Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta(dropsitenews.com)
dropsitenews.com
Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/leaked-data-israeli-censorship-meta
1,043 comments
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20250411170102/https://www.drops...
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.
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.
The difference with Russia is that they are much worse at hiding their corruption and censorship.
Russia doesn't bang the drum of "free speech" ad nauseam the way US social media magnates do.
Sure, the 'free speech' propaganda is a conscious part of the (better/more effective) public opinion manipulation playbook.
True. I was born in Russia and to be honest I wish Russia would at least "bang the drum of free speech" as well. If you pretend to have some values you actually make people start to believe in them a bit
I'm pretty sure Russia still preaches a lot of admirable things that it doesn't actually practice. Talk is cheap yet people will put stock in it anyway.
Strictly speaking, Russia has quite explicit free speech protections in its constitution. So much so that it separately covers freedom of speech and freedom of press, and in regard to the latter straight up says "censorship is prohibited".
Whenever this topic comes up, the government just nods at the document, as if it had any relation to the real world.
Whenever this topic comes up, the government just nods at the document, as if it had any relation to the real world.
It’s not a better or worse government (although it may be), it’s just different.
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
https://rsf.org/en/country/russia
You do realize that this is where things are going, right? Have you not heard of the arrests and recent deportations of student protestors?
I don’t understand why we keep forgetting that authoritarianism is a slippery slope.
I don’t understand why we keep forgetting that authoritarianism is a slippery slope.
You have a point with democratic backsliding - but then your rights hinge on the impartiality of the judicial system (as a whole, and eventually, not necessarily individual decisions evidently). It’s pretty obvious that the legal systems even in flawed democracies is still vastly better than in those autocracies.
A tale as old as time: watch from the sidelines while things are relatively “good” before suddenly finding yourself on the naughty list.
Checks and balances are a crucial feature of American democracy.
It's almost as though the framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of the two elected branches of government (executive and legislative) being monopolized by the same group, at some point.
And that the very flexibility of regular, open, direct elections also required a check to protect the fundamental rights of all people in the country.
It's almost as though the framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of the two elected branches of government (executive and legislative) being monopolized by the same group, at some point.
And that the very flexibility of regular, open, direct elections also required a check to protect the fundamental rights of all people in the country.
They may have foresaw it but they did little if anything to prevent it. They lamented that political parties would probably be the downfall, and here we are...
> little if anything to prevent it
The prevention is literally in the Constitution! Do you think other branches of government would be deferring to the Supreme Court if it weren't spelled out that they must?
The prevention is literally in the Constitution! Do you think other branches of government would be deferring to the Supreme Court if it weren't spelled out that they must?
> You do realize that this is where things are going, right?
This has been going on for decades.
> Have you not heard of the arrests and recent deportations of student protestors?
The legality of which will be decided (hopefully) by the courts. If this turns out to be legal, the fault doesn't lie at the hands of Trump and his cronies, but at a broken system we've had - for decades. Getting rid of him won't solve this. Having checks and balances will.
Much of his and Elon's actions are within the power that has been legally granted to them. And that is the problem. Congress is not limiting those powers. Voters are another part of checks and balances, and they happily wanted to give him those powers.
The problem isn't Trump. It's the country. Been broken for a while, but it took time for someone to clearly demonstrate how broken it is.
This has been going on for decades.
> Have you not heard of the arrests and recent deportations of student protestors?
The legality of which will be decided (hopefully) by the courts. If this turns out to be legal, the fault doesn't lie at the hands of Trump and his cronies, but at a broken system we've had - for decades. Getting rid of him won't solve this. Having checks and balances will.
Much of his and Elon's actions are within the power that has been legally granted to them. And that is the problem. Congress is not limiting those powers. Voters are another part of checks and balances, and they happily wanted to give him those powers.
The problem isn't Trump. It's the country. Been broken for a while, but it took time for someone to clearly demonstrate how broken it is.
Agreed. And nowhere did I say that the problem is Trump. I was simply using current events as proof that we are already in a bad state.
Yea but there's also not much point in critiquing the government here. What we ever been able to do about it except riot? We can endlessly discuss the failures of government and as it stands I don't think we will never see these failures distinguish candidates in the voting booth. Which is confusing, because you'd think the democrats would have wanted to win this time.
Yea people are actually https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rnzp4ye5zo
The western endorsement of the genocide in Gaza has been some of the best PR Putin could ever have hoped for.
It simultaneously underlined the viciousness, the lack of moral credibility and extreme hypocrisy of western leaders in the eyes of the nonaligned world (e.g. the global south), none of whom sanctioned him.
The western endorsement of the genocide in Gaza has been some of the best PR Putin could ever have hoped for.
It simultaneously underlined the viciousness, the lack of moral credibility and extreme hypocrisy of western leaders in the eyes of the nonaligned world (e.g. the global south), none of whom sanctioned him.
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.
- "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.
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.
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.
>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?
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?
- "Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?"
"Do you have examples of this severity-11 CVE being used in the wild, or are you just being hypothetical here?" It's a horrifically exploitable bug, were it left unpatched.
It's not some fringe conspiracy theory that this is how the law works and how the law would work on contact with US citizens; the Garcia SCOTUS concurrence explicitly underscored this perversity,
- "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens [sic!], without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene... That view refutes itself."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
"Do you have examples of this severity-11 CVE being used in the wild, or are you just being hypothetical here?" It's a horrifically exploitable bug, were it left unpatched.
It's not some fringe conspiracy theory that this is how the law works and how the law would work on contact with US citizens; the Garcia SCOTUS concurrence explicitly underscored this perversity,
- "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens [sic!], without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene... That view refutes itself."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
Here's the executive branch getting ordered by SCOTUS to bring someone back for doing just that: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gnzzeg34o
They were asking about it happening to citizens. From your article:
> Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran
> Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran
He's a permanent resident. Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally.
> Splitting hairs over citizenship when he was here legally massively misses the problem with blackholing people here legally.
And on top of that this case should be horrifying to anyone regardless of whether they want to split hairs because:
A) they admitted he was deported in error
B) they are now effectively trying to argue there is no way to get him back
So even if you believe they would never knowingly do this to an actual citizen they are only one slightly different mistake from disappearing a citizen, whether or not it has happened yet.
Nevermind the fact that Trump himself has repeatedly floated the idea of deporting citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-...
And then lastly and most importantly IMO it is wildly un-American to believe anyone (regardless of citizenship or legal status) is not entitled to due process.
And on top of that this case should be horrifying to anyone regardless of whether they want to split hairs because:
A) they admitted he was deported in error
B) they are now effectively trying to argue there is no way to get him back
So even if you believe they would never knowingly do this to an actual citizen they are only one slightly different mistake from disappearing a citizen, whether or not it has happened yet.
Nevermind the fact that Trump himself has repeatedly floated the idea of deporting citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-...
And then lastly and most importantly IMO it is wildly un-American to believe anyone (regardless of citizenship or legal status) is not entitled to due process.
He's *not* a permanent resident; he's on "withholding of removal" status since 2019 [*]. It's not splitting hairs to discuss that, but you're right that the govt is (deliberately) pursuing a "camel's-nose-under-the-tent" approach first on a small class of people where Congress and INA haven't defined a direct clear path to PR or becoming a citizen, unlike a GC would since both his wife and child are US citizens.
He was granted "withholding of removal" status in 2019, which protected him from deportation to El Salvador (for fear of gang violence/extortion, which is why he came to the US).
The current DOJ acknowledges that at the time (2019) the "[first Trump admin] government did not appeal that decision [to grant withholding of removal], so it is final". It also seems like they never previously made any allegation that he was a gang member, and that they don't have any solid proof now that he is (other than supposedly one informant who incorrectly claimed Garcia lived in NY, so basically no credible evidence whatsoever).
By jumping the gun on deporting Garcia without due process, the current admin seems to unwittingly be forcing the issue to the Supreme Court very soon. (UPDATE: SC has just ruled unanimously 9-0 that the admin must try to release Garcia.) Looks like the SC's going to be very busy this May-June.
[*] Withholding-of-removal is a pretty rare status, rarely granted by court (>99% rejection rate), much rarer than Green Card, and applicants have to demonstrate credible fear. [0] This procedure is defined in INA § 208 (INA = Immigration and Nationality Act) [1]
As of 12/2024 there were over 100,000 individuals (from Cuba, China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) with orders of removal remaining free in the US due to various special interest statuses, including withholding of removal, according to a report from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). [2]
(Does anyone have stats on what historically happened to people in withholding-of-removal (what % became citizens, what % got GC, what % voluntarily left, what % got deported, what % moved to a different status etc.)?)
[0]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-...
[1]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigratio...
[2]: https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100...
[3]: https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deporta...
He was granted "withholding of removal" status in 2019, which protected him from deportation to El Salvador (for fear of gang violence/extortion, which is why he came to the US).
The current DOJ acknowledges that at the time (2019) the "[first Trump admin] government did not appeal that decision [to grant withholding of removal], so it is final". It also seems like they never previously made any allegation that he was a gang member, and that they don't have any solid proof now that he is (other than supposedly one informant who incorrectly claimed Garcia lived in NY, so basically no credible evidence whatsoever).
By jumping the gun on deporting Garcia without due process, the current admin seems to unwittingly be forcing the issue to the Supreme Court very soon. (UPDATE: SC has just ruled unanimously 9-0 that the admin must try to release Garcia.) Looks like the SC's going to be very busy this May-June.
[*] Withholding-of-removal is a pretty rare status, rarely granted by court (>99% rejection rate), much rarer than Green Card, and applicants have to demonstrate credible fear. [0] This procedure is defined in INA § 208 (INA = Immigration and Nationality Act) [1]
As of 12/2024 there were over 100,000 individuals (from Cuba, China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) with orders of removal remaining free in the US due to various special interest statuses, including withholding of removal, according to a report from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). [2]
(Does anyone have stats on what historically happened to people in withholding-of-removal (what % became citizens, what % got GC, what % voluntarily left, what % got deported, what % moved to a different status etc.)?)
[0]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-...
[1]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigratio...
[2]: https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100...
[3]: https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deporta...
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.
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.
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.
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.
>"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.
You would agree that this whole discussion would be considered insanity in America like 4 months ago, right?
I thought that’s what half of America wanted just 6 months ago?
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".
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".
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.
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...
She says only the most violent dangerous criminals -- although I feel like we've heard that line before...
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?
What did I claim? Read what i wrote. The video says EXACTLY what I stated.
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?
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?
None of the Trump admin's excuses for why they "can't" bring back that guy depend on his citizenship status.
>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.
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.
[deleted]
Would his being a citizen have mattered to any of the procedures prior to his rendition? The government never made any effort to prove that he was here illegally (which is important since he wasn't), and he never had an opportunity to offer a defense.
It happens to be the case that he's not a citizen or claiming to be a citizen, but he wasn't given due process, and there's absolutely nothing stopping them from picking anybody up off the street, claiming they're here illegally, and shipping them off to an El Salvadoran prison.
All people in the us, legal or illegal, citizen or not, have fourth amendment protections, and if you strip those rights from anyone, you remove them from everyone.
All people in the us, legal or illegal, citizen or not, have fourth amendment protections, and if you strip those rights from anyone, you remove them from everyone.
Do they? We generally don’t give noncitizens the right to own a gun in the us, so clearly we are selective about applying the 2nd amendment protection. The 4th may need adjudication.
Permanent residents have the right to own a gun in the US.
The supreme court has upheld many many times that the fourth amendment applies to all people within the borders of the US.
The supreme court has upheld many many times that the fourth amendment applies to all people within the borders of the US.
And just what process is due a person under risk of deportation? People say "due process" quite often without even giving any thought to what the term means, and I doubt that 1 in 4 could give a casual definition.
One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim. Was he denied this? Did they slap a muzzle on him as he tried to scream "but my birth certificate's in the sock drawer, just take a look!"? If the agents who detained and deported him ran any sort of check that would have discovered his citizenship in time to prevent a deportation (had he been a citizen), this seems about all the process that could or should be due.
PS Am I the only one that notices how the news media always describes him as "from Maryland" when he wasn't born there, didn't attend school there, etc?
One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim. Was he denied this? Did they slap a muzzle on him as he tried to scream "but my birth certificate's in the sock drawer, just take a look!"? If the agents who detained and deported him ran any sort of check that would have discovered his citizenship in time to prevent a deportation (had he been a citizen), this seems about all the process that could or should be due.
PS Am I the only one that notices how the news media always describes him as "from Maryland" when he wasn't born there, didn't attend school there, etc?
> the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim
They should have the due process to prove they are here legally. And yes, they were denied that.
Even if you imagine due process is for citizens only, you can't prove citizenship status without due process, so it has to be given to everyone.
Otherwise, nothing's stopping ICE from just claiming you're not a citizen and shipping you off to El Salvador. How would you prove otherwise?
They should have the due process to prove they are here legally. And yes, they were denied that.
Even if you imagine due process is for citizens only, you can't prove citizenship status without due process, so it has to be given to everyone.
Otherwise, nothing's stopping ICE from just claiming you're not a citizen and shipping you off to El Salvador. How would you prove otherwise?
If we don't have due process, in that, you can't go and defend yourself in public court, nobody here is really legal or not. It doesn't matter if your birth certificate is in the other room. Without due process it's whatever the ICE agent that's bagging you feels like. What are you gonna do? You don't get due process, you get no court hearing, you get the pleasure of getting onto a plane and flown out to a slave labor prison in El Salvador. Also Garcia had full legal permission to be here but it shows they never checked it and thus he was whisked away like we can expect other's to be if things stay on the current path.
> One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest
Well a federal judge thought otherwise. The government ignored him and did what they wanted anyway. That’s your definition of due process?
> Am I the only one that notice
So your comment is actually sarcastic?
Well a federal judge thought otherwise. The government ignored him and did what they wanted anyway. That’s your definition of due process?
> Am I the only one that notice
So your comment is actually sarcastic?
Not just permanent residents, either. I have legally owned numerous firearms while on L1 and H1B visas in US.
The executive branch is merely going to ignore everything and then apply pardon powers to any sort of actual enforcement by the judiciary branch.
But how can this judiciary enforce anything, or the legislative for that matter?
But how can this judiciary enforce anything, or the legislative for that matter?
[deleted]
You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it.
The executive branch is obeying the courts, with some pushback.
The executive branch is obeying the courts, with some pushback.
Is it an issue that the Executive is trash talking "they aren't going to obey the courts" ? You think that should be ignored?
Parent poster is not saying it should be ignored, parent poster is saying that people should not give-up and repeat “courts can be ignore”.
Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
"You are believing the trash talk and allowing it to intimidate you. You are helping them by spreading it and legitimizing it."
I take this as "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans because they are empty and you're helping them spread the hate which gets more them support"
>Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
I take this as "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans because they are empty and you're helping them spread the hate which gets more them support"
>Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
> "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans
No, you need to stop them. You need a plan for victory. Testifying that they have unstoppable power is an indulgence in cowardice. At halfime, do athletes say 'we can't possibly stop them!' It's just someone acting out their fears.
No, you need to stop them. You need a plan for victory. Testifying that they have unstoppable power is an indulgence in cowardice. At halfime, do athletes say 'we can't possibly stop them!' It's just someone acting out their fears.
Or are you dismissing overt signalling of fascism as "just owning the libs"? Are you just cherry picking communication you feel safe about and ignoring the huge glaring signs being flashed by dozens of appointees? Are you pretending Obama and bush established legal precedents for classifying citizens as enemy combatants for rendition, denial of due process, and murder by drone without trial? That we don't have a better than 1984 turnkey oppression and total.monitorinf infrastructure for any despot of sufficient motivation which this admin has amply stated affection towards?
Language is important from leaders. So is consistency and some degree of integrity. Even disingenuous cowtowing to appearances and political norms constrains power and abuse.
Language is important from leaders. So is consistency and some degree of integrity. Even disingenuous cowtowing to appearances and political norms constrains power and abuse.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying we need to stop repeating their propaganda of terror and intimindation as if it's true. Be effective, not spread the poison of helplessness and fear.
We need vigilance and nonpassivity.
Propaganda is targeted to keep the majority passive while awful things are done by the government regime.
Your argument seems to be "ignore them and they will go away". That's not how authoritarian takeovers are prevented.
Propaganda is targeted to keep the majority passive while awful things are done by the government regime.
Your argument seems to be "ignore them and they will go away". That's not how authoritarian takeovers are prevented.
> Your argument seems to be "ignore them and they will go away".
I don't know why you are obsessed with saying that.
I don't know why you are obsessed with saying that.
What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his own protection? I’m pretty sure the admin admitted it was a mistake then refused to bring him back.
The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days.
>> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be.
The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening.
Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.
>> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be.
The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening.
Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.
This order was toothless, and the administration has already flouted it.
All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
It matter to me, since there are 2-3 conservative justices on the current Supreme Court that are likely to tire of administration excesses.
A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.
A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.
Yes, that is where my quote came from. From your own quote:
> The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.
> The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.
I'm not sure why people obtusely intepret Supreme Court rulings as though they're part of the current administration.
The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants.
I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty
If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies.
By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.
The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants.
I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty
If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies.
By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.
They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation, as well as the lower court's order to provide information on the victim's location and attempts to retrieve him. They disobeyed numerous court orders to rehire people they fired and re-fund things they defunded.
What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.
What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.
> They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation
They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out.
They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided.
The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding.
So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court.
Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling?
> Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon.
Appealing a decision is different than ignoring.
And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...
They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out.
They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided.
The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding.
So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court.
Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling?
> Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon.
Appealing a decision is different than ignoring.
And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...
> They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order...
On numerous occasions (not just the one you mention), they did not obey the direct order by the time specified, meaning they directly disobeyed the court. For example, post-supreme-court-order, they were obliged to provide the lower court with a status update of the victim, and a list of things they've done so far to retrieve them. They directly violated that court order.
It's important to draw a bright, flashing distinction between:
1. Arguing that you think you should not have to comply with an order, but then complying if you don't receive a ruling in your favor in time.
2. Directly violating a court order, and then tossing out a cynical pretext as an excuse which hasn't been preapproved by the judge (they're called that for a reason).
Unless a stay is placed before the deadline, you must comply with every single court order, by the court-ordered deadline, no matter what you think.
At least, that's how it was before. Now the USA has crossed the Rubicon, with the government itself ignoring court orders at will, in order to imprison political enemies.
It was a decent liberal democracy while it lasted.
On numerous occasions (not just the one you mention), they did not obey the direct order by the time specified, meaning they directly disobeyed the court. For example, post-supreme-court-order, they were obliged to provide the lower court with a status update of the victim, and a list of things they've done so far to retrieve them. They directly violated that court order.
It's important to draw a bright, flashing distinction between:
1. Arguing that you think you should not have to comply with an order, but then complying if you don't receive a ruling in your favor in time.
2. Directly violating a court order, and then tossing out a cynical pretext as an excuse which hasn't been preapproved by the judge (they're called that for a reason).
Unless a stay is placed before the deadline, you must comply with every single court order, by the court-ordered deadline, no matter what you think.
At least, that's how it was before. Now the USA has crossed the Rubicon, with the government itself ignoring court orders at will, in order to imprison political enemies.
It was a decent liberal democracy while it lasted.
I think the SCOTUS was right on the money this time, and I am well to the left of any of its members. My read of their verbiage about effectuation/article II was a suggestion to the District Court judge to eliminate any wiggle room the administration would try to exploit.
> Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens
Feels like moving the goalposts. First they were going to clear out "illegals" by any means, now the line includes any non-citizens. Granted maybe you personally didn't say both though.
> Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?
Is it meaningfully different from allowing citizens to "spread discontent"? Why not just start taking everybody's 1st amendment rights, by the same logic? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's long precedent that non-citizens are granted most of the same rights, including freedom of speech and assembly.
If non-citizens are being supported, instructed, etc by their government in spreading discontent, there are probably laws like espionage for that; you don't have to take away everybody else's freedom to stop them.
Feels like moving the goalposts. First they were going to clear out "illegals" by any means, now the line includes any non-citizens. Granted maybe you personally didn't say both though.
> Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?
Is it meaningfully different from allowing citizens to "spread discontent"? Why not just start taking everybody's 1st amendment rights, by the same logic? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's long precedent that non-citizens are granted most of the same rights, including freedom of speech and assembly.
If non-citizens are being supported, instructed, etc by their government in spreading discontent, there are probably laws like espionage for that; you don't have to take away everybody else's freedom to stop them.
Does the Constitution provide for due process to persons? Or only citizens?
If non-citizen have been human trafficked without due process, what additional protection against it is provided to citizens? Where is that stated?
If non-citizen have been human trafficked without due process, what additional protection against it is provided to citizens? Where is that stated?
I am aware of some US citizens being deported by mistake under previous administrations, but there was a general consensus that those were genuine mistakes, examples of negligence rather than policy: https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/07/30/ice-deport-us-citiz...
However the current administration is explicitly considering the idea of deliberately deporting citizens: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl...
However the current administration is explicitly considering the idea of deliberately deporting citizens: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl...
>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?
The most powerful person in the country lied and still is lying about elected fraud, undermining the basis for our Democratic system and was rewarded with a 2nd term.
The most powerful person in the country lied and still is lying about elected fraud, undermining the basis for our Democratic system and was rewarded with a 2nd term.
Not great but still better than defenestration I guess.
[deleted]
Well, it's not like they were Boeing whistleblowers or leaked video footage of a war crime.
I've seen a few news articles on arrests and the headlines are attention grabbing "Ivy League Student arrested for protesting" and it's worrisome to see.
However then buried in the article is something like they overstayed their visa, etc. Take a sibling comment's link to an article with a "second student arrested" in the title. As in that seems like there isn't a "large number". This is nothing like the reports of arrests in Russia. Especially as some of these pro-Palestinian protestors advocate violence or intifada pretty freely. I've seen that with my own eyes.
If I were a foreign national protesting and advocating for violence against any other country or people group I'd expect to be denied a visa or possibly deported for participating in such events. It'd be arrogant not to expect that outcome IMHO.
Visa applications in European Union countries often include things such as "indicators of good civil behavior". Take the quotes from that sibling comment's linked BBC article:
> The DHS statement says that Ms Kordia had overstayed her student visa, which had been terminated in 2022 "for lack of attendance". It did not say whether she had been attending Columbia or another institution. > She had previously been arrested in April 2024 for taking part in protests at Columbia University, according to DHS. > "It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a statement. > "When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country."
However then buried in the article is something like they overstayed their visa, etc. Take a sibling comment's link to an article with a "second student arrested" in the title. As in that seems like there isn't a "large number". This is nothing like the reports of arrests in Russia. Especially as some of these pro-Palestinian protestors advocate violence or intifada pretty freely. I've seen that with my own eyes.
If I were a foreign national protesting and advocating for violence against any other country or people group I'd expect to be denied a visa or possibly deported for participating in such events. It'd be arrogant not to expect that outcome IMHO.
Visa applications in European Union countries often include things such as "indicators of good civil behavior". Take the quotes from that sibling comment's linked BBC article:
> The DHS statement says that Ms Kordia had overstayed her student visa, which had been terminated in 2022 "for lack of attendance". It did not say whether she had been attending Columbia or another institution. > She had previously been arrested in April 2024 for taking part in protests at Columbia University, according to DHS. > "It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a statement. > "When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country."
Rumeysa Ozturk did not overstay her visa nor advocate violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...
Nor did Rasha Alawieh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Rasha_Alawieh
Nor did Rasha Alawieh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Rasha_Alawieh
And cases like Rumeysa Ozturk's are different. I also believe DHS should have to abide by the courts as well. Her case is also getting national and international attention and legal help.
Why is DHS going after these people in the first place?
By your logic, in the grand scheme of thing, it’s ok to deport elcritch and then say “elcritch’s” case was different and provide it with national and international attention and legal help.
Full disclosure, i’m not arguing in good faith. As a Canadian I don’t believe the US has a future, so I’m merely highlighting an argument which is symptomatic of the country’s downfall.
Full disclosure, i’m not arguing in good faith. As a Canadian I don’t believe the US has a future, so I’m merely highlighting an argument which is symptomatic of the country’s downfall.
You could construe my logic that way, but no I’m saying the DHS was likely wrong in that instance and it caused uproar and backlash. Unlike other nations where few would care if the government overstepped. Governments will always overreach, it’s how people pushback which matters.
Also I’m more likely to be arrested and deported for silently praying in the UK.
