←back to thread

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

(www.dropsitenews.com)
1210 points jbegley | 2 comments | 11 Apr 25 16:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.66s | source
Show context
bawolff ◴[11 Apr 25 20:11 UTC] No.43658003[source]▶
The missing part of this article: are the requests valid? Are they actually incitements to terrorism and violence or is it just a clamp down on criticism? The headline of the article implies the latter but the body does not provide any evidence for that.

Like there is a war going on, a pretty nasty one at that. I would expect there to be quite a lot of incitement to violence related to that. I would expect the israeli government to be mostly concerned with incitements of violence against its citizens. In the context of this conflict i would expect such incitements to be mostly be made by the demographics cited in the article due to the nature of the conflict. The article seems like it could be entirely consistent with take downs being used appropriately. It needs more then this to prove its headline.

Heck, from this post we dont even know relative numbers. How does this compare against take down requests from other groups?

replies(10): >>43658099 #>>43659314 #>>43660724 #>>43660804 #>>43662269 #>>43662614 #>>43662636 #>>43673364 #>>43674847 #>>43678221 #
1. elihu ◴[12 Apr 25 02:16 UTC] No.43660724[source]▶
The article does mention it, but I agree that the story is incomplete without a clearer idea (including examples) of what is being censored.

> "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."

replies(1): >>43660779 #
2. bawolff ◴[12 Apr 25 02:30 UTC] No.43660779[source]▶
However that study is using a different data set afaik. There is no indication that the things being requested taken down by Israel are the same as those being studied by HRW.

Its also really difficult to draw any conclusions from the HRW study due to selection bias issues. The sample was sent in by users instead of being chosen randomly from censored posts. Even assuming you agree with HRW's assesment that the posts were peaceful, there is no way to tell from the study if this represents the 0.00001% most "peaceful" of all censored posts or if its the average censored post, and i think that makes a big difference when evaluating this situation. The experimental design of the HRW study is just rather poor, and i think you could use such a design to come to basically any conclusion you want.