454 #
bcrosby95 ◴[11 Apr 25 19:05 UTC] No.43657318[source]▶
It doesn't matter if they're citizens or not if the government is skipping court thus not being required to prove it either way. Then when they oopsie you to another country they have to at least try to pretend to get you back but the courts need to show "deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs".

Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants to a foreign country and no one is going to do anything because god forbid we step on the executive's role to give up people in our country to other countries.

replies(1): >>43657395 #
aeternum ◴[11 Apr 25 19:14 UTC] No.43657395[source]▶
>Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants

Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?

Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?

replies(7): >>43657472 #>>43657485 #>>43657538 #>>43657943 #>>43658320 #>>43660279 #>>43662195 #
packetlost ◴[11 Apr 25 19:22 UTC] No.43657485[source]▶
Here's the executive branch getting ordered by SCOTUS to bring someone back for doing just that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o
replies(2): >>43657540 #>>43660174 #
gs17 ◴[11 Apr 25 19:27 UTC] No.43657540[source]▶
They were asking about it happening to citizens. From your article:

> Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran

replies(4): >>43657635 #>>43657669 #>>43657913 #>>43658569 #
1. packetlost ◴[11 Apr 25 19:40 UTC] No.43657669[source]▶
He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship.

It doesn't matter anyways because the government admitted he was deported due to a administrative error and because they actively undermined and sidestepped the courts authority on several occasions, there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens. Honestly, it sounds like it's just a matter of time if this keeps up.

replies(2): >>43657769 #>>43662238 #
2. gs17 ◴[11 Apr 25 19:49 UTC] No.43657769[source]▶
I agree it's bad, and yes, the government admitted they shouldn't have done it. But regardless, the question was about if it has happened to a citizen, not a person who maybe could be a citizen one day but is not, and you responded with them "doing just that" when they did not, in fact, "do just that".

I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.

replies(5): >>43658158 #>>43658444 #>>43658556 #>>43660004 #>>43660085 #
3. ToucanLoucan ◴[11 Apr 25 20:27 UTC] No.43658158[source]▶
It's not a need to mislead. You're grasping at a technicality. Citizenship is irrelevant if you're not given the chance to demonstrate it, which he wasn't, and again, he was actually deported because of the administrative error, not an on-purpose action, the correctness of which is irrelevant.

You're arguing whether a car wrapped around a tree has a bad alternator. Surely a fact useful to someone, somewhere, and worth knowing. But also certainly not the reason there's a problem.

replies(1): >>43659183 #
4. _DeadFred_ ◴[11 Apr 25 20:54 UTC] No.43658444[source]▶
You would agree that this whole discussion would be considered insanity in America like 4 months ago, right?
replies(1): >>43668040 #
5. Hikikomori ◴[11 Apr 25 21:05 UTC] No.43658556[source]▶
If they can ignore due process in this case what's to say they cannot do it to proper citizens? It's clear they're probing their way into creating a blueprint to get rid of people critical of trump.
6. biker142541 ◴[11 Apr 25 22:06 UTC] No.43659183{3}[source]▶
100% this. To echo another poster below, it's really important to read the Supreme Court's own words here.

>"The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. " From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

I suspect that is one of the main reasons behind the order. It's very obvious that citizen vs legal resident matters very little here, if due process is not given.

7. kenjackson ◴[11 Apr 25 23:55 UTC] No.43660004[source]▶
But the administration has now stated they are investigating how to deport citizens as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gYlWcV6wE&t=1s

She says only the most violent dangerous criminals -- although I feel like we've heard that line before...

replies(1): >>43665060 #
8. curt15 ◴[12 Apr 25 00:11 UTC] No.43660085[source]▶
None of the Trump admin's excuses for why they "can't" bring back that guy depend on his citizenship status.
9. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[12 Apr 25 07:39 UTC] No.43662238[source]▶
>He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship.

You seem as if you're trying to leverage that to actual citizen rights... "look, he could be a citizen someday, so that means he has these same rights reserved to citizens". But it does not work that way.

>there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens.

Be sure to raise the alarm when they do. I'd be curious if it ever got that far. I think that some on the left worry that it might not, because if they don't have the absurd slippery slope argument then many people would never be concerned about this at all.

replies(1): >>43665132 #
10. karpatic ◴[12 Apr 25 15:10 UTC] No.43665060{3}[source]▶
So.. the very post you share prooves it's not happening. Incredulously, I gotta wounder: Did/ do you really believe your link supports your claim that it's been happening?
replies(2): >>43667862 #>>43668026 #
11. ◴[12 Apr 25 15:18 UTC] No.43665132[source]▶
12. kenjackson ◴[12 Apr 25 20:52 UTC] No.43667862{4}[source]▶
What did I claim? Read what i wrote. The video says EXACTLY what I stated.
replies(1): >>43675118 #
13. wqaatwt ◴[12 Apr 25 21:19 UTC] No.43668026{4}[source]▶
So you think it’s sane to do nothing and wait till it’s happening when they are explicitly saying they are looking for ways to make it happen? Really?

At this when they say something absurdly unhinged and unthinkable and if you still don’t believe they will try it.. well.. maybe you’re in the market for a bridge?

14. wqaatwt ◴[12 Apr 25 21:20 UTC] No.43668040{3}[source]▶
I thought that’s what half of America wanted just 6 months ago?
replies(1): >>43669688 #
15. FireBeyond ◴[13 Apr 25 02:53 UTC] No.43669688{4}[source]▶
Trump didn't even win 50% of the vote.

Less than 25% of people who were eligible to vote voted for him.

Yes, he won the election and was the most popular candidate.

That doesn't mean "half of America wanted him".

replies(1): >>43670727 #
16. wqaatwt ◴[13 Apr 25 07:12 UTC] No.43670727{5}[source]▶
Yet his approval rating back in January and February was over 50%. So even those who didn’t bother to vote for him still supported him.

It’s still ~45% now when in any sane world it would be in the single digits..

17. karpatic ◴[13 Apr 25 19:12 UTC] No.43675118{5}[source]▶
So, I think, the courts ruled just 2 days ago that people can get sent abroad so long as they get to 'petition' it in... Texas. Right? So like, if their was an investigation, it closed one day prior to the interview; which is why she didnt say what you think she did. Trump said Would do it, and supposedly now he Can do it. All this is 'fact'in her eyes prior to the interview. An important distinction, no?