However there’s also political tactics of “look at that poor student being deported” when said student was calling for jihad, intifada, and antisemitism and violating visas on top of that, which was sort of my original point.
Heh and is Canada fairing any different? Remember when Trudeau froze bank accounts for truckers protesting Covid lockdowns or whatnot. Maybe Trudeau shutting down parliament to seemingly avoid scrutiny. Hopefully it’s just news sensationalism and not the downfall of Canada.
Also I’m more likely to be arrested and deported for silently praying in the UK.
However there’s also political tactics of “look at that poor student being deported” when said student was calling for jihad, intifada, and antisemitism and violating visas on top of that, which was sort of my original point.
Heh and is Canada fairing any different? Remember when Trudeau froze bank accounts for truckers protesting Covid lockdowns or whatnot. Maybe Trudeau shutting down parliament to seemingly avoid scrutiny. Hopefully it’s just news sensationalism and not the downfall of Canada.
> As in that seems like there isn't a "large number".
---
> “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.” ― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
---
You have to say "No" loudly and clearly at the _first offense_, and not wait until it's too late.
> “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.” ― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
---
You have to say "No" loudly and clearly at the _first offense_, and not wait until it's too late.
Poignant quote. Should we as a society accept students who are calling for violence and intifada on Israel or Jewish people in general? If anything some of those pro-Palestinian protests were more reminiscent of the 1933 “German Firm” boycotts the quote mentions than not:
> A boycott sign posted on the display window of a Jewish-owned business reads: "Germans defend yourselves against Jewish atrocity propaganda. Buy only at German shops!" Berlin, Germany, April 1, 1933.
It seems that a number of these students have been participating in events and protests calling for violence. After all there’s probably 10’s of thousands of student protestors, and likely many of them foreign students too. So it doesn’t seem like a “deport all Muslim students” either.
Peaceful protests are one thing, but I’ve seen some of these protests in person and it’s clear they’re not all peaceful demonstrations. Also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is not supporting peaceful innocent freedom fighters. Both groups are clear and open on their stance for genocide against Israelies.
However we shouldn’t deport students who are peaceful and haven’t called for violence against others. It’s great that those cases are being called out and publicly criticized . But not every one of these cases are an innocent student getting caught up either. What is happening is Gaza is terrible all around. It shouldn’t be used as an excuse to call for more violence against Jews or Muslims.
> A boycott sign posted on the display window of a Jewish-owned business reads: "Germans defend yourselves against Jewish atrocity propaganda. Buy only at German shops!" Berlin, Germany, April 1, 1933.
It seems that a number of these students have been participating in events and protests calling for violence. After all there’s probably 10’s of thousands of student protestors, and likely many of them foreign students too. So it doesn’t seem like a “deport all Muslim students” either.
Peaceful protests are one thing, but I’ve seen some of these protests in person and it’s clear they’re not all peaceful demonstrations. Also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is not supporting peaceful innocent freedom fighters. Both groups are clear and open on their stance for genocide against Israelies.
However we shouldn’t deport students who are peaceful and haven’t called for violence against others. It’s great that those cases are being called out and publicly criticized . But not every one of these cases are an innocent student getting caught up either. What is happening is Gaza is terrible all around. It shouldn’t be used as an excuse to call for more violence against Jews or Muslims.
Nazi rallies occur periodically in the US
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/us/columbus-ohio-neo-nazi-mar...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/us/columbus-ohio-neo-nazi-mar...
International students attending those events should probably be deported as well. Especially if they're helping to lead or promote them.
What about American citizens and why should they be treated differently?
They're American citizens and our problem to handle and tolerate?
Also the US is hardly unique in deporting extremists: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/06/16/france-to-deport-n... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy48v8n389ro
Also the US is hardly unique in deporting extremists: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/06/16/france-to-deport-n... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy48v8n389ro
>Also the US is hardly unique in deporting extremists:
How is this argument over right or wrong? The US has a unique system of rights and the first modern Democracy.
>They're American citizens and our problem to handle and tolerate?
Why can't it be our problem to tolerate and handle green card holders, students with Visas, etc
How is this argument over right or wrong? The US has a unique system of rights and the first modern Democracy.
>They're American citizens and our problem to handle and tolerate?
Why can't it be our problem to tolerate and handle green card holders, students with Visas, etc
The way it works in American culture is quite simple. You are allowed to say whatever you like, but certain acts (like vandalism, or causing bodily harm to another individual) are criminalized. What we find in practice is that the truly awful people commit these crimes in addition to speaking awful things. We avoid punishing the merely incorrect.
This isn’t quite true. The last language from the Supreme Court, in Brandeburg vs. Ohio ( 1969) was “imminent lawless action”. There’s also standards for the public airwaves, which are regulated by the FCC. maybe not as important as they used to be, but still there and the major networks which are also broadcasters abide Also there’s specific exceptions like threatening the President, and “obscene” material, such as porn.
The there’s the question of private ownership of the platform. You certainly can’t say whatever yiu want on YouTube, for instance.
The there’s the question of private ownership of the platform. You certainly can’t say whatever yiu want on YouTube, for instance.
The topic is American culture and norms, not the rights of corporations to make deals with foreign powers concerning domestic activities.
gp's example is a slippery slope fallacy, adjusting political speech by deportation seems inappropriate.
There is a difference in a foreign national engaging in political speech and a citizen. If anything allowing foreign nationals to adjust political speech here while supporting violence or terrorism would be inappropriate and unwise. After all, it's easy for a foreign power to send radicalizers to a foreign country to influence or topple them. Well trodeen history there. Sending radical students is much more effective than a few thousand Twitter bots.
respecting the rights of others to hold opinions that differ from your own is always appropriate and wise in the united states.
Of course, and as it stands foreign nationals on Visa's in the US don't have the same rights as citizens. Not that they shouldn't have some degree of free speech, but they can also be scrutinized and deported for advocating for violence and terrorism.
That scrutiny is a waste of federal resources since you're basically extending the notion of advocating violence to supporting any side in any war - perhaps meta should just go ahead and remove all posts on both sides.
No I’m not, but in case you missed the news several of the pro-Palestinian protests were violent or openly called for violence. Similarly with the posts in question.
It’s hardly an equal fight, Gaza is an occupied and colonized territory that has limited ability for resistance. We wouldn’t be having this same discussion about South Africa overthrowing their apartheid.
> Israel or Jewish people in general?
as a person of jewish faith, I ask that you please not falsely conflate these two completely different concepts
someone who opposes jewish people in general is bad, but someone who opposes the ongoing genocide of palestinians is good
your usage of "or" here would indicate that the above good person is grouped together with the above bad person
> If anything some of those pro-Palestinian protests were more reminiscent of the 1933 “German Firm” boycotts
structuring your metaphor like this, strikes me as an example of DARVO [0], considering what is being done to innocent palestinians. how many israelis patronize businesses based in palestine? how many such businesses do you patronize?
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO
as a person of jewish faith, I ask that you please not falsely conflate these two completely different concepts
someone who opposes jewish people in general is bad, but someone who opposes the ongoing genocide of palestinians is good
your usage of "or" here would indicate that the above good person is grouped together with the above bad person
> If anything some of those pro-Palestinian protests were more reminiscent of the 1933 “German Firm” boycotts
structuring your metaphor like this, strikes me as an example of DARVO [0], considering what is being done to innocent palestinians. how many israelis patronize businesses based in palestine? how many such businesses do you patronize?
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO
"By looking at property damage and police injuries, we also conclude that this pro-Palestine movement has not been violent. That is true of both the national protest wave in general and of the student encampments in spring 2024 in particular. The rhetorical core of this pro-Palestine movement has not been a call for violence against Jews, but rather a call for freedom for Palestinians and an end to violence being inflicted upon them. To substantiate this point, we considered two sources of evidence: 1) the banners, signs, and chants seen or heard at pro-Palestine events; 2) the demands issued by organizers of over 100 student encampments."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2024.2...
Chris Krebs just yesterday had his security clearance revoked solely for saying the 2020 election was fair and not rigged.
His coworkers at SentinelOne (almost certainly most of who are citizens) also had their clearances revoked, despite never speaking out on the topic, purely as a North Korea style "punish the whole family" approach to strike fear into people of guilt by association, so that those who have spoken out in any shape or form become social pariahs.
Citizens having their career taken away for saying an election wasn't rigged, or for happening to work at the same place as someone who said this.
If you think the status quo hasn't yet changed to "In countries like China, Russia and the US, speaking out against the government puts both your livelihood and that of those in your vicinity at serious risk", you're dead wrong.
His coworkers at SentinelOne (almost certainly most of who are citizens) also had their clearances revoked, despite never speaking out on the topic, purely as a North Korea style "punish the whole family" approach to strike fear into people of guilt by association, so that those who have spoken out in any shape or form become social pariahs.
Citizens having their career taken away for saying an election wasn't rigged, or for happening to work at the same place as someone who said this.
If you think the status quo hasn't yet changed to "In countries like China, Russia and the US, speaking out against the government puts both your livelihood and that of those in your vicinity at serious risk", you're dead wrong.
In case anyone is curious about this (as I was) here's an article: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3958808/trump-revokes-secu...
There are many reasons to question Krebs’ tenure and not all of them have to do with ignoring the state of election security, The Disinformation regime, viewpoint discrimination, or election interference.
There is a list of things
There is a list of things
And what are they? Because unlike you, Chris has a very well known, positive, respected reputation in the industry.
Instead of just making accusations, back them up.
Instead of just making accusations, back them up.
I’m not doxxing myself.
However many of my issues with CISA are based on my own professional work in security, and that of accomplished professors like J Halderman & M Blaze saying our election infrastructure is insecure.
We’ve been saying the same thing in hackerdom for 30 years!
If my career has been completely about the security of federal & military systems, then some lawyer like Krebs saying our infrastructure is secure when it’s running Windows 7 is a giant slap in the face, particularly given all of the censorship.
You wanted evidence. Here goes:
The censorship & viewpoint discrimination pressure CISA was bringing to bear has been over the top.
At the same time Krebs was talking about how secure our election infrastructure was, prominent professors such as Matt Blaze & J Halderman that have researched election security said the opposite.
This historically has been a bipartisan& Aceademic issue with more Dems & Repubs & Academia supporting claims of insecurity.
Those of us in security are convinced that all this unpatched windows7 usage is crazy and Chris Krebs lying about election security isn’t being open and truthful with the American people.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
- The Associated Press reported in 2019 on the use of vulnerable Windows 7 software in election systems, highlighting risks in swing states. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...
- NBC News revealed in 2020 that ES&S installed modems in voting machines, making them susceptible to hacking. [Note: The exact NBC News article from January 2020 titled "Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Modems" is not directly linked in the web results, but this matches the description in the thread. The full URL is not available in the provided web results, and I cannot search for it in real-time. You may need to look up the NBC News article from January 2020 for the precise link.]
- The Guardian exposed in 2015 that WinVote machines used weak passwords like "abcde," easily hackable from a distance. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-vot...
- The New York Times reported in 2015 on a leaked database of 191 million voter records, raising concerns about phishing and identity theft. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/us/politics/voting-record...
- Wired noted in 2016 that many voting machines ran on outdated Windows XP, lacking security patches since 2014. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent...
- Politico detailed in 2016 how a voting machine was hacked in minutes by replacing ROM chips with malicious firmware. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- CBS reported in 2016 that hackers demonstrated voting machine vulnerabilities, showing a $15 hack could alter votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacker-demonstrates-how-voting-...
- ABC News confirmed in 2016 that voting machines can be hacked, especially in close elections, with malware erasing itself post-attack. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-election-experts-russia...
- The Atlantic warned in 2016 about electronic voting risks, citing a case where a machine was turned into a Pac-Man console. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/elect...
- FOX News covered a 2016 demonstration by a Princeton professor hacking a voting machine to shift votes undetected. https://www.foxnews.com/video/5126932108001
- Fortune reported in 2016 that Cylance researchers hacked a Sequoia AVC Edge machine, altering vote counts via a memory card. https://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-demonstra...
- Vox highlighted in 2016 that voting machines on Windows XP and voter databases online were vulnerable to hacking. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/134 educed/hackers-election-day-voting-machines
- PBS noted in 2016 that five states used digital voting systems without paper trails, increasing hacking risks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-how-hackers-migh...
- Slate reported in 2016 that 42 states used decade-old voting machines, prone to hacking and lacking paper trails. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/our-decrepit-vot...
- PBS revealed in 2016 that Pennsylvania's paperless machines made it impossible to verify vote tampering. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/recounts-no-u-s-electi...
- Politico warned in 2016 that 15 states, including Pennsylvania, used electronic voting machines without paper trails. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-elections-hacking-...
- Scientific American stated in 2017 that voting systems could be hacked by foreign powers, advocating for paper ballots. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-voting-system...
- Politico reported in 2017 on a Georgia election center's server misconfiguration, exposing voter data and passwords. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-...
- NPR cited a 2017 NSA report on Russian attempts to hack election systems, potentially targeting ballot programming. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824838/if-voting-machines-...
- HuffPost noted in 2017 that 15 states used hackable touch-screen voting machines without paper trails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voting-machines-hackable_n_59...
- Senator Elizabeth Warren's 2019 article highlighted vulnerabilities like outdated voter databases and paperless machines. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/strengthening-our-democrac...
- Senators Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan sent letters in 2019 to voting machine companies about security concerns. [Note: The direct link to the letters is not provided in the web results. These letters were sent to the private equity firms owning voting machine companies, as noted in the thread. You may need to search for "Warren Klobuchar Wyden Pocan voting machine letters 2019" to find the original source, possibly on a government or senator's website.]
- A 2019 compilation of media articles detailed election system vulnerabilities over four years post-2016 election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-election-syste...
However many of my issues with CISA are based on my own professional work in security, and that of accomplished professors like J Halderman & M Blaze saying our election infrastructure is insecure.
We’ve been saying the same thing in hackerdom for 30 years!
If my career has been completely about the security of federal & military systems, then some lawyer like Krebs saying our infrastructure is secure when it’s running Windows 7 is a giant slap in the face, particularly given all of the censorship.
You wanted evidence. Here goes:
The censorship & viewpoint discrimination pressure CISA was bringing to bear has been over the top.
At the same time Krebs was talking about how secure our election infrastructure was, prominent professors such as Matt Blaze & J Halderman that have researched election security said the opposite.
This historically has been a bipartisan& Aceademic issue with more Dems & Repubs & Academia supporting claims of insecurity.
Those of us in security are convinced that all this unpatched windows7 usage is crazy and Chris Krebs lying about election security isn’t being open and truthful with the American people.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
- The Associated Press reported in 2019 on the use of vulnerable Windows 7 software in election systems, highlighting risks in swing states. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...
- NBC News revealed in 2020 that ES&S installed modems in voting machines, making them susceptible to hacking. [Note: The exact NBC News article from January 2020 titled "Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Modems" is not directly linked in the web results, but this matches the description in the thread. The full URL is not available in the provided web results, and I cannot search for it in real-time. You may need to look up the NBC News article from January 2020 for the precise link.]
- The Guardian exposed in 2015 that WinVote machines used weak passwords like "abcde," easily hackable from a distance. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-vot...
- The New York Times reported in 2015 on a leaked database of 191 million voter records, raising concerns about phishing and identity theft. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/us/politics/voting-record...
- Wired noted in 2016 that many voting machines ran on outdated Windows XP, lacking security patches since 2014. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent...
- Politico detailed in 2016 how a voting machine was hacked in minutes by replacing ROM chips with malicious firmware. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- CBS reported in 2016 that hackers demonstrated voting machine vulnerabilities, showing a $15 hack could alter votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacker-demonstrates-how-voting-...
- ABC News confirmed in 2016 that voting machines can be hacked, especially in close elections, with malware erasing itself post-attack. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-election-experts-russia...
- The Atlantic warned in 2016 about electronic voting risks, citing a case where a machine was turned into a Pac-Man console. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/elect...
- FOX News covered a 2016 demonstration by a Princeton professor hacking a voting machine to shift votes undetected. https://www.foxnews.com/video/5126932108001
- Fortune reported in 2016 that Cylance researchers hacked a Sequoia AVC Edge machine, altering vote counts via a memory card. https://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-demonstra...
- Vox highlighted in 2016 that voting machines on Windows XP and voter databases online were vulnerable to hacking. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/134 educed/hackers-election-day-voting-machines
- PBS noted in 2016 that five states used digital voting systems without paper trails, increasing hacking risks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-how-hackers-migh...
- Slate reported in 2016 that 42 states used decade-old voting machines, prone to hacking and lacking paper trails. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/our-decrepit-vot...
- PBS revealed in 2016 that Pennsylvania's paperless machines made it impossible to verify vote tampering. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/recounts-no-u-s-electi...
- Politico warned in 2016 that 15 states, including Pennsylvania, used electronic voting machines without paper trails. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-elections-hacking-...
- Scientific American stated in 2017 that voting systems could be hacked by foreign powers, advocating for paper ballots. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-voting-system...
- Politico reported in 2017 on a Georgia election center's server misconfiguration, exposing voter data and passwords. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-...
- NPR cited a 2017 NSA report on Russian attempts to hack election systems, potentially targeting ballot programming. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824838/if-voting-machines-...
- HuffPost noted in 2017 that 15 states used hackable touch-screen voting machines without paper trails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voting-machines-hackable_n_59...
- Senator Elizabeth Warren's 2019 article highlighted vulnerabilities like outdated voter databases and paperless machines. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/strengthening-our-democrac...
- Senators Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan sent letters in 2019 to voting machine companies about security concerns. [Note: The direct link to the letters is not provided in the web results. These letters were sent to the private equity firms owning voting machine companies, as noted in the thread. You may need to search for "Warren Klobuchar Wyden Pocan voting machine letters 2019" to find the original source, possibly on a government or senator's website.]
- A 2019 compilation of media articles detailed election system vulnerabilities over four years post-2016 election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-election-syste...
Ending the statement with 'There is a list of things' and not providing it strongly suggests that you don't actually have any data or hard facts to back up your claims.
You are a random person on an internet forum, the onus is in you to provide data to back up incredible claims.
You are a random person on an internet forum, the onus is in you to provide data to back up incredible claims.
Ok
The censorship & viewpoint discrimination pressure CISA was bringing to bear has been over the top.
At the same time Krebs was talking about how secure our election infrastructure was, prominent professors such as Matt Blaze & J Halderman that have researched election security said the opposite.
This historically has been a bipartisan& Aceademic issue with more Dems & Repubs & Academia supporting claims of insecurity.
Those of us in security are convinced that all this unpatched windows7 usage is crazy and Chris Krebs lying about election security isn’t being open and truthful with the American people.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
- The Associated Press reported in 2019 on the use of vulnerable Windows 7 software in election systems, highlighting risks in swing states. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...
- NBC News revealed in 2020 that ES&S installed modems in voting machines, making them susceptible to hacking. [Note: The exact NBC News article from January 2020 titled "Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Modems" is not directly linked in the web results, but this matches the description in the thread. The full URL is not available in the provided web results, and I cannot search for it in real-time. You may need to look up the NBC News article from January 2020 for the precise link.]
- The Guardian exposed in 2015 that WinVote machines used weak passwords like "abcde," easily hackable from a distance. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-vot...
- The New York Times reported in 2015 on a leaked database of 191 million voter records, raising concerns about phishing and identity theft. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/us/politics/voting-record...
- Wired noted in 2016 that many voting machines ran on outdated Windows XP, lacking security patches since 2014. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent...
- Politico detailed in 2016 how a voting machine was hacked in minutes by replacing ROM chips with malicious firmware. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- CBS reported in 2016 that hackers demonstrated voting machine vulnerabilities, showing a $15 hack could alter votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacker-demonstrates-how-voting-...
- ABC News confirmed in 2016 that voting machines can be hacked, especially in close elections, with malware erasing itself post-attack. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-election-experts-russia...
- The Atlantic warned in 2016 about electronic voting risks, citing a case where a machine was turned into a Pac-Man console. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/elect...
- FOX News covered a 2016 demonstration by a Princeton professor hacking a voting machine to shift votes undetected. https://www.foxnews.com/video/5126932108001
- Fortune reported in 2016 that Cylance researchers hacked a Sequoia AVC Edge machine, altering vote counts via a memory card. https://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-demonstra...
- Vox highlighted in 2016 that voting machines on Windows XP and voter databases online were vulnerable to hacking. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/134 educed/hackers-election-day-voting-machines
- PBS noted in 2016 that five states used digital voting systems without paper trails, increasing hacking risks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-how-hackers-migh...
- Slate reported in 2016 that 42 states used decade-old voting machines, prone to hacking and lacking paper trails. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/our-decrepit-vot...
- PBS revealed in 2016 that Pennsylvania's paperless machines made it impossible to verify vote tampering. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/recounts-no-u-s-electi...
- Politico warned in 2016 that 15 states, including Pennsylvania, used electronic voting machines without paper trails. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-elections-hacking-...
- Scientific American stated in 2017 that voting systems could be hacked by foreign powers, advocating for paper ballots. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-voting-system...
- Politico reported in 2017 on a Georgia election center's server misconfiguration, exposing voter data and passwords. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-...
- NPR cited a 2017 NSA report on Russian attempts to hack election systems, potentially targeting ballot programming. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824838/if-voting-machines-...
- HuffPost noted in 2017 that 15 states used hackable touch-screen voting machines without paper trails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voting-machines-hackable_n_59...
- Senator Elizabeth Warren's 2019 article highlighted vulnerabilities like outdated voter databases and paperless machines. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/strengthening-our-democrac...
- Senators Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan sent letters in 2019 to voting machine companies about security concerns. [Note: The direct link to the letters is not provided in the web results. These letters were sent to the private equity firms owning voting machine companies, as noted in the thread. You may need to search for "Warren Klobuchar Wyden Pocan voting machine letters 2019" to find the original source, possibly on a government or senator's website.]
- A 2019 compilation of media articles detailed election system vulnerabilities over four years post-2016 election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-election-syste...
The censorship & viewpoint discrimination pressure CISA was bringing to bear has been over the top.
At the same time Krebs was talking about how secure our election infrastructure was, prominent professors such as Matt Blaze & J Halderman that have researched election security said the opposite.
This historically has been a bipartisan& Aceademic issue with more Dems & Repubs & Academia supporting claims of insecurity.
Those of us in security are convinced that all this unpatched windows7 usage is crazy and Chris Krebs lying about election security isn’t being open and truthful with the American people.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
- The Associated Press reported in 2019 on the use of vulnerable Windows 7 software in election systems, highlighting risks in swing states. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...
- NBC News revealed in 2020 that ES&S installed modems in voting machines, making them susceptible to hacking. [Note: The exact NBC News article from January 2020 titled "Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Modems" is not directly linked in the web results, but this matches the description in the thread. The full URL is not available in the provided web results, and I cannot search for it in real-time. You may need to look up the NBC News article from January 2020 for the precise link.]
- The Guardian exposed in 2015 that WinVote machines used weak passwords like "abcde," easily hackable from a distance. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-vot...
- The New York Times reported in 2015 on a leaked database of 191 million voter records, raising concerns about phishing and identity theft. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/us/politics/voting-record...
- Wired noted in 2016 that many voting machines ran on outdated Windows XP, lacking security patches since 2014. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent...
- Politico detailed in 2016 how a voting machine was hacked in minutes by replacing ROM chips with malicious firmware. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- CBS reported in 2016 that hackers demonstrated voting machine vulnerabilities, showing a $15 hack could alter votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacker-demonstrates-how-voting-...
- ABC News confirmed in 2016 that voting machines can be hacked, especially in close elections, with malware erasing itself post-attack. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-election-experts-russia...
- The Atlantic warned in 2016 about electronic voting risks, citing a case where a machine was turned into a Pac-Man console. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/elect...
- FOX News covered a 2016 demonstration by a Princeton professor hacking a voting machine to shift votes undetected. https://www.foxnews.com/video/5126932108001
- Fortune reported in 2016 that Cylance researchers hacked a Sequoia AVC Edge machine, altering vote counts via a memory card. https://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-demonstra...
- Vox highlighted in 2016 that voting machines on Windows XP and voter databases online were vulnerable to hacking. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/134 educed/hackers-election-day-voting-machines
- PBS noted in 2016 that five states used digital voting systems without paper trails, increasing hacking risks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-how-hackers-migh...
- Slate reported in 2016 that 42 states used decade-old voting machines, prone to hacking and lacking paper trails. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/our-decrepit-vot...
- PBS revealed in 2016 that Pennsylvania's paperless machines made it impossible to verify vote tampering. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/recounts-no-u-s-electi...
- Politico warned in 2016 that 15 states, including Pennsylvania, used electronic voting machines without paper trails. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-elections-hacking-...
- Scientific American stated in 2017 that voting systems could be hacked by foreign powers, advocating for paper ballots. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-voting-system...
- Politico reported in 2017 on a Georgia election center's server misconfiguration, exposing voter data and passwords. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-...
- NPR cited a 2017 NSA report on Russian attempts to hack election systems, potentially targeting ballot programming. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824838/if-voting-machines-...
- HuffPost noted in 2017 that 15 states used hackable touch-screen voting machines without paper trails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voting-machines-hackable_n_59...
- Senator Elizabeth Warren's 2019 article highlighted vulnerabilities like outdated voter databases and paperless machines. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/strengthening-our-democrac...
- Senators Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan sent letters in 2019 to voting machine companies about security concerns. [Note: The direct link to the letters is not provided in the web results. These letters were sent to the private equity firms owning voting machine companies, as noted in the thread. You may need to search for "Warren Klobuchar Wyden Pocan voting machine letters 2019" to find the original source, possibly on a government or senator's website.]
- A 2019 compilation of media articles detailed election system vulnerabilities over four years post-2016 election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-election-syste...
Maybe it's time to rethink the visibility and permanence of HN discussions.
That would be great, but I don't see it. HN has already been obviously violating GDPR and all other right-to-forget laws since forever by not allowong for account deletion, and everytime this has been brought up, dang has pretty much confirmed they don't care ("it would look bad if there were deleted comments [and that's more important than these laws]").
huge shock that y combinator doesn’t give a shit about legal risk considering the huge chunk of its successful startups were just law-breaking mobile apps.
Move fast and break democracy.
It turns out that in real life you don’t have any right to be forgotten, and trying to legally manufacture one is not only nonsensical, it’s impossible.
HN is a public forum, if you don’t want your statements here being public, don’t post.
HN is a public forum, if you don’t want your statements here being public, don’t post.
The right to be forgotten is a natural consequence of reality - nothing is by default permanent. It's digital systems that have perverted reality by persisting information beyond its normal short lifetime.
If there's one law of the universe it's that nothing is permanent.
If there's one law of the universe it's that nothing is permanent.
What if I did something and it was written down in a book?
Books have limited print runs. Many books in libraries are only borrowed and perhaps read a few times. Niche titles more so. Books go out of print and are hard to search for arbitrary text.
But digital can also be lost. I think my point is that digital isn't a clear line in this situation
The ease of making copies of digital data, the ease of indexing them is totally different from books, just as writing, clay tablets, scrolls and books were from a purely oral society.
We can "what if" ourselves into any position we want. The fact is that digital surveillance is here and does collect information about people in a scope that is qualitatively different than putting information in books.
There are many cases where laws that are made for humans before certain tech are not sufficient once certain tech arrives.
You don’t need the right to be forgotten outside of specific tech because human brain forgets by default, paper rots, and all of the above is restricted geographically and does not scale.
You don’t need the right to be forgotten outside of specific tech because human brain forgets by default, paper rots, and all of the above is restricted geographically and does not scale.
I have a hypothetical. Let's say you attend a rally and give a hate speech and the entire event is live-streamed / recorded for posterity. Can you use "right to forget" laws to impel all sites hosting that video record to blur out your face in the original videos?
What's the functional difference to writing a bunch of hate speech with your username and wanting it scrubbed from the "public record" (which I would argue a popular forum such as HN would be classified) using RTBF?
Same thing if you wrote a "Letter to the Editor" to the New York Times expressing something distasteful. I don't see how anyone should be allowed to wield RTBF as a tool for suppressing information.
What's the functional difference to writing a bunch of hate speech with your username and wanting it scrubbed from the "public record" (which I would argue a popular forum such as HN would be classified) using RTBF?
Same thing if you wrote a "Letter to the Editor" to the New York Times expressing something distasteful. I don't see how anyone should be allowed to wield RTBF as a tool for suppressing information.
Does it really matter if your name isn't connected to your real life identity?
Will that matter in a world of AI? Can't the connection be made - for example based on writing style, political opinions, time of day you post, networks you use, etc etc.
I'm sure it could be figurded out but not easily?
The whole idea behind right to forget is that people don't live their entire lives under condemnation for something they stopped doing. You can debate whether or not permanent ostracism is effective as a deterrent, but let's not ban the removal of gang tattoos.
You could be indoctrinated or paid to give the speech. You might regret it or change your mind. The video doesn't have to be real, it could be generated, it could be someone with the same name who looks like you.
Maybe you got drunk and climbed on stage naked 10 years ago. Should you be that guy forever?
Maybe you got drunk and climbed on stage naked 10 years ago. Should you be that guy forever?
When I asked dang about GDPR this is how he explained HN’s stance on not allowing broad comment and account deletion
> Re GDPR: our understanding based on the analysis done by YC's legal team is that HN does not fall under the GDPR, so for the time being we're sticking with the approach of not deleting account histories wholesale but helping with privacy concerns in more precise ways.
> Re "aren’t these comments owned by the person who wrote them"? That's a complicated legal question, no doubt, and also philosophically. From my perspective, two other factors are that (1) the threads are co-creations (see pg on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6813226) and (2) posting to an internet forum is publishing something, not dissimilar to sending a letter to the editor of a newspaper.
> Obviously there are many reasonable takes on this. Ours is that we're trying to balance the community interests of a public forum (mainly the interest of commenters not to have their comments deprived of context, and the interest of the community in preserving its archive) with the need to protect individuals. That's a lot of work—we end up taking care of requests manually for people every day—but we're committed to both sides of it because it seems like the only way to do justice to both sides.
> Re GDPR: our understanding based on the analysis done by YC's legal team is that HN does not fall under the GDPR, so for the time being we're sticking with the approach of not deleting account histories wholesale but helping with privacy concerns in more precise ways.
> Re "aren’t these comments owned by the person who wrote them"? That's a complicated legal question, no doubt, and also philosophically. From my perspective, two other factors are that (1) the threads are co-creations (see pg on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6813226) and (2) posting to an internet forum is publishing something, not dissimilar to sending a letter to the editor of a newspaper.
> Obviously there are many reasonable takes on this. Ours is that we're trying to balance the community interests of a public forum (mainly the interest of commenters not to have their comments deprived of context, and the interest of the community in preserving its archive) with the need to protect individuals. That's a lot of work—we end up taking care of requests manually for people every day—but we're committed to both sides of it because it seems like the only way to do justice to both sides.
For a supposedly intellectual site that I clearly am at best in the middle tier of intellectual ability, this place is shockingly passive and accepting of the converging futures of authoritarian AI and the marked collapse of political discourse, if not rule of law.
Maybe I'm just a dumb one that speaks up, everyone else has gone dark forest.
Maybe I'm just a dumb one that speaks up, everyone else has gone dark forest.
Never stop speaking out, and if they come for you do not go peacefully. That's about all an individual in an authoritarian society can control.
Dictatorships tend to do worse economically, the biggest example was the Soviet bloc which fell for economic reasons mostly.
You can accelerate this effect by doing sabotage. The WW2 CIA sabotage manual contains a lot of ideas that have pretty good ratio of problems created to personal risk.
You can accelerate this effect by doing sabotage. The WW2 CIA sabotage manual contains a lot of ideas that have pretty good ratio of problems created to personal risk.
That’s the truth, if we remain silent we will be targeted eventually. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of tech colleagues calling this out. I took an oath of ethics to do no harm and I see many people willing to use technology to find and silence critics of the government.
Fuck Donald Trump and his gross, weird, pathetic mafia.
This regime is a rogue autocracy strangling anything good about this once great country.
I hope every single person responsible for the many crimes they have committed (and they have committed crimes) faces justice, if not in this life, then the next one.
Oh, that feels good to get off my chest.
This regime is a rogue autocracy strangling anything good about this once great country.
I hope every single person responsible for the many crimes they have committed (and they have committed crimes) faces justice, if not in this life, then the next one.
Oh, that feels good to get off my chest.
There is no next life. This is all we got. Let’s make the most of it.
That has been the case for years:
IME the authoritarian politics had much more support here; I'd say it was the majority of voices heard. It diminished considerably when Trump was elected and then took office.
But the silence has been a long-standing problem: HN has long been largely silent on the social and political dangers of IT - really an outrage; here are the people most responsible, and the outcomes are predictable. That would include especially disinformation and misinformation, and propaganda more generally; and also the power of social media. Those are what makes it impossible to do anything.
When things became so polarized, years ago, shutting down discourse everywhere, HN didn't work to solve the problem - they stopped talking too. Again, a big failure of the people with the knowledge, skill, and power. But shutting down discourse is not politically neutral - it's a great help to the corrupt and evil to hide what they do and prevent people from responding to it. Democracy dies in darkness, I've heard.
IME the authoritarian politics had much more support here; I'd say it was the majority of voices heard. It diminished considerably when Trump was elected and then took office.
But the silence has been a long-standing problem: HN has long been largely silent on the social and political dangers of IT - really an outrage; here are the people most responsible, and the outcomes are predictable. That would include especially disinformation and misinformation, and propaganda more generally; and also the power of social media. Those are what makes it impossible to do anything.
When things became so polarized, years ago, shutting down discourse everywhere, HN didn't work to solve the problem - they stopped talking too. Again, a big failure of the people with the knowledge, skill, and power. But shutting down discourse is not politically neutral - it's a great help to the corrupt and evil to hide what they do and prevent people from responding to it. Democracy dies in darkness, I've heard.
There's this macrocycle of fatigue related to Godwins law for, what, 30 years of online discourse.
The undeniable long term trend during this period has been increasing surveillance, control, centralization of power in the executive, weakening of rights, due process, legal authority, politicization of the judiciary, and majority minority slowly building a core base of manipulatable populism.
Maybe I'm naive about the past, even the last 75 years of what was really going on in Washington, but a Seig heil on national television with no pushback or consequences beyond grassroot pushback (and it has been ALL grassroot) was a crystallizing moment.
This isn't stuff to roll your eyes over as just Godwins law style hyperbole.
The only in the I mean only saving grace, is that the stock market exists for immediate political blowback. But the fact that the only functional political bulwark against trump is the second by second ticker of financial health of the oligarchs is really depressing.
The undeniable long term trend during this period has been increasing surveillance, control, centralization of power in the executive, weakening of rights, due process, legal authority, politicization of the judiciary, and majority minority slowly building a core base of manipulatable populism.
Maybe I'm naive about the past, even the last 75 years of what was really going on in Washington, but a Seig heil on national television with no pushback or consequences beyond grassroot pushback (and it has been ALL grassroot) was a crystallizing moment.
This isn't stuff to roll your eyes over as just Godwins law style hyperbole.
The only in the I mean only saving grace, is that the stock market exists for immediate political blowback. But the fact that the only functional political bulwark against trump is the second by second ticker of financial health of the oligarchs is really depressing.
The saving grace is you, and what you do. It's each person here.
I'd say it goes beyond silence. Anything political used to be flagged and pushed of the front page in minutes till about a couple of weeks ago.
Not very surprising given the current political environment.
Not very surprising given the current political environment.
Lets say that a ton of us got a leaky look at what the likes of thiel datamimed from the humanity dataset. The last mile of the enlightenment wrecks all those romantic ideas of eternal progress by technology, self actualizationa and retardation repair by education pretty thoroughly. Those that are not in the know mimic those that are or just develop a amoral stance to whether and survive the times which are a changing. It turns out the civil liberty lessons do not survive the contact with the lovecraftian reality beneath. This whole 10 year ride since 2016 was not foreseen, predicted, effectively countered and not even mitigated by protecting cultural artifacts and institutions against the decay. The science whose prediction power is zero, who has no eclipse to show, is not one.
To be fair...the other side was just as ferocious when someone postulated that the election was rigged, or that COVID couldn't be stopped by masks. You're essentially asking for conservatives to be the bigger person and stop the blood feud.
IMO both approaches should have been more measured, but who do you think will propose the ceasefire agreement?
IMO both approaches should have been more measured, but who do you think will propose the ceasefire agreement?
This is not true. People who claimed the election was rigged were asked to back up their claims with evidence. Typically they never did, although a smaller number made an effort...but the profferred evidence was nonsensical. I am not just talking about talking heads widely quoted on TV or social media posts, I read a lot of election litigation.
I think the anti-mask people had some valid points, but they sank their own boat by ranting about 'masktards' and 'face diapers' while also demonstrating callous indifference to the large number of deaths.
I think the anti-mask people had some valid points, but they sank their own boat by ranting about 'masktards' and 'face diapers' while also demonstrating callous indifference to the large number of deaths.
Dave Lobue and Justin Mealey should be forever shamed for the farce they put up during the hearings in Georgia.
https://www.charliekirk.com/news/georgia-data-scientist-prov...
If you check their work based on the publicly available data, you find that based on their logic there was a clear case for Trump cheating. Right wing media reporting the story, of course, did not.
https://www.charliekirk.com/news/georgia-data-scientist-prov...
If you check their work based on the publicly available data, you find that based on their logic there was a clear case for Trump cheating. Right wing media reporting the story, of course, did not.
Can you give some examples of things related to those topics you think are equivalent to what is happening right now? Are you referring to facebook and twitter censorship of those topics?
Nobody was made that people thought the election was rigged. They were frustrated with their lack of evidence, and then mad at their attempt at an insurrection. And then really pissed off at their complete lack of accountability afterwards.
Same thing with Covid. Nobody was mad if you thought masks were stupid. They were mad if you didn’t wear your mask, putting immunocompromised people at risk for your own selfish reasons.
There’s a difference between speech and actions. Doing things that actually, literally, kill people is a problem.
Same thing with Covid. Nobody was mad if you thought masks were stupid. They were mad if you didn’t wear your mask, putting immunocompromised people at risk for your own selfish reasons.
There’s a difference between speech and actions. Doing things that actually, literally, kill people is a problem.
> To be fair...the other side was just as ferocious when someone postulated that the election was rigged, or that COVID couldn't be stopped by masks. You're essentially asking for conservatives to be the bigger person and stop the blood feud.
Did anyone have their, and their coworkers', security clearance revoked just for saying either of those? (There are other activities that could have been taken by people saying the election was rigged that could have led to a loss of security clearance, but I don't think that just the statement did it.)
Did anyone have their, and their coworkers', security clearance revoked just for saying either of those? (There are other activities that could have been taken by people saying the election was rigged that could have led to a loss of security clearance, but I don't think that just the statement did it.)
Yes, lots of people got fired for claiming those in the Covid days. The selective memory of the majority opinion here on HN is deeply distressing, but understandable due to blind tribal support for the democratic party.
Large swathes of people were first identified for being antivax when they self-registered under the religious exemption scheme and then were harassed and fired. It was cunningly done with the media paying no attention.
Large swathes of people were first identified for being antivax when they self-registered under the religious exemption scheme and then were harassed and fired. It was cunningly done with the media paying no attention.
So people in government claiming it was rigged should probably lose their jobs, as they were advancing harmful narratives related to their jobs. Journalists were (rightly) ridiculed, but there is a significant difference. I might not use a mechanic who is antivax; I would advocate a doctor be fired.
There's a difference between truth and lies - an actual, material, essential difference. It's not politics, it's truth.
People can take any relativistic position they want, but that difference is essential to anything and everything: The truth about database i/o performance is essential to your project; the truth about climate change is essential to preventing catastrophe; the truth about Covid was essential to saving millions of lives - and many died and much blood is on the hands of the liars.
But the liars were not, and shouldn't have been, arrested, deported, extorted, threatened, etc.
People can take any relativistic position they want, but that difference is essential to anything and everything: The truth about database i/o performance is essential to your project; the truth about climate change is essential to preventing catastrophe; the truth about Covid was essential to saving millions of lives - and many died and much blood is on the hands of the liars.
But the liars were not, and shouldn't have been, arrested, deported, extorted, threatened, etc.
>To be fair...the other side was just as ferocious when someone postulated that the election was rigged,
No they weren't
Not in the amount of court cases, elected politicans stating the view, and January 6th
When a few Democrats starting objecting to the 2016 results. Joe Biden, in congress during the certification, slammed the gavel down and said "it's over"
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/508562183/biden-to-democrats-...
To even compare the two situations it's insane.
No they weren't
Not in the amount of court cases, elected politicans stating the view, and January 6th
When a few Democrats starting objecting to the 2016 results. Joe Biden, in congress during the certification, slammed the gavel down and said "it's over"
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/508562183/biden-to-democrats-...
To even compare the two situations it's insane.
[deleted]
I highly doubt it was for that only.
To that end, I am quoting a portion of the text on the WH at the end of my comment here.
Anyone would be right to question CISA’s misallocation of resources to narrative control, and little emphasis on actual cyber security work. That CISA was getting in bed with former IC folks doing Censorship Ops, not computer security, is a very bad look.
There is a reason CISA is viewed as a joke with the federal space and it has everything to do with the lack of performance for a 2-3B dollar agency.
“ Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines. Krebs skewed the bona fide debate about COVID-19 by attempting to discredit widely shared views that ran contrary to CISA’s favored perspective.”
To that end, I am quoting a portion of the text on the WH at the end of my comment here.
Anyone would be right to question CISA’s misallocation of resources to narrative control, and little emphasis on actual cyber security work. That CISA was getting in bed with former IC folks doing Censorship Ops, not computer security, is a very bad look.
There is a reason CISA is viewed as a joke with the federal space and it has everything to do with the lack of performance for a 2-3B dollar agency.
“ Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines. Krebs skewed the bona fide debate about COVID-19 by attempting to discredit widely shared views that ran contrary to CISA’s favored perspective.”
>Chris Krebs just yesterday had his security clearance revoked solely for saying the 2020 election was fair and not rigged
Considering how Republicans control all three branches (to an extent), the "2020 election fraud" was a key talking point of Trump, and how stealing an election would be a historic crime in American history....the justice department has done nothing so far.
The Republican House spent a year or so investigating Hunter Biden to obtain a gun plus tax charge (also with the hopes of tying Biden to a crime) but not trying to find who stole the 2020 election?
Considering how Republicans control all three branches (to an extent), the "2020 election fraud" was a key talking point of Trump, and how stealing an election would be a historic crime in American history....the justice department has done nothing so far.
The Republican House spent a year or so investigating Hunter Biden to obtain a gun plus tax charge (also with the hopes of tying Biden to a crime) but not trying to find who stole the 2020 election?
Yes but that was after the American people voted for an administration which explicitly ran on a platform of "we will do exactly that".
The attempted framing is as government oppression by "the elites", but half the country - the regular people - they're all for this.
The attempted framing is as government oppression by "the elites", but half the country - the regular people - they're all for this.
Median voters voted for Trump because they wanted a regime change after feeling the economic shock of covid. This is the trend across basically every democratic country. Polls on the issue itself show that this split is not 50/50 though the actual number escapes me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> You’re not arrested for posting this
Your funds might be cut off though: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/trump-...
Or your president might declare a wartime law to deport all the immigrants: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp34ylep987o
Or you, a honors student (but not a citizen) might find yourself in an unmarked van if you dared to question the powers that be. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrn57340xlo
Sure it happens to immigrants only for now, brings memory to this poem:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Your funds might be cut off though: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/trump-...
Or your president might declare a wartime law to deport all the immigrants: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp34ylep987o
Or you, a honors student (but not a citizen) might find yourself in an unmarked van if you dared to question the powers that be. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrn57340xlo
Sure it happens to immigrants only for now, brings memory to this poem:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
> Sure it happens to immigrants only for now
... and they're trying to end birthright citizenship. I.e. people who are literally not immigrants (were born here and perhaps have never lived anywhere else) are already being lined up for this.
... and they're trying to end birthright citizenship. I.e. people who are literally not immigrants (were born here and perhaps have never lived anywhere else) are already being lined up for this.
It's not unreasonable to see the situation as "Then they came for the Jews, and the administration finally deported the people who were coming for the Jews".
The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.
The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.
> I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.
Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?
- hostility towards non traditional sexuality
- immigration being used as the scapegoat for economic problems
- strong feeling of national exceptionalism
- assault on women's productivity rights
- politicizing of science
- deportation for political reasons
- "Roman" salutes
It brings parallels with some things happening in Europe some time ago.
> activist groups are coming for all of American life.
I wonder who's actually going for all of American life though. Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And guess who goes against this American way of life value? An orange grandpa married to an immigrant. You really can't make this up.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir...
Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?
- hostility towards non traditional sexuality
- immigration being used as the scapegoat for economic problems
- strong feeling of national exceptionalism
- assault on women's productivity rights
- politicizing of science
- deportation for political reasons
- "Roman" salutes
It brings parallels with some things happening in Europe some time ago.
> activist groups are coming for all of American life.
I wonder who's actually going for all of American life though. Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And guess who goes against this American way of life value? An orange grandpa married to an immigrant. You really can't make this up.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir...
> Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?
Up until you got to the "Roman" salutes, it sounded like both sides in the US.
Or rather, it will sound like whichever side you aren't. That's the point.
But using "Then they came for the Jews" when you're discussing deportation of these particular people is perhaps a new level of absurdity in the discourse.
Up until you got to the "Roman" salutes, it sounded like both sides in the US.
Or rather, it will sound like whichever side you aren't. That's the point.
But using "Then they came for the Jews" when you're discussing deportation of these particular people is perhaps a new level of absurdity in the discourse.
> "Roman" salutes, it sounded like both sides in the US.
The liberals / Dems can barely organize a picnic. They can't agree on anything. There is no Fox News, there is nobody they bow down to. The obsequiousness to Trump is unprecendented.
The liberals / Dems can barely organize a picnic. They can't agree on anything. There is no Fox News, there is nobody they bow down to. The obsequiousness to Trump is unprecendented.
> Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?
Birthright citizenship was to ensure freed slaves could not be denied citizenship.
It's served its purpose and we can repeal it and join the vast majority of nations that don't have this pathway.
Birthright citizenship was to ensure freed slaves could not be denied citizenship.
It's served its purpose and we can repeal it and join the vast majority of nations that don't have this pathway.
Ok, but if we want to repeal it there's a defined process for that. The president doesn't just get to declare people's citizenship invalid, that's Nazi shit. That's why I call Trump and everyone who tacitly or explicitly supports him a Nazi. He's trying to rule by executive fiat to enforce white nationalism.
And the 2nd amendment was for an armed milita to protect the country.
If you want to repeal it, then convince your fellow citizens to do that. The president can't do it.
Someone mentioned the 2nd Amendment in this thread.
If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.
The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.
If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.
The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.
> If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.
That's speculation about specuation about an undefined interpretation. We are bounded by law, including by the Constitution.
> The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.
There is variation in interpretation, but within bounds. If you want to eliminate Constitutional gun rights, you would need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That's speculation about specuation about an undefined interpretation. We are bounded by law, including by the Constitution.
> The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.
There is variation in interpretation, but within bounds. If you want to eliminate Constitutional gun rights, you would need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
It's not at all equivalent.
> The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
What is American life? Why can't people criticize whatever they want - that is American life.
> "Then they came for the Jews, and the administration finally deported the people who were coming for the Jews"
The vast majority of antisemitism is on the right. The administration does nothing about it (and supports and legitimizes much of it).
Also, the Jews will be next. By attacking critics of Judaism, they are entrapping Jewish people (and others) in legitimzing this oppression, and in making themselves into targets of hate. Then when the white supremecists turn on them, and say Jews are conspiring to control American, what will these Jewish supporters of arrests, oppression, and deportations say?
> The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
What is American life? Why can't people criticize whatever they want - that is American life.
> "Then they came for the Jews, and the administration finally deported the people who were coming for the Jews"
The vast majority of antisemitism is on the right. The administration does nothing about it (and supports and legitimizes much of it).
Also, the Jews will be next. By attacking critics of Judaism, they are entrapping Jewish people (and others) in legitimzing this oppression, and in making themselves into targets of hate. Then when the white supremecists turn on them, and say Jews are conspiring to control American, what will these Jewish supporters of arrests, oppression, and deportations say?
But Zionism is not Judaism.
Most of the pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist content I see is denouncing Israeli war crimes and genocide. No one is bashing Jews because of their ethnicity or religion.
Also a lot of this comes from the Jews (who are then attacked for being confused or..... antisemitic)
We're not at the point of people hunting Jews because they're Jews. We are at the point when opposing targeting/killing medics, press, children or hospitals may result in being kidnapped from the street and either locked up without charges or trafficked to the torture camp.
I do not disagree with your comment in general, I disagree with you putting "Judaism" while the almost all the critique and rebuke is aimed at the Israeli war crimes or the Zionist supremacy ideology.
Most of the pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist content I see is denouncing Israeli war crimes and genocide. No one is bashing Jews because of their ethnicity or religion.
Also a lot of this comes from the Jews (who are then attacked for being confused or..... antisemitic)
We're not at the point of people hunting Jews because they're Jews. We are at the point when opposing targeting/killing medics, press, children or hospitals may result in being kidnapped from the street and either locked up without charges or trafficked to the torture camp.
I do not disagree with your comment in general, I disagree with you putting "Judaism" while the almost all the critique and rebuke is aimed at the Israeli war crimes or the Zionist supremacy ideology.
> I do not disagree with your comment in general, I disagree with you putting "Judaism" while the almost all the critique and rebuke is aimed at the Israeli war crimes or the Zionist supremacy ideology.
It's good that you brought this up!
It's a common right-wing tactic to conflate themselves with the purest version of something that is highly regarded and hide behind it. E.g the Nazis conflated themselves with "pure" Germanness, the fascists in Italy conflated themselves with "pure" Italianness, the same way now Israel conflates itself with Judaism/Jewishness. Then it naturally follows that if you attack Israel's genocide of the people in Palestine, you are attacking Judaism/Jewishness. If you question Netanyahu's genocidal ultra-supremacist ideology (which many Holocaust survivors, Jewish themselves, have done repeatedly), you are anti-Jewish, and so on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OdkaTqmDs
A similar thing is happening in the US where the current administration is trying to position itself as America-first, so naturally any critique on them must be anti-American, right? You will find that this playbook is always the same. First will be immigrants, then non-traditional sexual orientations and women's reproductive rights, then the press and universities and finally just whoever they feel like.
Fortunately, if history goes to show us anything, it's these hate-fueled-orders always end up imploding.
It's good that you brought this up!
It's a common right-wing tactic to conflate themselves with the purest version of something that is highly regarded and hide behind it. E.g the Nazis conflated themselves with "pure" Germanness, the fascists in Italy conflated themselves with "pure" Italianness, the same way now Israel conflates itself with Judaism/Jewishness. Then it naturally follows that if you attack Israel's genocide of the people in Palestine, you are attacking Judaism/Jewishness. If you question Netanyahu's genocidal ultra-supremacist ideology (which many Holocaust survivors, Jewish themselves, have done repeatedly), you are anti-Jewish, and so on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OdkaTqmDs
A similar thing is happening in the US where the current administration is trying to position itself as America-first, so naturally any critique on them must be anti-American, right? You will find that this playbook is always the same. First will be immigrants, then non-traditional sexual orientations and women's reproductive rights, then the press and universities and finally just whoever they feel like.
Fortunately, if history goes to show us anything, it's these hate-fueled-orders always end up imploding.
> Fortunately, if history goes to show us anything, it's these hate-fueled-orders always end up imploding.
That's taking the 'in the long run' analysis to an extreme.
In WWII, after hundreds of millions died - including over 10 million murdered by the hate-filled - major parts of the world were devestated, and the free world united in a massive war, the hate-fueled were stopped. They didn't implode.
The idea that they will implode is a common fantasy that you (and many others) won't have to do anthing, face their fears, fight an uncertain fight. If you really believed they would implode, the fight would be certain. They won't stop until you stop them.
That's taking the 'in the long run' analysis to an extreme.
In WWII, after hundreds of millions died - including over 10 million murdered by the hate-filled - major parts of the world were devestated, and the free world united in a massive war, the hate-fueled were stopped. They didn't implode.
The idea that they will implode is a common fantasy that you (and many others) won't have to do anthing, face their fears, fight an uncertain fight. If you really believed they would implode, the fight would be certain. They won't stop until you stop them.
> They won't stop until you stop them.
Amen!
Amen!
> the same way now Israel conflates itself with Judaism/Jewishness
And the same way now progressives conflate Zionists with White supremacists / Nazis.
And the same way now progressives conflate Zionists with White supremacists / Nazis.
> And the same way now progressives conflate Zionists with White supremacists / Nazi
Nazism and Zionism are both ultra-right-wing nationalistic ideologies. The conflation doesn't stop on the surface though, but it runs deep in the actions of the two states: The Nazi state during WW2, and the Israeli state:
1. Dehumanizing of "the enemy"
A) Israel dehumanizing Palestinians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestin...
B) Nazis dehumanizing Jews: https://english.elpais.com/society/2022-12-04/how-nazi-propa...
2. Using war crimes like starvation to "get rid of the enemy":
A) Israel starving Palestinians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine
B) Nazis starving Jews: https://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/en/news/hitler-s-hungerplan
3. Detention camps and torture
A) Israel detaining and torturing Palestinians: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/...
B) Nazis detaining and torturing Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Nazism and Zionism are both ultra-right-wing nationalistic ideologies. The conflation doesn't stop on the surface though, but it runs deep in the actions of the two states: The Nazi state during WW2, and the Israeli state:
1. Dehumanizing of "the enemy"
A) Israel dehumanizing Palestinians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestin...
B) Nazis dehumanizing Jews: https://english.elpais.com/society/2022-12-04/how-nazi-propa...
2. Using war crimes like starvation to "get rid of the enemy":
A) Israel starving Palestinians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine
B) Nazis starving Jews: https://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/en/news/hitler-s-hungerplan
3. Detention camps and torture
A) Israel detaining and torturing Palestinians: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/...
B) Nazis detaining and torturing Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Yes Zionists are the Nazis and Hamas are the good guys I got it. Thanks for all the links I read each and every one of them , especially Wikipedia articles about Nazi concentration camps I've never heard of that.
> especially Wikipedia articles about Nazi concentration camps I've never heard of that.
Glad to have helped! Here is a quiz to see if you can spot the differences between a Zionist and a Nazi: https://zionism.wtf/
By the ways, nowadays it's called a "detention camp":
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-tei...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vje365rno
But the torture is still torture. Also, this (satirical?) article by the Onion somehow (tragi)comically seems super relevant:
https://theonion.com/historians-quibbling-over-exact-definit...
I am sure I won't hear the end of it how the torture concentration camp of the Nazis is completely different from the much more civilized and completely different torture detention camp of the Israelis. Israelis' of course, have a high regard for their prisoners' well being, especially considering they call them "animals": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr24GcCDgyM
> Yes Zionists are the Nazis and Hamas are the good guys I got it
I probably shouldn't bite, but here it goes: Here are some stats even before the current war started.
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-cas...
From 2008 to 2020, the death toll is:
- 251 Israeli
- 5590 Palestinians
Does this seem like a fair exchange, cause it seems like 22x higher death toll on one side?
And the current death toll can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co...
- 9,901–10,239 Israeli
- 104,701–110,887 Palestinians
Does this look like a fair exchange?
I am sure when some Nazis were killed by the French Resistance, somebody Nazi apologist was saying: "see, French are also bad, because they are killing the poor Germans". However, there is a very important distinction:
Palestinians are not the ones stopping humanitarian aid (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-defense-mi...), nor the ones shooting medics and ambulances (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBouTY-45c), nor the ones repeatedly blowing up hospitals (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr7l123zy5o) all 100% war crimes.
And nobody says Hamas are the good guys: both the leaders of Hamas and Netanyahu and his genocidal posse are sought to be trialed by the ICC for war crimes (https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu).
But the parallels between Zionism and Nazism are so obvious, that they even have a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and...
I am happy to provide you a summary of the parallels:
- War crimes and crimes against humanity both by Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Dehumanizing the enemy both by the Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Withholding aid and using hunger as a weapon both by the Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Doing an ethnic cleansing (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/tragedy-fore...) both by the Nazis during WW2 and the Israeli state
- Both are far-right ideologies based on some feeling of superiority (racial or national/religious)
I mean, yeah, there are differences in the "flavor", like fascism in Italy was different from Nazism in Germany and is different than the contemporary genocidal Zionism by the Palestinian state, but the similarities are far more than the small differences.
Glad to have helped! Here is a quiz to see if you can spot the differences between a Zionist and a Nazi: https://zionism.wtf/
By the ways, nowadays it's called a "detention camp":
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-tei...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vje365rno
But the torture is still torture. Also, this (satirical?) article by the Onion somehow (tragi)comically seems super relevant:
https://theonion.com/historians-quibbling-over-exact-definit...
I am sure I won't hear the end of it how the torture concentration camp of the Nazis is completely different from the much more civilized and completely different torture detention camp of the Israelis. Israelis' of course, have a high regard for their prisoners' well being, especially considering they call them "animals": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr24GcCDgyM
> Yes Zionists are the Nazis and Hamas are the good guys I got it
I probably shouldn't bite, but here it goes: Here are some stats even before the current war started.
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-cas...
From 2008 to 2020, the death toll is:
- 251 Israeli
- 5590 Palestinians
Does this seem like a fair exchange, cause it seems like 22x higher death toll on one side?
And the current death toll can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co...
- 9,901–10,239 Israeli
- 104,701–110,887 Palestinians
Does this look like a fair exchange?
I am sure when some Nazis were killed by the French Resistance, somebody Nazi apologist was saying: "see, French are also bad, because they are killing the poor Germans". However, there is a very important distinction:
Palestinians are not the ones stopping humanitarian aid (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-defense-mi...), nor the ones shooting medics and ambulances (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBouTY-45c), nor the ones repeatedly blowing up hospitals (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr7l123zy5o) all 100% war crimes.
And nobody says Hamas are the good guys: both the leaders of Hamas and Netanyahu and his genocidal posse are sought to be trialed by the ICC for war crimes (https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu).
But the parallels between Zionism and Nazism are so obvious, that they even have a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and...
I am happy to provide you a summary of the parallels:
- War crimes and crimes against humanity both by Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Dehumanizing the enemy both by the Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Withholding aid and using hunger as a weapon both by the Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Doing an ethnic cleansing (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/tragedy-fore...) both by the Nazis during WW2 and the Israeli state
- Both are far-right ideologies based on some feeling of superiority (racial or national/religious)
I mean, yeah, there are differences in the "flavor", like fascism in Italy was different from Nazism in Germany and is different than the contemporary genocidal Zionism by the Palestinian state, but the similarities are far more than the small differences.
> And the current death toll can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co...
- 9,901–10,239 Israeli
- 104,701–110,887 Palestinians
Not sure what "fair exchange" would mean here. It looks like
a) A war / protracted conflict , not some kind of one sided genocide. Jews haven't killed thousands of Germans or tried to bring down the German state. Also, if there is one side that is sympathetic to Nazi ideology it is actually historically the Palestinian side (see Mufti relations with Hitler and his contributions to the final solution).
b) One side is clearly stronger than the other side (however, the weak side is doing everything it can to bring the casaulties numbers up. We know Hamas is doing this).
Israel is not going to try get more Israelis killed just so progressives become happier.
- 9,901–10,239 Israeli
- 104,701–110,887 Palestinians
Not sure what "fair exchange" would mean here. It looks like
a) A war / protracted conflict , not some kind of one sided genocide. Jews haven't killed thousands of Germans or tried to bring down the German state. Also, if there is one side that is sympathetic to Nazi ideology it is actually historically the Palestinian side (see Mufti relations with Hitler and his contributions to the final solution).
b) One side is clearly stronger than the other side (however, the weak side is doing everything it can to bring the casaulties numbers up. We know Hamas is doing this).
Israel is not going to try get more Israelis killed just so progressives become happier.
Got called a "self-hating Jew" for the first time on Mastodon a year ago, for criticizing Israel.
Unfortunately for those of us in the diaspora, Israel has really muddied the waters by convincing people that anti-Israel = antisemitism, because it's given real antisemites cover. E.g., like when the ADL came to Musk's defense after his Nazi salute because he officially supported Israel.
Unfortunately for those of us in the diaspora, Israel has really muddied the waters by convincing people that anti-Israel = antisemitism, because it's given real antisemites cover. E.g., like when the ADL came to Musk's defense after his Nazi salute because he officially supported Israel.
Almost all far-right / neo-nazis groups with a long (real) antisemitism trajectory like the ones Elon Musk supports are now pro-Israel and pro-Gaza genocide. Sounds weird, but it makes total sense, as:
- The Zionist project is an ethno-state, just like those groups want for their countries. This also echoes the Zionist-nazi collaborations before WWII to move jewish population out of Germany to Palestine.
- Israel works as an spearhead of the global imperialism configuration, if you support imperialism on the Middle East -as those groups and their bourgeoisie do- you must support Israel.
- European neo-nazi groups are militant against immigration, and a big chunk of that immigration to their countries is muslim, so they are more than open to the Israel narratives against the muslim world... even the most extremist ones that de-humanizes Gaza children ("those children are future terrorists").
- The Zionist project is an ethno-state, just like those groups want for their countries. This also echoes the Zionist-nazi collaborations before WWII to move jewish population out of Germany to Palestine.
- Israel works as an spearhead of the global imperialism configuration, if you support imperialism on the Middle East -as those groups and their bourgeoisie do- you must support Israel.
- European neo-nazi groups are militant against immigration, and a big chunk of that immigration to their countries is muslim, so they are more than open to the Israel narratives against the muslim world... even the most extremist ones that de-humanizes Gaza children ("those children are future terrorists").
> The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
American life is defined by the acceptance of dissent and the encouragement of even distasteful free speech. If that's not American, what even is American?
American life is defined by the acceptance of dissent and the encouragement of even distasteful free speech. If that's not American, what even is American?
Horseshoe theory is one of those idiotic centrist oversimplifications that pretends extremist differences don't matter.
It's like watching the rebels and the Empire shoot at each other, and saying "There's no difference, because they're both violent."
It's like watching the rebels and the Empire shoot at each other, and saying "There's no difference, because they're both violent."
Right. We don't have to arrest. We can just disappear anything you say critical of our masters, I mean, our overlords, I mean, our government, I mean, a foreign government, I mean, a foreign government that hacks American companies and sells the hacks to Middle Eastern dictators who breed an ideology that trained people to attack our own country, I mean...
As someone who came from a pretty authoritarian country- let me assure you that people there do routinely criticize their government, mock them all the time. Governments often do not have the bandwidth to deal with the volume of criticism, and even when they do- they wisely realize that letting people vent a little online is better than complete crackdown. I myself routinely did this in Facebook, where many in my friend list were government employees and (ex-ruling) party members.
I am in fact far more afraid of pro-palestine speech from USA as an immigrant than I was in my home country- and please trust me I am not exaggerating here.
I am in fact far more afraid of pro-palestine speech from USA as an immigrant than I was in my home country- and please trust me I am not exaggerating here.
>I am in fact far more afraid of pro-palestine speech from USA as an immigrant than I was in my home country- and please trust me I am not exaggerating here.
I would have laughed at this until pretty recently. How wrong I was.
I would have laughed at this until pretty recently. How wrong I was.
It's not just non-citizens, either. Look into denaturalization and all the fascination with it in pro-Trump circles lately.
Do you mean pro-Palestinian sentiments scare you or are you afraid of expressing pro-Palestinian sentiment?
Likely he means expressing any pro-Palestine sentiments. Doxxing is very common and if Ivy League deans were taken down, immigrants are likely to be deported for expressing any empathy towards the Palestinian.
Yes that is a very legitimate fear.
But the people doing the doxxing complain that any criticism of Ire* for their war crimes makes them feel like there is no place they are safe, I don't buy it but the complainants have a lot of allies.
But the people doing the doxxing complain that any criticism of Ire* for their war crimes makes them feel like there is no place they are safe, I don't buy it but the complainants have a lot of allies.
Actually now US citizens are impacted too.
Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled [a US citizen] was detained by federal immigration agents while returning home from a family vacation
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5357455/attorney-detain...
Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled [a US citizen] was detained by federal immigration agents while returning home from a family vacation
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5357455/attorney-detain...
They've discussed deporting US citizens to gulags - https://truthout.org/articles/white-house-press-sec-says-tru...
He was detained at immigration. This happens all the time, and has been happening routinely since 2001.
(Not saying it's good or anything - just not new).
(Not saying it's good or anything - just not new).
Freest country, hardly anyone lives within 100 miles of the coast I'm sure https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
The authoritarian future isn't evenly distributed. Some groups of people have been dealing with it for decades, while others are in for a surprise.
If you post it and nobody ever sees it, that is functionally the same result as not being allowed to post it.
> and other authoritarian nations like China and Turkey
And Israel, where a history teacher was arrested for making a post on Facebook:
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/11/22/meir_baruchin
And Israel, where a history teacher was arrested for making a post on Facebook:
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/11/22/meir_baruchin
This Israeli as well, had everything taken from her for 4 IG posts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/03/magazine/israel-free-spee...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/03/magazine/israel-free-spee...
[deleted]
I think UK leads here:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54123/were-over...
(many links in the responses and comments, eg: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-... - " 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010 " just in london)
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54123/were-over...
(many links in the responses and comments, eg: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-... - " 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010 " just in london)
He could have his visa revoked though.
People who have spoken out against the genocidal apartheid regime are being black-bagged in the street by plainclothes officers all across the United States. The gap between the supposedly enlightened West and Russia grows smaller by the day.
They don't need to arrest him because the narrative is already controlled, as shown by the article, and by going to any traditional news site.
Why arrest if you can silence?
As someone said above, "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."
America is changing. What was true before isn't necessarily true now, and may get worse, depending on election outcomes.
America is changing. What was true before isn't necessarily true now, and may get worse, depending on election outcomes.
Well, Israelis are not abruptly incompetent and culturally allergic to progress, with a predictable habit of grovelling to whichever tyrant comes next — but they certainly do share some methods.
> Israelis are not abruptly incompetent and culturally allergic to progress, with a predictable habit of grovelling to whichever tyrant comes next
I can't tell what you mean by this? Is it sarcasm? Is there another group who is like this?
I can't tell what you mean by this? Is it sarcasm? Is there another group who is like this?
Oh, I see. The parent comment was referring to russia, but the replies got so long that it's hardly noticeable. I should have mentioned it."
Still not sure what you mention. Hard to say that Israelis don't grovel to whatever tyrant comes next when they are currently ruled by a tyrant who would rather endanger his citizens and commit war crimes than gold and election he knows he'll lose. Also they have elected him over and over again despite how he endangers them and funded their current biggest enemy Hamas, in a cynical ploy to weaken his more moderate opposition at the time, the PA
I understand, but I don't perceive them as tyrants in the "Russian" sense. That’s not to excuse anything, of course. There’s this strange tendency among Russians to almost embrace suffering—and to try to drag everyone else down with them. It’s as if it doesn’t matter that they live in poverty or that their country is ravaged by oligarchs and mafia. What matters is that Russia is big and strong. That seems to be their default mindset.
But back to my original point. A few days ago, I happened to come across some pro-Israel propaganda, and honestly, I was stunned. It was just an Instagram profile claiming to be part of a pro-Israel lobbying organization, but the content was deeply disturbing. They were pushing a heavily distorted narrative, even going so far as to post photos and names of students, accusing them of supporting terrorism. It was all incredibly manipulative. The presentation was slick and more polished than rusias work of course, but the whole thing strongly reminded me of their methods.
But back to my original point. A few days ago, I happened to come across some pro-Israel propaganda, and honestly, I was stunned. It was just an Instagram profile claiming to be part of a pro-Israel lobbying organization, but the content was deeply disturbing. They were pushing a heavily distorted narrative, even going so far as to post photos and names of students, accusing them of supporting terrorism. It was all incredibly manipulative. The presentation was slick and more polished than rusias work of course, but the whole thing strongly reminded me of their methods.
Yeah unfortunately we thought the end of history would be the global spread of liberal democracies, but it's the global spread of this kind of stuff instead
To be honest, I think things have just become more visible and easier to interpret for those who are paying attention. I don't believe people have really changed.
The "end of history" theory today comes across, if not arrogant, then at the very least deeply naive.
The "end of history" theory today comes across, if not arrogant, then at the very least deeply naive.
My wife deleted all her social media posts because she's a green card holder. Let's stop mincing words.
If you are not constantly posting fake and not recieve money from foreign entities you are not being arested at all in Russia. You may get a fine, and that's not always the case.
Claiming people are being funded by "foreign entities" is one of the commonest excuses dictatorships use for persecution.
I do not know what the state of free speech in Russia is, but that explanation is not credible.
I do not know what the state of free speech in Russia is, but that explanation is not credible.
In today's world, it's all complicated, to tell the truth. If you think very deeply, then with the help of foreign money, if there is a lot of it, you can even destroy the country without doing anything illegal, just paying for advertising and comments with coverage of only facts that are beneficial to you and excluding the unprofitable ones.
People often think that bot farms are only from Russia and China, but on the other side, paid commenters are also used. Unfortunately, it will only get worse with modern AI.
People often think that bot farms are only from Russia and China, but on the other side, paid commenters are also used. Unfortunately, it will only get worse with modern AI.
"Fake" like calling the "special military operation" a war of aggression?
For me, there is not much difference between these names. Anyway, choosing a name doesn't change the actual events... Yes it's not good. But it's bad saying only about war aggression and not saying at all about bloody coup and bloody nationlist crimes.
Any difference is going to disappear in only a few years. What matters is the direction the US taking. This happened to Russia about 14 years ago, and it’s happening to the US now.
Not really, I'm Russian currently located in Russia and I can openly say that I hate our government. Though it would obviously be much worse if I actually had a big audience, in which case yeah there may be repercussions
It's still humans being humans, we just have a covert culture while they are more overt. I personally like being tricked/manipulated more than forced. I'd rather get Tom Sawyered into painting a fence than being held at gunpoint.
Indeed. The editorial boards of these newsrooms are often staffed with people who attended the same schools and classes as those running the country. The social circles of the two worlds are extremely closely linked.
Of course, this means that the reporting isn't very good at addressing its blind spots–i.e., most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites. And I say this as a member of that same class. Most of the political perspectives in my life are completely unrepresented in the opinion columns, which generally tend to pander upwards rather than downwards.
I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.
Of course, this means that the reporting isn't very good at addressing its blind spots–i.e., most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites. And I say this as a member of that same class. Most of the political perspectives in my life are completely unrepresented in the opinion columns, which generally tend to pander upwards rather than downwards.
I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.
The NYT's Executive Editor Joe Kahn is the son of a billionaire who was on the board of lobby group CAMERA, a group devoted to pressuring US media to be more pro-Israel.
Just rumors and conspiracy theories.
Where can we see evidence of what you claim?
What do you claim Kahn has done? Do you have evidence? The NY Times regulary publishes news critical of Israel.
Children and parents, siblings, etc. disagree, sometimes extremely, regularly. Children and parents disagreeing is one of the most common stories in humanity. Should Joe resign because of dad's activities?
Where can we see evidence of what you claim?
What do you claim Kahn has done? Do you have evidence? The NY Times regulary publishes news critical of Israel.
Children and parents, siblings, etc. disagree, sometimes extremely, regularly. Children and parents disagreeing is one of the most common stories in humanity. Should Joe resign because of dad's activities?
Not OP but -- there is reporting by The Intercept on a leak of guidance that explicitly contains double standards. [1]
Before the leak there was already data-driven analysis about coverage that, in aggregate, shows imbalance. [2]
1 - https://archive.ph/eEwi0
2 - https://archive.ph/fp4vQ
Before the leak there was already data-driven analysis about coverage that, in aggregate, shows imbalance. [2]
1 - https://archive.ph/eEwi0
2 - https://archive.ph/fp4vQ
> Where can we see evidence of what you claim?
This is not only a reasonable question, but it is a good one, too. Unfortunately, the line beforehand:
> Just rumors and conspiracy theories.
...makes it seem like you've already made up your mind, and makes it difficult to interpret your post as a good-faith attempt on your part to learn something new from someone.
This is not only a reasonable question, but it is a good one, too. Unfortunately, the line beforehand:
> Just rumors and conspiracy theories.
...makes it seem like you've already made up your mind, and makes it difficult to interpret your post as a good-faith attempt on your part to learn something new from someone.
The issue that matters is not me, whoever I am and whatever I think, it's the claims made by the GGP. Which remain worthless until proven otherwise, like all other claims.
And here is an article on Raffi berg, BBC’s Middle East editor:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-bia...
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-bia...
And here is an analysis of BBC's anti-Israeli bias:
https://asserson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/asserson-r...
And from the BBC itself: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2d4egk17l2o "Questions still remain for BBC after damaging Gaza documentary"
https://www.ynetnews.com/culture/article/skcfkb1iyx "From bias to blunders: The BBC’s anti-Israel shift since October 7"
And from the BBC itself: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2d4egk17l2o "Questions still remain for BBC after damaging Gaza documentary"
https://www.ynetnews.com/culture/article/skcfkb1iyx "From bias to blunders: The BBC’s anti-Israel shift since October 7"
And opposite all that are Tiktok videos by Israeli soldiers, for which questions of journalistic bias are irrelevant.
Bad things happen in wars. And yes there are questionable videos of Israeli soldiers on TikTok. I'm not sure how this supports your view point. It's is entirely possible for Israel to be the good guy, for the BBC to have a strong anti-Israeli bias, and for there to be questionable actions by certain Israeli soldiers (including on TikTok). There are also questionable actions by Ukrainian soldiers and there have been questionable actions by American, British, and Australian soldiers in their war on ISIS and Al Qaeda and there have been questionable action by the allies in WW-II. Israeli soldiers are young adults fighting an enemy that has complete disregard to human life (theirs or others) or pretty much anything else. That enemy has been attacking them for decades. Many of them may have friends and family that have been impacted by this enemy's brutality. So yes- there are going to be questionable incidents. This is human nature.
We can fix this by forcing Hamas to release the hostages, surrender, and end this war. Could have happened a long time ago if the pressure was on the right side.
You can't get a picture of reality through anecdotes. In every war you can cherry pick any narrative. For what its worth I've spoken to soldiers who fought in Gaza and they maintain they hold high standards and the incidents you hear of are outliers.
We can fix this by forcing Hamas to release the hostages, surrender, and end this war. Could have happened a long time ago if the pressure was on the right side.
You can't get a picture of reality through anecdotes. In every war you can cherry pick any narrative. For what its worth I've spoken to soldiers who fought in Gaza and they maintain they hold high standards and the incidents you hear of are outliers.
Don't misunderstand. My views are not driven by random Tiktok videos. I mentioned them to point out that bias questions cannot be relevant in their case.
You might think those videos are aberrant, but I see it as just part of the overall pattern.
"War" is a misnomer when Israel has 10x the money, the resources, the military, controls Palestinian movement/water/food, erects walls completely surrounding Gaza, and bombed 100% of the hospitals and universities in Gaza.
"War" creates the illusion of roughly-equal enemy forces.
You don't have "war". You have a displaced, dehumanized people living in modern apartheid conditions, who periodically strike out against their conditions and history, and then get vengeance visited upon them 100-fold.
----
"You can't get a picture of reality through anecdotes ... I've spoken to soldiers who fought in Gaza"
So... you heard some anecdotes.
You might think those videos are aberrant, but I see it as just part of the overall pattern.
"War" is a misnomer when Israel has 10x the money, the resources, the military, controls Palestinian movement/water/food, erects walls completely surrounding Gaza, and bombed 100% of the hospitals and universities in Gaza.
"War" creates the illusion of roughly-equal enemy forces.
You don't have "war". You have a displaced, dehumanized people living in modern apartheid conditions, who periodically strike out against their conditions and history, and then get vengeance visited upon them 100-fold.
----
"You can't get a picture of reality through anecdotes ... I've spoken to soldiers who fought in Gaza"
So... you heard some anecdotes.
I read the 1st third (it's really long) and while the data analysis is interesting, the conclusions say a lot more about the biases of the author(s) than those of the BBC.
Fundamentally you can't use sympathy as a measure of bias without first establishing a baseline for how sympathetic the views and/or groups of people are. The report mentions that Palestinians might be more sympathetic because they're the ones being blown up, but then discards this by pointing out that the BBC is supposed to "ensure broadly comparable treatment of the Palestinian and the Israeli viewpoints" without acknowledging that maybe they do and one viewpoint is more sympathetic than the other. The least sympathetic group according to the report is Hamas, so according to it's logic they're the group the BBC is most biased against. Not a reasonable conclusion.
There's plenty of other indicators that this report started with a conclusion then tried to gather data to support it, but I've already spent more time on this comment than the report deserves.
Thanks for giving it a read though.
I think it's an interesting question of how we measure bias.
For me, as an Israeli (who hasn't lived there for decades), who has some first hand knowledge of the situation, much of the reporting appears to be extremely biased. I know there are claims from the other side the bias goes in the other direction. What's the ground truth? I think using AI to crunch the large amount of data is a decent first order approximation.
Ofcourse bias depends on ideology. For some people if a Palestinian guns down an Israeli in a Tel-Aviv bar simply reporting this fact is biased towards Israel. And I mean, from their position that is understandable. And indeed we can see some media outlets that would not report these events at all, which I would consider an anti-Israeli bias.
I think it's an interesting question of how we measure bias.
For me, as an Israeli (who hasn't lived there for decades), who has some first hand knowledge of the situation, much of the reporting appears to be extremely biased. I know there are claims from the other side the bias goes in the other direction. What's the ground truth? I think using AI to crunch the large amount of data is a decent first order approximation.
Ofcourse bias depends on ideology. For some people if a Palestinian guns down an Israeli in a Tel-Aviv bar simply reporting this fact is biased towards Israel. And I mean, from their position that is understandable. And indeed we can see some media outlets that would not report these events at all, which I would consider an anti-Israeli bias.
I agree that it's an interesting question, that's why I spent so much of my free time reading it.
I'd also agree that using AI for sentiment analysis could be a good approach, I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe this is one of the things AI is best at. But it needs an extra step to translate that into bias. Establishing a sympathy baseline is my initial idea, but I haven't tested it and maybe there's something better.
Whether something is biased is less about how any given individual(s) feel about what's been said and more about if the different viewpoints are presented honestly. Though it can get really difficult to identify except in the most extreme cases. As you say, it's not just what's said where the bias occurs, but also in the choice of what not to say.
I'd also agree that using AI for sentiment analysis could be a good approach, I'm not an expert in the area, but I believe this is one of the things AI is best at. But it needs an extra step to translate that into bias. Establishing a sympathy baseline is my initial idea, but I haven't tested it and maybe there's something better.
Whether something is biased is less about how any given individual(s) feel about what's been said and more about if the different viewpoints are presented honestly. Though it can get really difficult to identify except in the most extreme cases. As you say, it's not just what's said where the bias occurs, but also in the choice of what not to say.
More importantly, these newsrooms are run by people who get their money from the same places.
How much are they going to tolerate narratives that go against their financial interests?
How much are they going to tolerate narratives that go against their financial interests?
Just endless conspiracies. Which newsroom leaders get their money from what places? Why do leaders in government and business hate journalists so much and invest so much in discrediting them?
The Washington Post being owned by Amazon for one
I believe he was referring to the constant barrage of anti-media rhetoric by Republicans.
You can't trust the main stream media, the legacy media is lying, etc
Why would they do this it the media is controlled by them?
You can't trust the main stream media, the legacy media is lying, etc
Why would they do this it the media is controlled by them?
Because their constituents are really so dumb they don't believe Fox News is mainstream media?
Republican voters can see many if not all of the same economic ills in society that Democrat voters do. In some cases they can even agree on the cause. I'm not going to stand next to how right-wing media (and its eager audience) may characterize "main stream media". But I do think the window of representation across how americans see and characterize ourselves through newsrooms in general has narrowed too far (in its seemingly-permanently partisan polarization) to sustain a rational democracy. Social media and the internet have provided the means to see this clearer than ever, in both great and terrible ways. A lot of contradictions in society about values we have and language we use as a people will have to resolve now.
All I can say is I hope we see a real economic policy response from democrats in congress, and fast. They seem to be fishing around for ideas in all the wrong pockets (foreign interests, domestic private interests, namely not the daily interests of the majority of their constituents).... but even rhetorically, it would be a start.
All I can say is I hope we see a real economic policy response from democrats in congress, and fast. They seem to be fishing around for ideas in all the wrong pockets (foreign interests, domestic private interests, namely not the daily interests of the majority of their constituents).... but even rhetorically, it would be a start.
The Democrats have almost no control in congress. In the senate they can block bills.
Is this AI?
Is this AI?
Dis you miss the concluding phrase of the comment?
https://www.emarketer.com/content/pharma-companies-increase-...
https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/pharma-passes-tech-cl...
Newsrooms, online or otherwise get a lot of money from Big Pharma
Pharma has overtaken tech to become the second-largest industry for ad spending in 2023.
I'm not sure what your point is. Journalism needs funding, they must get it somewhere. Many journalism outlets have turned to subscriptions and donations, but whoever provides funding can be accused of influencing them. If they are funded by subscriptions, can they publish something their readers dislike?
The GGP comment said that journalists conspired with the country's leaders, not business.
The GGP comment said that journalists conspired with the country's leaders, not business.
> The editorial boards of these newsrooms are often staffed with people who attended the same schools and classes as those running the country. The social circles of the two worlds are extremely closely linked.
This is a conspiracy theory - they are secretly conspiring. Do you have evidence of this conspiracy actually happening on any scale?
Many attended the same universities on all sides of politics and issues. The universities are big places that have been operating for generations. Ask someone who went to a university - do they know and agree with everyone else who went there? It's absurd.
> most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites.
You need to do more than throw around stereotypes. Give us some evidence.
> I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.
Who asked permission?
This is a conspiracy theory - they are secretly conspiring. Do you have evidence of this conspiracy actually happening on any scale?
Many attended the same universities on all sides of politics and issues. The universities are big places that have been operating for generations. Ask someone who went to a university - do they know and agree with everyone else who went there? It's absurd.
> most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites.
You need to do more than throw around stereotypes. Give us some evidence.
> I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.
Who asked permission?
>This is a conspiracy theory
Doesn't meet the criteria of what people typically call a conspiracy theory. It's easily verified or debunked by amateurs with publicly available information, it doesn't seem absurd on its face, and it makes no claims other than those of association (certainly none of blatant felony, coup, or world domination).
Doesn't meet the criteria of what people typically call a conspiracy theory. It's easily verified or debunked by amateurs with publicly available information, it doesn't seem absurd on its face, and it makes no claims other than those of association (certainly none of blatant felony, coup, or world domination).
> no claims other than those of association
Yeah but that’s how modern conspiracy theories work. They have evolved beyond the old staples like flat earth and moon landing stuff which make clear statements. They instead just insinuate. And that’s enough to achieve the intended effect: to move your predispositions, while remaining immune to debunking because they haven’t made any specific claim.
Yeah but that’s how modern conspiracy theories work. They have evolved beyond the old staples like flat earth and moon landing stuff which make clear statements. They instead just insinuate. And that’s enough to achieve the intended effect: to move your predispositions, while remaining immune to debunking because they haven’t made any specific claim.
>Yeah but that’s how modern conspiracy theories work. T
That is indeed how modern conspiracy theories work. They make outlandish claims that aren't supported by scientific fact, that some shadowy group controls the world through improbable means, and offer no evidence.
"Hey, these two groups are awfully cozy together" just isn't even close to being anything like a conspiracy theory. You've stretched your fallacious counter-argument too far.
That is indeed how modern conspiracy theories work. They make outlandish claims that aren't supported by scientific fact, that some shadowy group controls the world through improbable means, and offer no evidence.
"Hey, these two groups are awfully cozy together" just isn't even close to being anything like a conspiracy theory. You've stretched your fallacious counter-argument too far.
> Doesn't meet the criteria of what people typically call a conspiracy theory.
You mean that you find it credible. But we need evidence; human intuition of truth has led to 9.x thousand years of pre-science.
> It's easily verified or debunked by amateurs with publicly available information
If there was a specific factual claim - about who and what associations - it would take a mountain of research to explore it across the very many people involved. But there's not a specific claim - like most conspiracy theories.
And the implications, the only things that matter here, are unspoken conspiracy theories - again unspecified.
> it doesn't seem absurd on its face, and it makes no claims other than those of association (certainly none of blatant felony, coup, or world domination).
You know what claims it implies; otherwise it would be meaningless.
You mean that you find it credible. But we need evidence; human intuition of truth has led to 9.x thousand years of pre-science.
> It's easily verified or debunked by amateurs with publicly available information
If there was a specific factual claim - about who and what associations - it would take a mountain of research to explore it across the very many people involved. But there's not a specific claim - like most conspiracy theories.
And the implications, the only things that matter here, are unspoken conspiracy theories - again unspecified.
> it doesn't seem absurd on its face, and it makes no claims other than those of association (certainly none of blatant felony, coup, or world domination).
You know what claims it implies; otherwise it would be meaningless.
Which politcal perspective is being ignored by the media?
rayiner(1)
Is Meta really considered “mainstream media”? I always took that phrase to refer to NBC, CBS, NY Post, etc - the big legacy news organizations (print and TV).
How does "mainstream" America increasingly get its news?
I read “mainstream” as one of those words like “modern,” to apply the media that was prevalent when the phrase was coined. Technically modern architecture, if we read the words literally and individually… well, I guess that would be tent-cities, that seems to mostly be what gets built nowadays.
Facebook, the tent-city of media, actually it would kinda work if only the platform wasn’t centrally controlled.
Facebook, the tent-city of media, actually it would kinda work if only the platform wasn’t centrally controlled.
The big legacy news organisations would be legacy media.
Social media is not even 20 years old but it’s a tall order to deny it mainstream status since the younger generations get their news from scrolling TikTok and not cracking open the daily broadsheet.
Legacy media has been sourcing from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit for years. They’re as mainstream as AP and Reuters but without the reputation or the credentials.
Social media is not even 20 years old but it’s a tall order to deny it mainstream status since the younger generations get their news from scrolling TikTok and not cracking open the daily broadsheet.
Legacy media has been sourcing from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit for years. They’re as mainstream as AP and Reuters but without the reputation or the credentials.
It's mainstream, it's media, people read their news on it, so yes. But I'd rather trust NPR, BBC, the Guardian or some other legacy news outlet, because these unscrupulous tech bros will skew the narrarive by silencing some sources while brainwashing people with whatever suits them best.
Anna Politkovskaya – Investigative journalist and critic of the Chechen war, shot in Moscow (2006).
Alexander Litvinenko – Ex-FSB officer poisoned with polonium in London (2006).
Stanislav Markelov & Anastasia Baburova – Human rights lawyer and journalist, shot in Moscow (2009).
Boris Nemtsov – Opposition leader, shot near the Kremlin (2015).
Denis Voronenkov – Former Russian MP, shot in Kyiv (2017).
Nikolai Andrushchenko – Journalist, beaten to death in St. Petersburg (2017).
Alexei Navalny – Opposition leader, died in prison after previous poisoning (2024).
---
The difference is that they murder their political opponents for show to make their people be afraid of dissent.
You comparing it with some (disgusting, vile) social media company (which would improve the world immensely if it disappeared) is completely inappropriate.
Stanislav Markelov & Anastasia Baburova – Human rights lawyer and journalist, shot in Moscow (2009).
Boris Nemtsov – Opposition leader, shot near the Kremlin (2015).
Denis Voronenkov – Former Russian MP, shot in Kyiv (2017).
Nikolai Andrushchenko – Journalist, beaten to death in St. Petersburg (2017).
Alexei Navalny – Opposition leader, died in prison after previous poisoning (2024).
---
The difference is that they murder their political opponents for show to make their people be afraid of dissent.
You comparing it with some (disgusting, vile) social media company (which would improve the world immensely if it disappeared) is completely inappropriate.
If you gonna mix in politicians and opposition the USA has a extensive list themselves.
Fred Hampton would have something to say if, you know, he were still alive.
I mean, you don’t have to go far to find Soviet-style political repression in the USA.
Julian Assange says hi.
Julian Assange says hi.
"We're not as bad as them" is a poor argument. Particularly while America quickly slides in that direction. Just take a look at the deportation of Venezuelans especially the case of the wrongly deported man that the government conveniently "can't find". That's a story comparable to the stories Americans tell about Russia and China.
I think OP is more using this incident along with many others. Things similar to in February when the President signed executive orders that imposed sanctions on American law firms and lawyers which included suspension of security clearances, termination of government contracts, and restrictions preventing firm employees from accessing federal buildings. (https://www.justsecurity.org/110109/president-cannot-issue-a...)
I have no idea how to talk equality to speak of whether they are comparable or not, but I do think people are seeing a different atmosphere.
I have no idea how to talk equality to speak of whether they are comparable or not, but I do think people are seeing a different atmosphere.
Sure, combined with others it makes sense. Just Facebook isn't enough to draw equivalence though.
Is this an example of whataboutism?
Trump is barely, like, 90? days into his presidency and his gestapo is already kidnapping people and shipping them to torture camps contrary to the court orders.
Putler is an established dicktator with a long list of killing his own citizens with impunity.
Give trump a couple of years. He can't do it overnight, he needs to cook the Americans slowly. Hitler didn't turn the Germans into Nazis overnight either.
Putler is an established dicktator with a long list of killing his own citizens with impunity.
Give trump a couple of years. He can't do it overnight, he needs to cook the Americans slowly. Hitler didn't turn the Germans into Nazis overnight either.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't think this is necessarily an issue of censorship so much as it is highlighting that Facebook is clearly a fucking news publisher and should be treated as such under the law.
It's time to revoke section 230 for any social media network that amplifies or buries content with a non-transparent process.
In this case it isn't even merely an algorithm designed by humans. They have LITERAL human editors choosing which stories to put on the front page, just like the NYT, and they should be held liable for the content on their platforms just like legacy media is.
It's time to revoke section 230 for any social media network that amplifies or buries content with a non-transparent process.
In this case it isn't even merely an algorithm designed by humans. They have LITERAL human editors choosing which stories to put on the front page, just like the NYT, and they should be held liable for the content on their platforms just like legacy media is.
Are you saying you think human editors handpick what goes on billions of people’s Facebook feeds?
Wait but if you perform an extremely complex method of algorithmic curation, at some point isn’t the human designing the algorithm becoming an editor?
Russia doesn’t just put people in jail for speaking against the government. They weaponise the generational fear of being disappeared by the government. This is not close to what happens in America where you can post anything anywhere and if Facebook deletes it you can always make your own website about it. If you did this in Russia you go to jail. Even if you say things like “it is sad Ukrainian children die in children’s day in Russia” you go to jail. I don’t think you can compare modern USA with modern Russia in this way. USA does plenty of other things that are bad like jailing so many people for petty crimes without pushing much on speech. USA has its own problems and all these comparisons only hide them.
They are now denying visas, and deporting lawful residents, sending them to offshore torture prisons, for social media posts.
For non citizens, regardless of length of time or legality, this is the case right now. For birthright citizens and full citizens it will be the case very soon
For non citizens, regardless of length of time or legality, this is the case right now. For birthright citizens and full citizens it will be the case very soon
> birthright citizens and full citizens
Is there a difference?
Is there a difference?
No, I think they meant "naturalized and birthright citizens".
They are intending to unconstitutionally remove birthright. I expect they will start having trouble slightly before third generation+ immigrants.
But… they can't remove citizenship retroactively. What I mean is today there are citizens and non-citizens, but there are no classes of citizens. Either you have citizenship or you do not, it doesn't matter how you acquired it.
[deleted]
That's their plan though :c
So far a judge has blocked it when he tried the first time
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5270572/birthright-citi...
So far a judge has blocked it when he tried the first time
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5270572/birthright-citi...
I read this article (and others) and I am still unclear. I thought this whole idiotic crusade applied only to newly born children. It never even crossed my mind that you could revoke citizenship from your citizens. I mean, the principle of non-retroactivity dates back to the Roman Empire.
Here are recent attempts to create a stratified class system among citizens based on how they became citizens: https://www.mediamatters.org/immigration/right-wing-media-ca...
I think it's disgusting hypocrisy. We're talking about the USA, aren't we? A country that has started many, many wars, a country that massacred innocent Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis. Even at this very moment, the US is participating in the killing of honest, decent, innocent Palestinians and Russians. But that's okay, not worth mentioning.
But deporting lawful residents? How dare you, America? This is definitely the beginning of the end.
But deporting lawful residents? How dare you, America? This is definitely the beginning of the end.
I hate all that too,
the people they're deporting are the ones protesting to stop an ongoing US genocide, it's all connected.
Well yeah we’re bad and getting much worse
They are sending people to a concentration camp without any due process.
>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.
Although not even close in number and punishment the US government is deporting people for speaking against Israel.
I think we do have a much better system because we are aware of these cases, you can speak out about the issue, and our court system can rule against the current admin.
What makes this possible to either the level of Russia or the US is how much the supporters of the regime want it. This is regardless of morality, legality, or the precedent it sets.
Although not even close in number and punishment the US government is deporting people for speaking against Israel.
I think we do have a much better system because we are aware of these cases, you can speak out about the issue, and our court system can rule against the current admin.
What makes this possible to either the level of Russia or the US is how much the supporters of the regime want it. This is regardless of morality, legality, or the precedent it sets.
You only feel safe to speak out against the violations of law if you feel safe from them.
> and our court system can rule against the current admin.
That is more and more often not happening recently, because courts are not involved. If they are and explicitly request planes to be turned around and people brought back - they're ignored without repercussions.
That is more and more often not happening recently, because courts are not involved. If they are and explicitly request planes to be turned around and people brought back - they're ignored without repercussions.
> without repercussions
This part is not settled yet.
This part is not settled yet.
How so? The plane didn't turn around, Trump still has numerous supporters so the public doesn't care, and none of his admin has been punished.
Last time I saw, the entire Supreme Court was requesting that the Executive return people, what means punishment may be a couple of weeks away. It may not happen, but it's not a given right now.
They requesting the government return oe person and they still haven't brought him back. It's not related to the plane that was supposed to turn around
who would execute the punishment for disobeying the supreme court?
> Last time I saw, the entire Supreme Court was requesting that the Executive return people
As I understand it, they requested that USGOV "facilitate" the return which is much weaker than the "effectuate" in the original court order; ie giving USGOV wiggle room rather than compelling them to undo the harm.
As I understand it, they requested that USGOV "facilitate" the return which is much weaker than the "effectuate" in the original court order; ie giving USGOV wiggle room rather than compelling them to undo the harm.
Looks like it is a "No" from them and a "All good" from us.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-meet-with-el-salvador...
If you are talking about Khalil, he didn't just speak against Israel, it seems like his role in an org which openly supported Hamas may have played a part but didn't matter legally. The legal issue was that he left out facts on his green card application.
I am 100% sure that support of terrorist orgs can invalidate your green card.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-claims-palest...
> According to recent court filings, President Donald Trump's administration said Khalil failed to disclose when applying for his green card last year that his employment by the Syria Office at the British Embassy in Beirut went "beyond 2022" and that he was a "political affairs officer" for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from June to November 2023.
> "Regardless of his allegations concerning political speech, Khalil withheld membership in certain organizations and failed to disclose continuing employment by the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he submitted his adjustment of status application. It is black-letter law that misrepresentations in this context are not protected speech," the government said in the filing.
Most of these things are not black/white. We should wait for all the facts to come out.
I am 100% sure that support of terrorist orgs can invalidate your green card.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-claims-palest...
> According to recent court filings, President Donald Trump's administration said Khalil failed to disclose when applying for his green card last year that his employment by the Syria Office at the British Embassy in Beirut went "beyond 2022" and that he was a "political affairs officer" for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from June to November 2023.
> "Regardless of his allegations concerning political speech, Khalil withheld membership in certain organizations and failed to disclose continuing employment by the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he submitted his adjustment of status application. It is black-letter law that misrepresentations in this context are not protected speech," the government said in the filing.
Most of these things are not black/white. We should wait for all the facts to come out.
tehjoker(3)
> We should wait for all the facts to come out.
Like indefinitely? Trump’s administration is ignoring the courts and there is no real oversight. Also whatever facts come out they will be drowned by all the other insane idiocy that the US government is doing so nobody will pay attention anyway..
When they start sending US citizens to El Salvador nobody is going to care about some guy whose green card got revoked.
Like indefinitely? Trump’s administration is ignoring the courts and there is no real oversight. Also whatever facts come out they will be drowned by all the other insane idiocy that the US government is doing so nobody will pay attention anyway..
When they start sending US citizens to El Salvador nobody is going to care about some guy whose green card got revoked.
>We should wait for all the facts to come out.
Oh? Before they deport him? If the courts didn't intervene, initiated from his side, he would be gone
Oh? Before they deport him? If the courts didn't intervene, initiated from his side, he would be gone
This is part of the trick that israel is trying to pull. Suppose you support Palestine liberation from Israel's violent occupation and apartheid, as does most of the world. Well, so does Hamas, so therefore you support Hamas' goals and are evil and a terrorist.
To apply this in another context, I agree with Trump on very little, but I do agree that Daylight Savings should be gotten rid of. So am I pro-Trump? No, that's absurd.
Or if you are right wing in the US and believe that the US is the land of the free and home of the brave, well, so does Hilary Clinton. Are you pro-Clinton?
The connection is absurd, but it parrotted daily by US politicians and US media.
To apply this in another context, I agree with Trump on very little, but I do agree that Daylight Savings should be gotten rid of. So am I pro-Trump? No, that's absurd.
Or if you are right wing in the US and believe that the US is the land of the free and home of the brave, well, so does Hilary Clinton. Are you pro-Clinton?
The connection is absurd, but it parrotted daily by US politicians and US media.
Exactly, it's the "they're the same anyway", "both sides" equivalency that allows the buildup of antidemocratic de-politicization and apathy. This is one of the goals of the _there_is_no_truth_ radicalization that is fundamental to Russian political control
This exactly right here ^
But discussions on the internet seems to be with lots of people who have only a shallow understanding of the balances involved and low historical context
But discussions on the internet seems to be with lots of people who have only a shallow understanding of the balances involved and low historical context
Historical context has limited value. It doesn't matter what a political party did more than 10 years ago.
Shallow understanding is a valid issue but that's what discussions are for
Shallow understanding is a valid issue but that's what discussions are for
It matters if the political party's tactics for taking over a democracy are being copied.
Ehh, I’ve got not particular stake in this conflict so it’s really interesting to see how each side is using propaganda and how obvious the propaganda is when you’re not emotionally invested.
Each side is using different tactics to fit the strength of their positions and how well various messages resonate. “They are the same anyway” is useful for a side who wants people to be inactive, it’s not some universal benefit to both parties. Instead each side wants different people to be engaged vs apathetic, which hardly unusual.
Each side is using different tactics to fit the strength of their positions and how well various messages resonate. “They are the same anyway” is useful for a side who wants people to be inactive, it’s not some universal benefit to both parties. Instead each side wants different people to be engaged vs apathetic, which hardly unusual.
Both sides want their side engaged and the other apathetic. On a national level this means FSB employing hundreds if not thousands of people to troll political discourse in social media in the west to maximize the amount of ‘I don’t care anymore’ people. A very asymmetric setup exposing the underbelly of free speech cultures.
>A very asymmetric setup exposing the underbelly of free speech cultures
As opposed to non-free-speech cultures like Russia and China where people have absolutely no say in whatever their leaders do? Because that's inevitably what happens when you give people in power the power to restrict speech: they restrict any speech critical of them. We're even seeing this in developed democracies like Germany where a journalist was recently fined for posting a meme online of a politician holding a sign saying "I hate free speech".
As opposed to non-free-speech cultures like Russia and China where people have absolutely no say in whatever their leaders do? Because that's inevitably what happens when you give people in power the power to restrict speech: they restrict any speech critical of them. We're even seeing this in developed democracies like Germany where a journalist was recently fined for posting a meme online of a politician holding a sign saying "I hate free speech".
Whataboutism does not change anything about it being a weak spot. I’m only saying the free speech west can’t use the same tactic against these kind of adversaries because they’re insulated against them.
Free speech including paid speech isn’t really a knock on free speech.
Someone can be persuaded by an argument they heard once, but can’t per persuaded by an argument they never hear. Thus blocking speech by preventing any kind of speech including paid speech is problematic.
Someone can be persuaded by an argument they heard once, but can’t per persuaded by an argument they never hear. Thus blocking speech by preventing any kind of speech including paid speech is problematic.
I’m saying ‘free speech is an obvious weakness’, not ‘we should disallow free speech’. Very different things.
Having outside actors in the conversation is a strength.
The contention is that they in particular aren't good faith actors unlike other outside actors, iiuc.
Bad faith actors are also beneficial.
Kids who grow up watching commercials start distrusting them. Free speech is not about any one issue but all topics. In many ways curating so people see the kinds of things they agree with is vastly more harmful than propaganda.
Kids who grow up watching commercials start distrusting them. Free speech is not about any one issue but all topics. In many ways curating so people see the kinds of things they agree with is vastly more harmful than propaganda.
They are noise generators with a goal of raising the noise floor above the pain threshold, in essence they’re using free speech to shut down free speech itself.
I’d say the same about social media. However IMO the value of free speech isn’t in having a clear message to directly improve things, the value is being able to steal ideas from anyone. “Obamacare” was originally a Republican idea, but once an idea is out there anyone can take it.
Ideas don’t need to win on day one, if it takes 30 years that’s still plenty useful.
Ideas don’t need to win on day one, if it takes 30 years that’s still plenty useful.
It's important to be precise because everything is not the same. In the German case the ruling was not because someone posted a critical meme, but because it was not entirely obvious the picture was edited (as in: you and I can immediately see the photo was edited, but some people will not recognize the edit). I do not agree with the ruling, but as a citizen I am happy that in Germany we still care if claims are true or not (and try to prevent people from lying).
Isn't that just relying on the stupidity of someone who may not exist?
Like every single year people make the same dumb joke "Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday" leading to prosecution for misinformation when they cannot prove anyone actually tried voting on the wrong day because of the meme
Once you start talking millions of people someone will make that or any other mistake.
The US has a higher threshold, but it’s clear those standards mean many people are duped by “obvious” lies. It’s kind of an arbitrary line, but ignoring the dumb feels like a mistake to me when dumb people are active in society, still vote, etc.
The US has a higher threshold, but it’s clear those standards mean many people are duped by “obvious” lies. It’s kind of an arbitrary line, but ignoring the dumb feels like a mistake to me when dumb people are active in society, still vote, etc.
Misinformation isnt
Does this happiness that some people care whether claims are true or not overrule the arrest and deportation of peaceful protestors, and people in general based on social media posts, or do you also feel happy about that?
[deleted]
So. Maybe my experience but why are these bots and trolls always pushing messages that help the Republicans.
Are both sides doing all these things in equal amounts?
No, they don’t have the same strengths but the net effect is similar.
How can the net effect be similar if the actions aren't?
Their goals are similar. There’s lots of different ways of achieving similar ends. I’ve seen a lot more paid commercials from Israel side, but a lot more posts using Palestine’s side talking points.
Same way you can build a wood or brick home, historically which people chose had a lot to do with local materials.
Same way you can build a wood or brick home, historically which people chose had a lot to do with local materials.
>Their goals are similar.
This isn't then your previous comment that the results are similar.
Goals aren't nearly as important as results.
Also, to dive deeper, what goals and how many are similar, and how similar?
If you mean they are both supporting Israel, then yes, but the Democrats exert more control over their actions. For example Biden was limiting the bomb size that Israel could purchase and Trump removed that.
So if you want to help the Palestinians one side is the better than the other. It doesn't matter if the goals are similar or even the results. There's still a difference and as you can see voter apathy only helped Republicans
This isn't then your previous comment that the results are similar.
Goals aren't nearly as important as results.
Also, to dive deeper, what goals and how many are similar, and how similar?
If you mean they are both supporting Israel, then yes, but the Democrats exert more control over their actions. For example Biden was limiting the bomb size that Israel could purchase and Trump removed that.
So if you want to help the Palestinians one side is the better than the other. It doesn't matter if the goals are similar or even the results. There's still a difference and as you can see voter apathy only helped Republicans
> If you mean they are both supporting Israel
I have been talking about the propaganda from each sides of the current conflict in Palestine. I thought this make that clear “in this conflict so it’s really interesting to see how each side is using propaganda” but I may have misunderstood what you meant by supporting Israel.
> This isn't then your previous comment that the results are similar.
To be clear I’m noticing similar goals combined with something (diminishing returns?) yield similar results. Hell, it could also be a form follows function kind of thing, I’m noticing the results not doing a research paper.
> what goals
When I say they have similar goals I mean they are both trying to sway public option to support their agenda.
There’s a bunch of different kinds of kind of propaganda. If one side was doing a call to action for their supporters like “Buy war bonds!” then I presume the results wouldn’t seem so similar.
I have been talking about the propaganda from each sides of the current conflict in Palestine. I thought this make that clear “in this conflict so it’s really interesting to see how each side is using propaganda” but I may have misunderstood what you meant by supporting Israel.
> This isn't then your previous comment that the results are similar.
To be clear I’m noticing similar goals combined with something (diminishing returns?) yield similar results. Hell, it could also be a form follows function kind of thing, I’m noticing the results not doing a research paper.
> what goals
When I say they have similar goals I mean they are both trying to sway public option to support their agenda.
There’s a bunch of different kinds of kind of propaganda. If one side was doing a call to action for their supporters like “Buy war bonds!” then I presume the results wouldn’t seem so similar.
>When I say they have similar goals I mean they are both trying to sway public option to support their agenda.
Ok, but that's every politician (and many people as well). What their specific goal is matters. If one political party supports Israel 40% [4] and the other 80% then there's a difference. It's possible to support Israel and the Palestinians at the same time as well so it's not a clear "this or that"
>yield similar results.
If you are saying something like "Israel is still attacking Palestinians no matter who is elected" yes but to the same extent? What about aid to Palestine?
In 2018 Trump cut $200m worth of aid to them [1] then in 2021 Biden restored it [2]. I can understand if the issue is that neither party are going as far as you might want but that doesn't really make them same and not voting [3] doesn't make sense if you care because it can only make things worse for the Palestinians
Your argument reads like a general frustration with politics, which I get, but it still exists and will always exist. Not participating is the worse option imo.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-cuts-more-than-2...
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210407-us-restores...
[3] Not accusing you here
[4] Just a made a fake scale of support from 0 to 100 for the example
Ok, but that's every politician (and many people as well). What their specific goal is matters. If one political party supports Israel 40% [4] and the other 80% then there's a difference. It's possible to support Israel and the Palestinians at the same time as well so it's not a clear "this or that"
>yield similar results.
If you are saying something like "Israel is still attacking Palestinians no matter who is elected" yes but to the same extent? What about aid to Palestine?
In 2018 Trump cut $200m worth of aid to them [1] then in 2021 Biden restored it [2]. I can understand if the issue is that neither party are going as far as you might want but that doesn't really make them same and not voting [3] doesn't make sense if you care because it can only make things worse for the Palestinians
Your argument reads like a general frustration with politics, which I get, but it still exists and will always exist. Not participating is the worse option imo.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-cuts-more-than-2...
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210407-us-restores...
[3] Not accusing you here
[4] Just a made a fake scale of support from 0 to 100 for the example
> In 2018 Trump cut $200m worth of aid to them [1] then in 2021 Biden restored it [2].
I am not referring to US politicians here. This has nothing to do with republicans and democrats. I am referring to what propaganda from Israel and Palestine directly + groups paid and unpaid supporting their agenda.
> Ok, but that's every politician
Politicians don’t just talk about the same thing one may highlight poverty and another jobs etc.
Here each side (Israel, Palestine) is taking about the same topic (location, war), trying to gain sympathy by talking about bad things that happen to specific people recently, etc
> Your argument reads like a general frustration with politics
If I was equally uninterested in politics and everyone was always talking about the deficit I might feel the same way. But this really does seem unusually similar.
I am not referring to US politicians here. This has nothing to do with republicans and democrats. I am referring to what propaganda from Israel and Palestine directly + groups paid and unpaid supporting their agenda.
> Ok, but that's every politician
Politicians don’t just talk about the same thing one may highlight poverty and another jobs etc.
Here each side (Israel, Palestine) is taking about the same topic (location, war), trying to gain sympathy by talking about bad things that happen to specific people recently, etc
> Your argument reads like a general frustration with politics
If I was equally uninterested in politics and everyone was always talking about the deficit I might feel the same way. But this really does seem unusually similar.
[deleted]
> Although not even close in number and punishment the US government is deporting people for speaking against Israel.
You and I both know that isn't true and repeating that doesn't help anyone but further implant in people's minds that the other side is completely irrational and cannot be reasoned with.
No, the US government is deporting people for supporting terrorist organizations, something that's always been a disqualifying position in US immigration law. You'll get your visa denied, or even your entry denied for holding such positions, let alone maintaining an active student visa or permanent resident visa. That has always been the case and simply enforcing laws already on the books does not change that.
> What makes this possible to either the level of Russia or the US is how much the supporters of the regime want it. This is regardless of morality, legality, or the precedent it sets.
Equating Russia and the US is an extreme take.
You and I both know that isn't true and repeating that doesn't help anyone but further implant in people's minds that the other side is completely irrational and cannot be reasoned with.
No, the US government is deporting people for supporting terrorist organizations, something that's always been a disqualifying position in US immigration law. You'll get your visa denied, or even your entry denied for holding such positions, let alone maintaining an active student visa or permanent resident visa. That has always been the case and simply enforcing laws already on the books does not change that.
> What makes this possible to either the level of Russia or the US is how much the supporters of the regime want it. This is regardless of morality, legality, or the precedent it sets.
Equating Russia and the US is an extreme take.
kamlaserbeam(2)
> No, the US government is deporting people for supporting terrorist organizations,
Has it deported anyone voicing support for the Israeli Defense Forces or any of the other Jewish supremacist terrorist organizations currently terrorizing Palestinians? Regardless, your claim that Khalil would have offered material support or even voiced support for a terrorist organization is baseless. Not that it matters either because saying "I love Hamas" is free speech and covered under the First Amendment.
Has it deported anyone voicing support for the Israeli Defense Forces or any of the other Jewish supremacist terrorist organizations currently terrorizing Palestinians? Regardless, your claim that Khalil would have offered material support or even voiced support for a terrorist organization is baseless. Not that it matters either because saying "I love Hamas" is free speech and covered under the First Amendment.
Israeli Defense Forces is not a designated terrorist organization. If you can name any Jewish supremacy designated terrorist organizations then yeah anyone supporting those should be deported too.
> Equating Russia and the US is an extreme take.
Perhaps currently. How long do you think we should wait until we can start doing that? At the current pace probably a year or two?
I mean.. Putin wasn’t that bad in the early 2000s, nazis or fascists weren’t that awful in the 20s or 30s either (in relative terms compared to everyone else at the time) either. Waiting until its too late do change anything is maybe not the smartest thing, though..
Perhaps currently. How long do you think we should wait until we can start doing that? At the current pace probably a year or two?
I mean.. Putin wasn’t that bad in the early 2000s, nazis or fascists weren’t that awful in the 20s or 30s either (in relative terms compared to everyone else at the time) either. Waiting until its too late do change anything is maybe not the smartest thing, though..
> Perhaps currently. How long do you think we should wait until we can start doing that? At the current pace probably a year or two?
I think you should stop letting the propaganda get to you and take a step back and look at things from a rational perspective. I'd bet over 50% of the things that you think happened in this administration did not in fact happen.
I think you should stop letting the propaganda get to you and take a step back and look at things from a rational perspective. I'd bet over 50% of the things that you think happened in this administration did not in fact happen.
> I'd bet over 50% of the things that you think happened
How and why would that change anything in any way? From a rational perspective 5% of those things are way too much already. Much less even...
In a rational and sane world Trump would have been impeached and possibly imprisoned just over his government funded golf trips that he is using to funnel millions of tax payer money to his own businesses. Just running a car dealership on the white house lawn should have resulted in impeachment. Yet these are the tiniest most insignificant things compared to everything else he is doing.
In our unfortunate reality paying him several hundred millions to just do nothing but play golf for 4 years would seem like an exceptionally good deal..
I mean your argument is basically “well he’s extremely horrible but at least he doesn’t eat babies, so shut up..”
How and why would that change anything in any way? From a rational perspective 5% of those things are way too much already. Much less even...
In a rational and sane world Trump would have been impeached and possibly imprisoned just over his government funded golf trips that he is using to funnel millions of tax payer money to his own businesses. Just running a car dealership on the white house lawn should have resulted in impeachment. Yet these are the tiniest most insignificant things compared to everything else he is doing.
In our unfortunate reality paying him several hundred millions to just do nothing but play golf for 4 years would seem like an exceptionally good deal..
I mean your argument is basically “well he’s extremely horrible but at least he doesn’t eat babies, so shut up..”
Öztürk had her visa secretly revoked because she coauthored an oped suggesting her college divest from Israel. She did not write an op-ed supporting a terrorist group.
The united states has the world’s largest incarcerated population. It currently dwarfs the number incarcerated by the Soviet Union during the 1930s. The USA has the fifth highest incarceration rate on the planet. In the Southeast United States, the incarceration rate of the Black population is 7% (as a point of comparison 2x the incarceration rate of minoritized Uyghur population of China per the World Uyghur Congress figures)
> It currently dwarfs the number incarcerated by the Soviet Union during the 1930s.
Not really. Estimates for the number of people in labor camps, labor colonies and prisons are all over the place, but based on their own fragmented records reached about 2 million by the end of 1938. That doesn't count pretrial/administrative detentions or the hundreds of thousands that were simply executed that year or all the people exiled to inhospitable settlements. And of course, the mortality rate in their penal system was extremely high.
> In the Southeast United States, incarceration rate of the Black population is 7%
Nowhere in the US is there anywhere close to incarcerating 7% of the black population.
That said, the US incarceration rate is ridiculously high and we should be ashamed of it.
Not really. Estimates for the number of people in labor camps, labor colonies and prisons are all over the place, but based on their own fragmented records reached about 2 million by the end of 1938. That doesn't count pretrial/administrative detentions or the hundreds of thousands that were simply executed that year or all the people exiled to inhospitable settlements. And of course, the mortality rate in their penal system was extremely high.
> In the Southeast United States, incarceration rate of the Black population is 7%
Nowhere in the US is there anywhere close to incarcerating 7% of the black population.
That said, the US incarceration rate is ridiculously high and we should be ashamed of it.
> It currently dwarfs the number incarcerated by the Soviet Union during the 1930s
That was certainly false if you look at the late 40s (not by much, only 2x or so though..)
However if you actually think (since you post nonsensical “statistics” that’s unlikely) about it the mortality rates in soviet concentration camps were massive, especially in the 1930s or during the war which significantly decreased the incarceration rate.
Can’t have a huge prison population if you just murder or starve everyone to death..
That was certainly false if you look at the late 40s (not by much, only 2x or so though..)
However if you actually think (since you post nonsensical “statistics” that’s unlikely) about it the mortality rates in soviet concentration camps were massive, especially in the 1930s or during the war which significantly decreased the incarceration rate.
Can’t have a huge prison population if you just murder or starve everyone to death..
In the US the upper class rules by soft power that gives people the illusion of choice while actually they hold all the power.
I agree it’s better that we don’t yet see individuals directly punished at scale for dissent.
But if this is all we settle for we’re like dogs fighting for scraps.
I agree it’s better that we don’t yet see individuals directly punished at scale for dissent.
But if this is all we settle for we’re like dogs fighting for scraps.
> But if this is all we settle for we’re like dogs fighting for scraps.
Who is settling for this? It's just one battle when multiple battles occur at the same time and we don't stop fighting.
Are you saying too much is being focused on this issue? I think it's something that if we don't do that then it will only get worse.
Who is settling for this? It's just one battle when multiple battles occur at the same time and we don't stop fighting.
Are you saying too much is being focused on this issue? I think it's something that if we don't do that then it will only get worse.
I’d argue this is the biggest issue, because it’s ultimately about who controls the political process. Unless we can wrest that control from the hands of the wealthy, it’s hard to see how we can make lasting progress on other fronts. They run the show according to their own interests, even undermining the Constitution when it suits them.
The fact that they still hold all the power is proof that, consciously or not, enough people are still settling for scraps. You may not be, but many are, and that’s part of the problem.
The fact that they still hold all the power is proof that, consciously or not, enough people are still settling for scraps. You may not be, but many are, and that’s part of the problem.
This post is oddly nonsensical ...
> mainstream media, like facebook
Facebook is in the 'mainstream media'? That's a first in my experience. 'Mainstream media' usually describes established journalism organizations such as CNN, Fox, the NY Times, the WSJ. Facebook is universally grouped with 'social media' in my experience.
> Most of the people in the 'free world' goes on mainstream media
In fact, most people go on social media. The 'mainstream media' is losing audience rapidly.
> you end up with most media complying with the official story pushed by government and friends
I'm a bit confused here. Facebook complying with ... which government? The Israeli government has very little power over Facebook - Israel is a tiny market.
Meanwhile, Trump has been calling the 'mainstream media', the 'enemy of the people' - because they constantly report what he doesn't like.
Since the November election, many have shockingly capitulated but many remain. The NYT, for example, publishes negative news and criticisms of Trump and Israel daily.
> The more i think about it, the less difference i see.
You haven't established much of anything. Much of the comment doesn't make sense. Where is the Russian NYT? Which American journalists are in jail?
> mainstream media, like facebook
Facebook is in the 'mainstream media'? That's a first in my experience. 'Mainstream media' usually describes established journalism organizations such as CNN, Fox, the NY Times, the WSJ. Facebook is universally grouped with 'social media' in my experience.
> Most of the people in the 'free world' goes on mainstream media
In fact, most people go on social media. The 'mainstream media' is losing audience rapidly.
> you end up with most media complying with the official story pushed by government and friends
I'm a bit confused here. Facebook complying with ... which government? The Israeli government has very little power over Facebook - Israel is a tiny market.
Meanwhile, Trump has been calling the 'mainstream media', the 'enemy of the people' - because they constantly report what he doesn't like.
Since the November election, many have shockingly capitulated but many remain. The NYT, for example, publishes negative news and criticisms of Trump and Israel daily.
> The more i think about it, the less difference i see.
You haven't established much of anything. Much of the comment doesn't make sense. Where is the Russian NYT? Which American journalists are in jail?
> 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.
This is more subtle. I have a lot to say about Israel, and I do post occasionally on Facebook, but I tone it down a lot because I have a few high profile people in the industry and academia among my Facebook friends (not actual friends). If I were to post what I really think, this would have serious career repercussions for me. People would brand me as an antisemite (they don't know that my grandfather is Jewish and he practically raised me).
Can you compare this to Russia? Well, I am Russian and I live in the West, so my choice of living here gives an answer to this question. I'd be in jail in Russia if they read my Facebook posts about the war in Ukraine. Yet, I'm now disillusioned about the Western liberalism, all thanks to Gaza war.
This is more subtle. I have a lot to say about Israel, and I do post occasionally on Facebook, but I tone it down a lot because I have a few high profile people in the industry and academia among my Facebook friends (not actual friends). If I were to post what I really think, this would have serious career repercussions for me. People would brand me as an antisemite (they don't know that my grandfather is Jewish and he practically raised me).
Can you compare this to Russia? Well, I am Russian and I live in the West, so my choice of living here gives an answer to this question. I'd be in jail in Russia if they read my Facebook posts about the war in Ukraine. Yet, I'm now disillusioned about the Western liberalism, all thanks to Gaza war.
The college deportations are the government, but I would guess that the Meta compliance has more to do with the fact that Cheryl Sandberg is a politically-connected turbo-Zionist.
I wish we were neutral on this issue. As an American, it is not my business. I am in no position to justly arbitrate between them. But our politicians are whores, our Zionists have deep pockets, and they're not afraid to empty them out for the cause, so it looks like America's taxpayers are all on Team Zionist, whether we like it or not.
I wish we were neutral on this issue. As an American, it is not my business. I am in no position to justly arbitrate between them. But our politicians are whores, our Zionists have deep pockets, and they're not afraid to empty them out for the cause, so it looks like America's taxpayers are all on Team Zionist, whether we like it or not.
Technically, they are the same. As in: people with power want to control the narrative.
This was so, is so and will always be so, everywhere.
But but but… details matter. A lot.
The west has traditions how and when to apply power, which is distinctly different from Russia.
I hand-pick two illustrations of Russia:
1. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/09/27/moscow-police-accu...
> Officers “beat up Kamardin very badly and stuck a dumbbell in his anus,” according to Novaya Gazeta Europe.
2. Bald man claim to power was accompanies with mysterious explosions of apartment buildings after which Chechens were declared enemies and war started.
Some interesting bits from wikipedia:
> Three Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police.[6] The next day, FSB director Nikolai Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar, and freed the FSB agents involved.[7]
And
> 13 September 1999: Russian Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov makes an announcement about the bombing of an apartment building in the city of Volgodonsk that only takes place three days later
> 16 September 1999: Bombing in Volgodonsk, 17 are killed, 69 injured
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombi...
This was so, is so and will always be so, everywhere.
But but but… details matter. A lot.
The west has traditions how and when to apply power, which is distinctly different from Russia.
I hand-pick two illustrations of Russia:
1. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/09/27/moscow-police-accu...
> Officers “beat up Kamardin very badly and stuck a dumbbell in his anus,” according to Novaya Gazeta Europe.
2. Bald man claim to power was accompanies with mysterious explosions of apartment buildings after which Chechens were declared enemies and war started.
Some interesting bits from wikipedia:
> Three Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police.[6] The next day, FSB director Nikolai Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar, and freed the FSB agents involved.[7]
And
> 13 September 1999: Russian Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov makes an announcement about the bombing of an apartment building in the city of Volgodonsk that only takes place three days later
> 16 September 1999: Bombing in Volgodonsk, 17 are killed, 69 injured
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombi...
>hand-picked
cherry-picked, actually
1. Almost exactly the same incident happened in the USA, NYPD sodomized Michael Mineo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Park_alleged_police...
None of the NYPD officers didn't have any sentence for this
2. That's an old conspiracy theory, even the Russian opposition (at least the reasonable part of it) doesn't support this theory. There are plenty of publications about it in Russian, and if you will do some effort you will find why
cherry-picked, actually
1. Almost exactly the same incident happened in the USA, NYPD sodomized Michael Mineo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Park_alleged_police...
None of the NYPD officers didn't have any sentence for this
2. That's an old conspiracy theory, even the Russian opposition (at least the reasonable part of it) doesn't support this theory. There are plenty of publications about it in Russian, and if you will do some effort you will find why
> Russian opposition
Do you mean the guy who died relatively recently in Russian prison? Or his colleague who was part of prisoner exchange
Do you mean the guy who died relatively recently in Russian prison? Or his colleague who was part of prisoner exchange
Most of Russian opposition does support this theory. Many people do, in general. It's hard to call it a conspiracy theory when they literally caught a couple of FSB guys loading bags of explosives into an apartment building. The official version is that this was a "security training", but c'mon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
> A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation),[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.
Evidently, different people assign different probability to security chief thinking “while real bombings are actually exploding each week and whole cities sleep outside to avoid death, let’s plant a fake bomb and see what happens”
> A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation),[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.
Evidently, different people assign different probability to security chief thinking “while real bombings are actually exploding each week and whole cities sleep outside to avoid death, let’s plant a fake bomb and see what happens”
FWIW there was a public opinion poll by Levada back in 2002 about this. 6% said FSB did it, 37% said that there's no clear evidence but they could have done it, and 38% said that it's definitely not the feds.
[deleted]
Corruption of power is an inherent property of power. It is expected that people in power will get corrupted. The methods of power grabs are also fairly universal.
The difference between a corrupt shithole and free world is not in what the government tries to do, but in how the governed respond.
The difference between a corrupt shithole and free world is not in what the government tries to do, but in how the governed respond.
It is not so bad in Russia. Not so many sites are blocked. You can easily read foreign news if you want to. Hacker news is not blocked for example :).
Well, there is a difference with Russia, actually. One of Palestinian professors, who studied freedom of speech, shaped it this way:
The difference is that people from Russia, Arab countries etc DO know that their media is lying - but also they know the Western media is lying, because they read all that nonsense the westerners write about their countries.
Good for you that you started to realize how corrupt the Western media is.
Good for you that you started to realize how corrupt the Western media is.
> The more i think about it, the less difference i see.
You might consider trying not to view the world entirely in black and white then.
This sort of sentiment is not particularly productive especially in times like this..
You might consider trying not to view the world entirely in black and white then.
This sort of sentiment is not particularly productive especially in times like this..
The difference is not in the ability to be heard.
The difference is in the consequences: jail or even death vs. merely not being heard.
Sadly, that situation is also contorted to legitimize the spread verifiably false information by certain current political cults, led by a Turnip, that claim it is another party controlling media because they believe that they have the secret access to the “truth” that is being “blocked” on all other sources of media, and point to other suppressed stories (even if completely unrelated or blocked due to being outright lies) as proof. Look at attempts to curtail the spread of completely false vaccine information that is now being used as proof of something nefarious (even while more nefarious activity is being perpetrated). Some people took notes from other Dictators’ control of media long ago and have been working toward it for many years via press-related misinformation to cause a loss of confidence. You would think the press would fight back harder against being de-legitimized, using stronger wording and calling lying what it is, but when your purse strings are being controlled by the same businesses that see opportunities to advantage themselves, it’s not surprising.
The US isn't just trying to save the Jews... it's trying to leverage them to crush the Muslims for Christian domination.
you might enjoy reading, "Manufacturing Consent"
Another often overlooked difference is that non US/UK citizens are typically bilingual, so by definition can access more news sources
There is no difference between US and Russia in terms of free speech. Russia doesn't have promote a narrative of free speech while banning it. US suppresses it, punishes it and effectively deports anyone who criticizes Israel.
Holy cows are holy everywhere, its just that different cows are holy everywhere.
Holy cows are holy everywhere, its just that different cows are holy everywhere.
So when the government pointed to the disproportionate support for Palestine on TikTok vs Instagram, it was actually because Instagram was suppressing it. It is ironic.
https://x.com/hawleymo/status/1717505662601609401
https://x.com/hawleymo/status/1717505662601609401
Another reason why TikTok has to come under US ownership. How else are we going to censor things when they are under China’s (lack of) control?
And conversely, another reason why Trump's tariffs on China are a bone-headed move. They are not going to sell TikTok while the tariffs last, and the popular demand for it makes banning it a non-starter.
Exactly. China demands Apple Maps be ran on Chinese servers by Chinese workers. I would expect current U.S. administration to be frustrated with these imbalances as surveillance state measures increase. These imbalances were less important when there was less interest in information and truth suppression.
At least for all the surveillance the Chinese do - the standard of life is improving overall. We don't even get that shit here in the US. Our life just gets worse by practically every measure as the years go on and we're taken advantage of on top of it.
What benchmark are you using for standard of life?
Number of citizens reeducated, I presume.
More organs harvested from political prisoners.
Ah yes, the US known for putting people in prisons where we use techniques the Nazis developed as part of our “enhanced interrogation”.
USA is totally way better than China here!
USA is totally way better than China here!
Comparing apples to oranges works surprisingly well if they are rotten enough?
50th vs 70th
https://index.goodcountry.org/
Both the US and China score surprisingly bad on everything listed here.
I do prefer the way janalsncm described quality of life.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43659542
Is there an index for those some place?
50th vs 70th
https://index.goodcountry.org/
Both the US and China score surprisingly bad on everything listed here.
I do prefer the way janalsncm described quality of life.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43659542
Is there an index for those some place?
At the very least, wages for the average citizen. It’s not perfect but at least there’s movement towards building something. What is the US building towards? Enriching billionaires?
“AI” avatars. Totally gonna make the world a better place.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43626707
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43626707
There’s probably not one single benchmark (and I won’t say that all of them are negative in the US) but we can just think generally about the things we’d like in a good life:
Life expectancy. Chronic disease rates. Suicide rates. Depression rates. Violent crime rates. Marriage rates. Home ownership rates. Education rates. Debt rates. Labor participation rates. Wealth inequity.
No one metric is a complete picture but together they tell a story. If America was a product and the above was on a dashboard, you would fire the CEO.
Life expectancy. Chronic disease rates. Suicide rates. Depression rates. Violent crime rates. Marriage rates. Home ownership rates. Education rates. Debt rates. Labor participation rates. Wealth inequity.
No one metric is a complete picture but together they tell a story. If America was a product and the above was on a dashboard, you would fire the CEO.
Anyone who has visited China 25 years ago, and visited today, wouldn't argue that quality of life has not improved as a whole.
As for America, it is very debatable.
FWIW, the dashboard idea...was on the 2020 Presidential Candidate. Andrew Yang's platform.
As for America, it is very debatable.
FWIW, the dashboard idea...was on the 2020 Presidential Candidate. Andrew Yang's platform.
70% of these metrics are solved in China (or most places in Asia) through methods that most people in this thread would be vehemently against. You can put the mentally-ill back into sanatoriums, enforce quick and draconian response to petty crime, and pay an economic underclass a pittance to clean your streets if you wish.
Unfortunately for Americans, it's not the CEO at fault here actually, it's the middle class and left-leaning/progressive that are directly responsible for many of the problems here. The funny thing is that Republican Party being in complete power with Trump would be more similar to the CCP than the Democrats or Progressives. Suppressing dissenting voices like Pro-Palestine in order to force national homogenity is a big part of that.
And I say this as someone who supported Biden and Kamala, but these left-wingers or libertarians who are so vehemtly opposed to the US Gov but then simp for China are just being childishly incoherent.
Unfortunately for Americans, it's not the CEO at fault here actually, it's the middle class and left-leaning/progressive that are directly responsible for many of the problems here. The funny thing is that Republican Party being in complete power with Trump would be more similar to the CCP than the Democrats or Progressives. Suppressing dissenting voices like Pro-Palestine in order to force national homogenity is a big part of that.
And I say this as someone who supported Biden and Kamala, but these left-wingers or libertarians who are so vehemtly opposed to the US Gov but then simp for China are just being childishly incoherent.
> enforce quick and draconian response to petty crime
In the Bay Area the median response to petty crime is zero consequences for the criminal. This is because in practice criminals are not caught or punished.
If the cost of having laws enforced is that we need better surveillance (read: more security cameras) then guess what? We are already heavily surveilled.
In the Bay Area the median response to petty crime is zero consequences for the criminal. This is because in practice criminals are not caught or punished.
If the cost of having laws enforced is that we need better surveillance (read: more security cameras) then guess what? We are already heavily surveilled.
Does authoritarianism and over policing cause their QoL to rise while ours is debatable? Their middle class is rising, ours is nearly dead. Their years of salary to purchase a home is decreasing, ours is almost a full lifetime. We have more people per capita in prison than they do. We have rising obesity rates. Rising chronic illness rates. We are now surveiling our own populations social media to find reasons to kick them out just like they do.
So please let me know how locking up more people and paying an economic underclass to clean our streets will help us achieve all those goals? Crime, I get it, but how is what you claimed going to solve our health and financial issues?
So please let me know how locking up more people and paying an economic underclass to clean our streets will help us achieve all those goals? Crime, I get it, but how is what you claimed going to solve our health and financial issues?
Homeless population
Years of salary to purchase home. Life expectancy. Obesity rates. Overall life satisfaction surveys. Loneliness rates. Suicide rate.
I could go on.
I could go on.
Where do you think the servers that power TikTok in the United States are? Who do you think administers those servers?
I have no idea. I worked on the team at Apple that deployed Apple Maps across the globe and China was very different than other countries. South Korea had some interesting requirements as well. I've not worked on that team at TikTok and wouldn't expect the knowledge of the exact requirements to be shared publicly.
Yes. This was clearly the reason for the ban in the first place.
While this may be part of the story, it's certainly not the full picture. We know that the CCP is actively manipulating the algorithm on Tiktok to further their agenda on multiple other geopolitical issues—something we have ample evidence for. I don't know if there is a smoking gun on this one topic in particular, but the CCP's goal has always been to divide the American audience; and we know that older Americans skew pro-Israel whilst younger Americans are more oriented towards being pro-Palestinian. If someone looked in the right places, they would more likely than not find evidence of algorithm manipulation to favor a Palestinian bend.
> something we have ample evidence for
Can you share some of that evidence? My impression from the SCOTUS case is that the government only alleged it could happen, not that it was happening. So I’m a bit surprised to see someone so confidently assert it is happening.
> more likely than not find evidence of algorithm manipulation
I think a lot of people have been looking. For years. Yet you admit there is no smoking gun. Perhaps if we look in the right place we will find Russell’s teapot orbiting Jupiter as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Can you share some of that evidence? My impression from the SCOTUS case is that the government only alleged it could happen, not that it was happening. So I’m a bit surprised to see someone so confidently assert it is happening.
> more likely than not find evidence of algorithm manipulation
I think a lot of people have been looking. For years. Yet you admit there is no smoking gun. Perhaps if we look in the right place we will find Russell’s teapot orbiting Jupiter as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I'd like to see that evidence too, hopefully for more than one instance/source.
IMO, it's been obvious that the danger seen in TikTok is that it's a propaganda tool out of USA's control. If it was really a national security danger, USA could simply ban it instead of fighting so hard to own it.
IMO, it's been obvious that the danger seen in TikTok is that it's a propaganda tool out of USA's control. If it was really a national security danger, USA could simply ban it instead of fighting so hard to own it.
You don't have to look that hard—there have been several independent groups who have noted different ways in which the algorithm is skewed pro-CCP:
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-...
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/artic...
https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-Report_-...
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/artic...
The study you linked doesn’t have a control group, which is a fairly fundamental oversight. In other words, it can’t answer the question of whether all negative political content is down ranked or just Chinese political content.
So, we have proof of a strong algorithm manipulation by Israel on the entire family of main US social media (those used by the older segment of the population); and yet you still manage to point your finger to a hypothetical, unproved manipulation of the algorithm on the competitors' social media to explain the difference in attitude between generations? But you have the answer here, there has been manipulation of the social media consumed by the older segment!
Where’s the proof? Facebook agreeing to take down some contents that violates its policies is hardly proof of anything.
The proof is supplied by the article: "Multiple independent sources inside Meta confirmed the authenticity of the information provided by the whistleblowers. The data also show that Meta removed over 90,000 posts to comply with TDRs submitted by the Israeli government in an average of 30 seconds." 90k take-down requests in 18 months is quite a lot.
> something we have ample evidence for.
Please show this "ample evidence" because it seems you (or "we" - whoever that is) have something the rest of the world doesn't.
Please show this "ample evidence" because it seems you (or "we" - whoever that is) have something the rest of the world doesn't.
it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it were being manipulated, but we know for absolute certain facebooks sites and twitter are manipulated.
we should be looking to stop all manipulation, whether from a state or billionaires. this kind of manipulation is awful no matter what the source is.
i have a hard time understanding why so many are terrified of tiktok yet turn around and seem eager to suck from twitter or facebook’s firehose.
we should be looking to stop all manipulation, whether from a state or billionaires. this kind of manipulation is awful no matter what the source is.
i have a hard time understanding why so many are terrified of tiktok yet turn around and seem eager to suck from twitter or facebook’s firehose.
So what if they do this though? Big so what? Americans are allowed to read any journal and any news, even those explicitly owned and edited by foreign adversaries that they want. This is a tried and true first amendment right. And I get that forcing China to divest TikTok isn't legally an act against the 1st Amendment, but functionally it is. Why can't Americans see a CCP-biased view of Palestine if they want to? If I want to watch CCP propaganda all day, or Press TV, or Russia Today, that's my right as an American. Part of the reason there's interest to see that at all and 0 interest in watching a CCP revisionist history of the Korean War is because Israel can only bomb so many WCK aid workers, Red Cross aid workers, ambulances with the sirens on, in full video, etc. before people become curious about why this isn't a big deal for our govt.
liorsbg(1)
Most americans support Israel in this conflict. Maybe the samples are just biased?
Current polls say 53% of Americans disapprove of Israel’s actions, and 38% say it is genocide.
Regarding your specific claim, here’s the most recent poll I could find. In june, 61% of Americans opposed sending military support: https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israe...
Regarding your specific claim, here’s the most recent poll I could find. In june, 61% of Americans opposed sending military support: https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israe...
Not true at all. Talk to the average American, not an extremist of either side, and they want Israel to defend themselves and stop demanding billions from us then talking down to us and telling themselves we are easy to trick into giving them full support and money whenever they want
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?
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?
If you have valid rules but in practice only enforce them against a single group, then in some sense you are asking the wrong question.
In other words, for people who assume rule enforcement is supposed to be fair, they see unfair enforcement as hypocrisy. However, if you just see enforcement as another tool to wield against enemies, hypocrisy is irrelevant. What matters is power. It’s my basketball, I make the rules.
In other words, for people who assume rule enforcement is supposed to be fair, they see unfair enforcement as hypocrisy. However, if you just see enforcement as another tool to wield against enemies, hypocrisy is irrelevant. What matters is power. It’s my basketball, I make the rules.
> If you have valid rules but in practice only enforce them against a single group
I'd agree. Is there any evidence that that is happening here? The article reports on israeli take down requests but does not report on take down requests from other groups. Meta could very well be using the same rules against pro-israel groups, we just dont know because the leak didn't include that information.
I'd agree. Is there any evidence that that is happening here? The article reports on israeli take down requests but does not report on take down requests from other groups. Meta could very well be using the same rules against pro-israel groups, we just dont know because the leak didn't include that information.
anecdotally Meta has pretty lax moderation against anti-palestinian in Hebrew, allowing tons of extremely racist/violent speech.
Yeah, probably because it's Hebrew and no one outside Israel will read it anyway.
Read the article again. According to the whistleblowers, governments in general get privileged access vs regular users and Israel gets privileged access vs other governments:
> Governments and organizations, on the other hand, have privileged channels to trigger content review. Reports submitted through these channels receive higher priority and are almost always reviewed by human moderators rather than AI. Once reviewed by humans, the reviews are fed back into Meta’s AI system to help it better assess similar content in the future. While everyday users can also file TDRs, they are rarely acted upon. Government-submitted TDRs are far more likely to result in content removal.
Meta has overwhelmingly complied with Israel’s requests, making an exception for the government account by taking down posts without human reviews, according to the whistleblowers, while still feeding that data back into Meta’s AI.
> Governments and organizations, on the other hand, have privileged channels to trigger content review. Reports submitted through these channels receive higher priority and are almost always reviewed by human moderators rather than AI. Once reviewed by humans, the reviews are fed back into Meta’s AI system to help it better assess similar content in the future. While everyday users can also file TDRs, they are rarely acted upon. Government-submitted TDRs are far more likely to result in content removal.
Meta has overwhelmingly complied with Israel’s requests, making an exception for the government account by taking down posts without human reviews, according to the whistleblowers, while still feeding that data back into Meta’s AI.
What would you define as “valid”
I guess as "violating facebook terms of use". At some point i don't think what the standard is matters that much as long as its equally enforced against everyone.
Generally though i do think its legit for facebook to take down posts advocating for violence and terrorism. Devil is in the details.
Generally though i do think its legit for facebook to take down posts advocating for violence and terrorism. Devil is in the details.
I would think that anyone advocating for or cheering the death of civilians would be valid reason for removal. Criticizing Israeli policy, being supportive of Palestinians in general, or contradicting Netanyahu's talking points: not a valid reason for removal.
How do you feel about posts supporting the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, or the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Those aren't great either, but a mitigating factor is that those things happened a long time ago in conflicts that have already ended and few of the people involved are even alive anymore. It's not like the United States is seriously considering firebombing Desden or Tokyo or using nuclear weapons against Japan again in 2025. (At least, not yet as far as we know.) Having opinions about history is different than having opinions about an ongoing war.
There's also a difference between people who say that those attacks were a least-bad option to win the war from a utilitarian ethics point of view versus people (presumably a minority) who simply see no down-side at all to deliberately killing large numbers of German or Japanese civilians.
There's also a difference between people who say that those attacks were a least-bad option to win the war from a utilitarian ethics point of view versus people (presumably a minority) who simply see no down-side at all to deliberately killing large numbers of German or Japanese civilians.
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."
> "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."
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.
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.
tbrownaw(2)
> The missing part of this article: are the requests valid?
They are enforced with neither human nor AI review, so the reality is that we don't know. They are enforced by virtue of who submits them, with no question on whether they are valid or not.
Having heard from friends the kind of censorship they face on the topic on Facebook and Instagram when discussing the topics at hand, I know of plenty of situations where people were censored without breaking any rules. They're a small sample of course.
They are enforced with neither human nor AI review, so the reality is that we don't know. They are enforced by virtue of who submits them, with no question on whether they are valid or not.
Having heard from friends the kind of censorship they face on the topic on Facebook and Instagram when discussing the topics at hand, I know of plenty of situations where people were censored without breaking any rules. They're a small sample of course.
Defending yourself from genocide is not terrorism
When do you think the supposed genocide started?
1948
Interesting! And in this supposed 77 year long genocide, did the population size of Palestinians decrease?
Not a determining factor. Genocide is the commission of one of the five prohibited acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
A bit hard to show "intent to destroy" if for 77 years of rule, they haven't actually done it, though. I mean, in what other "genocide" did the population grow, year over year, for 77 years? Can you name a single one where the population grew for even five years of "genocide"?
michaelsshaw(1)
Listen to their ministers and people in charge and they clearly state the intent outright. This latest conflict has exposed everything.
reissbaker(2)
That’s a terrible argument. Palestinians have fled. Nakba happened. Refugees increased. So did the population go down? yes. The population shifted to safer places. And then they are getting bombed there too.
People fleeing a conflict isn't genocide. And no, the population did not decrease! You can literally look this up. "Moving 5 miles away" is not an overall group population decrease; here is a graph of the population of Israelis and Palestinians respectively: https://www.statista.com/chart/20645/palestine-and-israel-po...
As you can see, it's been up and to the right this whole time, for both groups.
Unless you think that India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for the last 78 years, neither Israel nor Palestine have been committing genocide against each other for the past 77 years. They had a land dispute, which Israel agreed to split via the U.N. partition plan, and which the Palestinians rejected in favor of a war which they subsequently lost. Just like the current war, in which you passively claim they're "getting bombed," as if nothing had happened to trigger the war — in fact, the government of Gaza (Hamas) invaded Israel, killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages, including civilians, sparking a war in which Gaza has now gotten bombed.
As you can see, it's been up and to the right this whole time, for both groups.
Unless you think that India and Pakistan have been committing genocide against each other for the last 78 years, neither Israel nor Palestine have been committing genocide against each other for the past 77 years. They had a land dispute, which Israel agreed to split via the U.N. partition plan, and which the Palestinians rejected in favor of a war which they subsequently lost. Just like the current war, in which you passively claim they're "getting bombed," as if nothing had happened to trigger the war — in fact, the government of Gaza (Hamas) invaded Israel, killed over a thousand people and took hundreds of hostages, including civilians, sparking a war in which Gaza has now gotten bombed.
You have to look at the population of Palestinians in the 1948 region before and after. Towns are empty from the nakba.
People fleeing a genocide and being refused return is genocide. Don’t try to rephrase this is as “conflict”. Nor equate the history of other regions as equivalent to this one.
People fleeing a genocide and being refused return is genocide. Don’t try to rephrase this is as “conflict”. Nor equate the history of other regions as equivalent to this one.
They were obviously not fleeing a genocide, since no genocide happened in 1948. The population graphs of Palestine make that extremely clear. In fact, many did not flee and are citizens of Israel today and even serve in the Knesset, and are referred to as "Israeli Arabs." Of the five acts defined as genocide, moving five miles away is not one of them.
And of course you can compare conflicts in history to each other. Why wouldn't you be able to? Literally the same thing happened with India and Pakistan, at almost exactly the same time, except that Pakistan agreed to the partition and didn't try to invade India. Many people were displaced, or fled, and there were even some border conflicts. But Pakistan and India both accepted partition in general in 1947, unlike the Palestinians who invaded Israel instead in 1948. In fact many more people were displaced or forced to move during the partition of British India into India and Pakistan: 15MM people, vs 900k during the 1948 war.
If you didn't consider that genocide, neither is the latter.
And of course you can compare conflicts in history to each other. Why wouldn't you be able to? Literally the same thing happened with India and Pakistan, at almost exactly the same time, except that Pakistan agreed to the partition and didn't try to invade India. Many people were displaced, or fled, and there were even some border conflicts. But Pakistan and India both accepted partition in general in 1947, unlike the Palestinians who invaded Israel instead in 1948. In fact many more people were displaced or forced to move during the partition of British India into India and Pakistan: 15MM people, vs 900k during the 1948 war.
If you didn't consider that genocide, neither is the latter.
right, if you, for example, wear uniform, and if you, for example, have not started the war and didnt cause the genocide by not wearing uniform, by using civilians as human shields, and by stealing the humanitarian aid and reselling it to poor displaced civilians, that you then cynically enlist to die for your cause, because there is no other source of cash to feed your families.
you should also consider the sequence of events before using such grave accusations.
you should also consider the sequence of events before using such grave accusations.
I assume you're referring to the IDF, as they are the only member of this conflict who has been recorded using civilians as human shields systematically.
The Israelis also actively prevent any aid from reaching gaza, including going so far as to attack and destroy the aid.
Maybe YOU should think before spreading Zionist(read: terrorist) propaganda.
The Israelis also actively prevent any aid from reaching gaza, including going so far as to attack and destroy the aid.
Maybe YOU should think before spreading Zionist(read: terrorist) propaganda.
> The Israelis also actively prevent any aid from reaching gaza
Then why is there so much aid in gaza? Israel controls gazas borders. If they didnt want aid in gaza there wouldnt be any. I just dont see how you plan to convince anyone when the thigns you are claiming are so obviously untrue
Then why is there so much aid in gaza? Israel controls gazas borders. If they didnt want aid in gaza there wouldnt be any. I just dont see how you plan to convince anyone when the thigns you are claiming are so obviously untrue
I don't know how you can extrapolate "look how generous the Israelis are" from the undeniable fact that they are blocking aid and not nearly enough is let in.
The israelis are oppressing the shit out of the palestinians. But we cant have a conversation about that if youre gonna make shit up like "Israelis also actively prevent any aid from reaching gaza" which is just obviously not true. Be honest, and if youre going to lie at least make it believable.
What do you call this then? [1]
[1] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/smotrich-says-not-even-gr...
[1] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/smotrich-says-not-even-gr...
Smotrich is an asshole bully but that doesn’t make what he says true. I actually agree that slow rolling aid is a huge problem with the Israeli regime but they didn’t completely cut off aid
He's not the only one speaking genocidal statements.
What's the solution now though? Let them literally employ mass starvation (another one of their well documented war crimes) while the world watches?
What's the solution now though? Let them literally employ mass starvation (another one of their well documented war crimes) while the world watches?
Aid is not completely cut off because of the zionists. Check the news. War crime after war crime while the whole world watches.
Depends what you consider "incitement". The IL government seems to go by "whoever is not for us is against us" logic:
> 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.
> Like there is a war going on, a pretty nasty one at that.
Sorry, but this is already part if the narrative. (Or rather the implication is that this would justify everything because wars seemingly have different rules. But if course only for one side) It's a "war" were one side inflicts 100 times as many casualties on one side than the other and still has no intention of stopping.
> 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.
> Like there is a war going on, a pretty nasty one at that.
Sorry, but this is already part if the narrative. (Or rather the implication is that this would justify everything because wars seemingly have different rules. But if course only for one side) It's a "war" were one side inflicts 100 times as many casualties on one side than the other and still has no intention of stopping.
From the lost of countries and knowing how rampant antisemitism is in these countries I suspect majority of the request are valid and express support and urge for terrorism.
Ask anyone who works at Meta if they are valid, and they themselves will tell you, they don't really know. That should let you know how easy it would be for Israel to wield this tool in their favor. If they actually are doing it unfairly or not, we can never know since these posts are automatically taken down without human review.
Not a surprise. I remember last year seeing that posts to https://www.birdsofgaza.com/ were being blocked, and it's hard to think of a more innocuous way of speaking out.
It’s not only about suppression; it’s about cultivating fear around expressing your opinions.
There are groups actively working to have individuals fired for voicing support for Palestine.
For instance, a woman wrote “Freedom for Palestine” in Gaelic on LinkedIn, prompting a group of Israelis in a WhatsApp chat to actively coordinate efforts to get her fired.
The General Manager of Wix, Batsheva (Levine) Moshe, responded in a WhatsApp chat saying:
“Hi yes we know. Being taken care of since it was published. I believe there will be an announcement soon regarding our reaction.”
Wix were orderd to pay €35K for unfair dismissal.
ref(s):
https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/inside-the-pro-israel-inf...
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/israeli-tech-firm-ordere...
For instance, a woman wrote “Freedom for Palestine” in Gaelic on LinkedIn, prompting a group of Israelis in a WhatsApp chat to actively coordinate efforts to get her fired.
The General Manager of Wix, Batsheva (Levine) Moshe, responded in a WhatsApp chat saying:
“Hi yes we know. Being taken care of since it was published. I believe there will be an announcement soon regarding our reaction.”
Wix were orderd to pay €35K for unfair dismissal.
ref(s):
https://jackpoulson.substack.com/p/inside-the-pro-israel-inf...
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/israeli-tech-firm-ordere...
do you feel like it is “Israel’s war on Gaza”? Does that represent reality fully? Is that what children should be taught, that there is a demonic people that kills children? You don’t see any problem with omitting the massacre of israeli civilians, the captured hostages and many thousands of rocket launches towards densely populated civilian communities? is that how we achieve peace in your view?
[deleted]
Do you think ignoring Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is ignoring reality? Do you think that immigrants taken in during WWII should have ethnically cleansed the natives? Do you think that settlers in Westbank terrorising Palestinians every day is any different from the settlers in 1940s?
Do you think that a militarized society like Israel with compulsory military service can be treated as civilians or like the US defined enemy combatants? Do you think that rocket launches are just testing the effectiveness of missile shields? Do you think 20k Pound bombs are less lethal than tiny rockets?
Do you think that holding 10k palestinians in prisons , most without charges and degrading their humanity at every checkpost was happening since 20 years or did it start just now?
Do you think that playing victim works every time?
Do you think that playing victim works every time?
Similarly, pro-Palestine content on HN is highly suppressed.
I'd like to see examples of actual posts that were taken down, rather than talk of the quantity, or who filed the reports.
The HRW report[1] goes into details, at least on the 1050 takedowns they documented
> 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."
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
> 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."
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
> Human Rights Watch also found repeated inaccurate application of the “adult nudity and sexual activity” policy for content related to Palestine. In every one of the cases, we reviewed where this policy was invoked, the content included images of dead Palestinians over ruins in Gaza that were clothed, not naked. For example, multiple users reported their Instagram stories being removed under this policy when they posted the same image of a Palestinian father in Gaza who was killed while he was holding his clothed daughter, who was also killed.
> While “hate speech,” “bullying and harassment,” and “violence and incitement” policies[74] were less commonly invoked in the cases Human Rights Watch documented, the handful of cases where they were applied stood out as erroneous. For example, a Facebook user post that said, “How can anyone justify supporting the killing of babies and innocent civilians…” was removed under Community Standards on “bullying and harassment.”[75] Another user posted an image on Instagram of a dead child in a hospital in Gaza with the comment, “Israel bombs the Baptist Hospital in Gaza City killing over 500…” which was removed under Community Guidelines on “violence and incitement.”[76]
> While “hate speech,” “bullying and harassment,” and “violence and incitement” policies[74] were less commonly invoked in the cases Human Rights Watch documented, the handful of cases where they were applied stood out as erroneous. For example, a Facebook user post that said, “How can anyone justify supporting the killing of babies and innocent civilians…” was removed under Community Standards on “bullying and harassment.”[75] Another user posted an image on Instagram of a dead child in a hospital in Gaza with the comment, “Israel bombs the Baptist Hospital in Gaza City killing over 500…” which was removed under Community Guidelines on “violence and incitement.”[76]
somedude895(1)
[deleted]
HRW is a "complicated" organization. It took money from Saudis in return for not advocating for LGBT rights in the middle east [1]. It agreed to take money from the Qatari government, a government that also supports Hamas [2][3] and is involved in corruption cases and buying of politicians all over the world.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/human-rights-watch-took-...
[2] https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/1700763578-human-...
[3] https://www.memri.org/reports/raven-project-leaks-alleged-qa...
[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/human-rights-watch-took-...
[2] https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/1700763578-human-...
[3] https://www.memri.org/reports/raven-project-leaks-alleged-qa...
This feels like a dog whistle rather than providing something substantive.
The Israeli government also helped facilitate Qatar's support for Hamas[0], what's your point here?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Isra...
The Israeli government also helped facilitate Qatar's support for Hamas[0], what's your point here?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Isra...
Not previously involved in this discussion, but what exactly is the 'dog-whistle' you're calling out here? It seems that you're engaging in whataboutism; is that what you believe the parent is doing as well?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
> In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition
The nonsensical references to Qatar and Hamas while pushing conspiracies around a human rights group are standard Hasbara talking points.
The nonsensical references to Qatar and Hamas while pushing conspiracies around a human rights group are standard Hasbara talking points.
You're asserting a dog-whistle for anti-arab racism, or anti-islam discrimination? Those references seem more like whataboutism than some sort of dog-whistle.
The Israeli government allowed transfer of Qatari money to Hamas as a mean to buy quiet, stemmed from the belief Hamas is a rational organization that strives to improve Palestinian life through its government of the Gaza Strip, an awful mistake.
Qatar however is a supporter of the islamist Muslim Brotherhood ideology behind Hamas, financier and a host for most of its leadership.
Furthermore involved in other terror financing in the region such as the Taliban, IRGC and Al-Qaeda [1][2].
My point here is the HRW has shown before to be corrupted and flexible with their ethics in relation to the middle east, and there is evidence it took money from Qatar, a country deeply involved in this conflict and in the past used bribery in corruption to influence western politics [3]
[1] https://thearabweekly.com/ahmadinejad-reveals-qatar-paid-ran...
[2] https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/an-analysis-of-qatari-...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-qatargat...
Qatar however is a supporter of the islamist Muslim Brotherhood ideology behind Hamas, financier and a host for most of its leadership.
Furthermore involved in other terror financing in the region such as the Taliban, IRGC and Al-Qaeda [1][2].
My point here is the HRW has shown before to be corrupted and flexible with their ethics in relation to the middle east, and there is evidence it took money from Qatar, a country deeply involved in this conflict and in the past used bribery in corruption to influence western politics [3]
[1] https://thearabweekly.com/ahmadinejad-reveals-qatar-paid-ran...
[2] https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/an-analysis-of-qatari-...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/european-parliament-qatargat...
> The Israeli government allowed transfer of Qatari money to Hamas as a mean to buy quiet, stemmed from the belief Hamas is a rational organization that strives to improve Palestinian life through its government of the Gaza Strip, an awful mistake.
Horseshit. Israeli support for Hamas increased as the PLA/PLO became much more moderate and looking for peaceable solutions.
Arafat and those organizations were absolutely responsible for many violent, reprehensible, terrorist acts.
For whatever reason, they became more willing to sit at the table and work toward reasonable peace.
To the Israeli hard right, this was an awkward position to be in. Because now they'd be seen as the intransigents, the unmoving, the ones unwilling to work toward peace.
So they started supporting Hamas, directly and indirectly, because Hamas did take a harder line, and was a more easily denounced group, much as the PLA/PLO of old.
This PR spin that "really, we hoped that Hamas wanted the best for everyone and they betrayed us all" is complete garbage.
Horseshit. Israeli support for Hamas increased as the PLA/PLO became much more moderate and looking for peaceable solutions.
Arafat and those organizations were absolutely responsible for many violent, reprehensible, terrorist acts.
For whatever reason, they became more willing to sit at the table and work toward reasonable peace.
To the Israeli hard right, this was an awkward position to be in. Because now they'd be seen as the intransigents, the unmoving, the ones unwilling to work toward peace.
So they started supporting Hamas, directly and indirectly, because Hamas did take a harder line, and was a more easily denounced group, much as the PLA/PLO of old.
This PR spin that "really, we hoped that Hamas wanted the best for everyone and they betrayed us all" is complete garbage.
You believe that Arafat and his organizations were more violent than Hamas? An organization that without taking the recent massacre into account has pioneered suicide bombings against civilians? This really does not compute.
I think this is an extremely simplified look at the last two decades. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and removed all its settlements under a Likud government, was that also a conspiracy to strengthen hamas?
What actually happened is that Israel did not want the Gaza strip, or to manage any of the millions there, so it withdrew.
However, Hamas being hamas continued firing rockets at Israeli towns, which required going to war to protect these.
This left Israel in an awkward situation of having to reoccupy the gaza strip with the thousand dead gazans that will die in the process (a lesser version of what we see now) and having to occupy the strip back.
Because no one wanted to do that, together with a negligent leadership, this system of half-operations started, where every two years they would bomb and sign a cease fire. Enough to stop the rockets for a while but not enough to anger anyone internationally. Later on culminating in actually allowing Qatar terror money, in order to keep the quiet.
Ironically half of the reason of reaching to the point where so many people had died in this war, is the international community sensitivity to casualties, very similar to pre-ww2 appeasement. Where it is only accepted for Israel to destroy such an organization is after it already conducts its mass killings (and even that is apparently contested)
I think this is an extremely simplified look at the last two decades. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip and removed all its settlements under a Likud government, was that also a conspiracy to strengthen hamas?
What actually happened is that Israel did not want the Gaza strip, or to manage any of the millions there, so it withdrew.
However, Hamas being hamas continued firing rockets at Israeli towns, which required going to war to protect these.
This left Israel in an awkward situation of having to reoccupy the gaza strip with the thousand dead gazans that will die in the process (a lesser version of what we see now) and having to occupy the strip back.
Because no one wanted to do that, together with a negligent leadership, this system of half-operations started, where every two years they would bomb and sign a cease fire. Enough to stop the rockets for a while but not enough to anger anyone internationally. Later on culminating in actually allowing Qatar terror money, in order to keep the quiet.
Ironically half of the reason of reaching to the point where so many people had died in this war, is the international community sensitivity to casualties, very similar to pre-ww2 appeasement. Where it is only accepted for Israel to destroy such an organization is after it already conducts its mass killings (and even that is apparently contested)
This is exactly why I want to see the posts, because I don't really trust 3rd parties to accurately classify "peaceful content in support of Palestine". It's possible Facebook is wrong. It's also possible that it's filled with content that is peaceful in only the most shallow, ignorant reading possible. e.g. (paraphrasing from my facebook feed last year, on a post which was not taken down): "I'm planning a celebration on October 7th in support of my Palestinian friends, who wants to join me :)"
The article mentions requests to remove posts quoting Ghassan Kanafani. The article introduces Kanafani as a literary figure, but then discusses his involvement in the PFLP. I don't know if they want the reader to form a particular judgement about this, or if they're just reporting the facts.
Imagine actively censoring a revolutionary your government assassinated 50 years ago. Is the dude haunting this person or something?
It sounds like you're using the fact that the posts aren't available for you to view to evaluate as a weakness of the reporting on this suppression campaign, but of course they're not available because of the suppression campaign.
Surely the burden should be on the censors to establish clearly that something is in fact incitement to violence, rather than on external reporters to magically show that content which has been taken down is not incitement?
Surely the burden should be on the censors to establish clearly that something is in fact incitement to violence, rather than on external reporters to magically show that content which has been taken down is not incitement?
Generally i hold the burden to prove wrong-doing is on the party allegging wrong-doing. Otherwise we get in a situation where it can be effectively impossible for the accused to prove their innocence, as it is much more difficult to prove a negative than a positive.
... and you're absolutely right, innocent people had basically no recourse when Meta took down their content, or shadow-banned them etc on the claim that they were inciting violence, pro-terrorist, engaging in hate-speech etc. The accused cannot publicly point to their post which merely used a palestinian flag emoji, or mentioned an assassinated writer. The burden should have been much higher for Meta when casting such accusations about.
Both of these things can be true.
Sure the burden _should_ be high in both directions.
But the journalists seem to be doing a decent job of announcing and describing the data they have, and confirming it with multiple sources within Meta. They're engaged in a seemingly earnest and forthright effort to make the case. And to the degree that it's limited, it seems those limits are due to Meta itself.
Meta, on the other hand, excepting these whistleblowers, makes very little information available about their take-down actions both at the level of individual cases or at the level of their systematic responses to governments. The whistleblowers claim that Meta regularly took down posts without human review when requested by the Israelis. That's the exact opposite of the high burden of proof that you're asking for.
But the journalists seem to be doing a decent job of announcing and describing the data they have, and confirming it with multiple sources within Meta. They're engaged in a seemingly earnest and forthright effort to make the case. And to the degree that it's limited, it seems those limits are due to Meta itself.
Meta, on the other hand, excepting these whistleblowers, makes very little information available about their take-down actions both at the level of individual cases or at the level of their systematic responses to governments. The whistleblowers claim that Meta regularly took down posts without human review when requested by the Israelis. That's the exact opposite of the high burden of proof that you're asking for.
If we want to blame meta for having opaque review processes with little option to appeal then i'd agree.
In terms of the implied proposition that israel is intentionally using the take down process to shield itself from criticism. I just dont think the evidence in the article supports that proposition. I would expect the stuff mentioned in the article to happen both in the case Israel is trying to get criticism taken down and in the case Israel is only interested in having "kill 'em all" type posts taken down. So i don't find the article very compelling.
In terms of the implied proposition that israel is intentionally using the take down process to shield itself from criticism. I just dont think the evidence in the article supports that proposition. I would expect the stuff mentioned in the article to happen both in the case Israel is trying to get criticism taken down and in the case Israel is only interested in having "kill 'em all" type posts taken down. So i don't find the article very compelling.
> it can be effectively impossible for the accused to prove their innocence
Except in this case, the accused are the ones who have all the logs, all the records, all the database entries, etc. They are in fact in possession of the complete and perfect means to prove or disprove these allegations, and their choice not to use this data to defend themselves (i.e. by not showing that the posts were in fact harmful or inciting violence, etc) lends credence to the allegations.
Except in this case, the accused are the ones who have all the logs, all the records, all the database entries, etc. They are in fact in possession of the complete and perfect means to prove or disprove these allegations, and their choice not to use this data to defend themselves (i.e. by not showing that the posts were in fact harmful or inciting violence, etc) lends credence to the allegations.
First, there are two parties here that could prove something. Meta itself, or the Israeli government.
Second, you write: > [...] their choice not to use this data to defend themselves (i.e. by not showing that the posts were in fact harmful or inciting violence, etc) lends credence to the allegations.
This article is from yesterday. I don't think it's fair to call not responding a "choice", surely you would expect it to take some time to actually respond. I might have missed it in the article, but did they reach out to the Israeli government or to Meta to ask for a response (as is normal journalistic practice)?
Third, it's possible that some of the material is things that cannot be publicized. I have no idea if this is the case (and I personally doubt it's the majority of takedown requests), but if, for example, some of the requests were to remove e.g. images of abused Israeli hostages, bodies, etc, this might be material that they won't release, because the whole idea is to stop spread of such images. Of course, they can still describe the purpose of the various takedown requests.
Second, you write: > [...] their choice not to use this data to defend themselves (i.e. by not showing that the posts were in fact harmful or inciting violence, etc) lends credence to the allegations.
This article is from yesterday. I don't think it's fair to call not responding a "choice", surely you would expect it to take some time to actually respond. I might have missed it in the article, but did they reach out to the Israeli government or to Meta to ask for a response (as is normal journalistic practice)?
Third, it's possible that some of the material is things that cannot be publicized. I have no idea if this is the case (and I personally doubt it's the majority of takedown requests), but if, for example, some of the requests were to remove e.g. images of abused Israeli hostages, bodies, etc, this might be material that they won't release, because the whole idea is to stop spread of such images. Of course, they can still describe the purpose of the various takedown requests.
> This article is from yesterday.
The accusation that Palestinian voices were suppressed by social media companies has been being made for years. It's not a new revelation.
> or the Israeli government
Israel is the originator of the requests, not the one who is being accused of improperly complying (Meta), so why would they help or respond at all?
> it's possible that some of the material is things that cannot be publicized
Even the kinds of images you describe can be shown censored, in order to show the content being present without revealing sensitive material.
The accusation that Palestinian voices were suppressed by social media companies has been being made for years. It's not a new revelation.
> or the Israeli government
Israel is the originator of the requests, not the one who is being accused of improperly complying (Meta), so why would they help or respond at all?
> it's possible that some of the material is things that cannot be publicized
Even the kinds of images you describe can be shown censored, in order to show the content being present without revealing sensitive material.
I am part of a neighborhood group where I grew up in Bangladesh and lived until 5th grade in the 90s.
The group admin this morning let us know via Facebook post that he has received warnings frm Facebook. The group is "at a risk of being suspended" because way too many posts relating to "dangerous organization and individuals" have been removed. He wants everyone to be extra careful when posting about p*l*s*i*e, I*r*e*, g*z*, j*w* etc. He used asterisks himself just to be extra careful himself.
Not to mention my country is dealing with rohingya crisis, which was fueled by Facebook and WhatsApp misinformation campaigns, and Facebook had 2 moderators for the whole country of Myanmar and refused to do anything about said misinformation campaigns. But they sure make exceptions for I*r*e*.
The group admin this morning let us know via Facebook post that he has received warnings frm Facebook. The group is "at a risk of being suspended" because way too many posts relating to "dangerous organization and individuals" have been removed. He wants everyone to be extra careful when posting about p*l*s*i*e, I*r*e*, g*z*, j*w* etc. He used asterisks himself just to be extra careful himself.
Not to mention my country is dealing with rohingya crisis, which was fueled by Facebook and WhatsApp misinformation campaigns, and Facebook had 2 moderators for the whole country of Myanmar and refused to do anything about said misinformation campaigns. But they sure make exceptions for I*r*e*.
> Not to mention my country is dealing with rohingya crisis, which was fueled by Facebook and WhatsApp misinformation campaigns, and Facebook had 2 moderators for the whole country of Myanmar and refused to do anything about said misinformation campaigns. But they sure make exceptions for Ire*
Not sure why you're downvoted. This is all true.
Not sure why you're downvoted. This is all true.
Makes you wonder what kind of posts about Jews a local Bangladeshi group is posting... Or why.
They're writing posts on Facebook, not dropping bomb on anyone. Relax.
To explain further. I can't imagine why anyone would post about Jews on my local NextDoor or FB group. It's just not a topic that comes up outside of Jewish community events, like holidays. There are certainly no Jewish community events in Bangladesh. If they are writing posts about Jews like were posted about Rohingya, then maybe it's not just "posts on Facebook".
You are the one who seems to be uptight, bringing up the topic of bombs (?!), and scolding me to relax. Maybe you should relax.
P.S. for those wondering, my flagged comment simply asked why Jews would come up as a topic at all on a local Bangladeshi group. The irony of it being flagged in a post about censorship is piquant.
You are the one who seems to be uptight, bringing up the topic of bombs (?!), and scolding me to relax. Maybe you should relax.
P.S. for those wondering, my flagged comment simply asked why Jews would come up as a topic at all on a local Bangladeshi group. The irony of it being flagged in a post about censorship is piquant.
It was already dead otherwise I would have downvoted it too. Why? Because the implication of your original post is the only reason that fb group would post about those topics is for bad reasons. Why can’t there just be a casual conversation about something that was all over the news?
In what context does your local neighborhood FB group raise Jews (or any other non-local ethnicity for that matter) as a topic of discussion?
I don't know, I'm not part of those groups. But my automatic assumption isn't they're a bunch of antisemites or hamas supporters.
This is not hard. In what contexts do Jews come up in your circle of friends?
In my personal circle Jews don’t come up but Palestine and Israel certainly do. Why? Because 1) they were in the news and we discuss current events and 2) being in the tech industry Israel comes up frequently. Why is this an issue?
Exactly. Israel/Palestine comes up. But not Jews. It's a strange topic for a local neighborhood group. You can deduce that from reflecting on your own interactions.
Further, FB found it necessary to stop discussions about Jews on that group. Now, we can cook up any number of conspiracies about how any mention of Jews is like discussing fight club, or the Illuminati, and that's why FB instructed the group to stop discussing it. Or we can deduce the obvious. That the group, that would normally not be expected to be discussing Jews, had some fairly distasteful discussions about Jews.
FB is not a model of good moderation by a long shot. But given the strangeness of the topic in a local neighborhood group, we can deduce that FB probably got it right in this case.
Further, FB found it necessary to stop discussions about Jews on that group. Now, we can cook up any number of conspiracies about how any mention of Jews is like discussing fight club, or the Illuminati, and that's why FB instructed the group to stop discussing it. Or we can deduce the obvious. That the group, that would normally not be expected to be discussing Jews, had some fairly distasteful discussions about Jews.
FB is not a model of good moderation by a long shot. But given the strangeness of the topic in a local neighborhood group, we can deduce that FB probably got it right in this case.
Well, you insinuated that people in the local neighborhood groups are calling for violence against Jews just like Buddists called for massacre of rohingya people.
For a start, I don't outright deny that. Personally I haven't come across a lot, but there are different kinds of people and commentary on social media, so I won't be surprised if a fraction of them are indeed doing so.
Even if they do, Facebook is evidently maximizing resources to moderate calls for violence against Jews/Israel. Which I personally applaud. Palestine is a complex issue that cannot be fixed with violence. It's just that I'd appreciate if Facebook did the same level of moderation when Buddists in Myanmar were doing the same. Otherwise in plain and simple view it seems Facebook does not bother when victims are of certain group.
Remember that Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country (85%+). So naturally there is popular support in favor of Palestine and strong anti-Israel sentiments.
What's really happening is that people are organizing procession and demonstration in support of Gaza, and when they try to organize and communicate online on Facebook and other platforms about this specific issue, their posts are getting moderated out of existence.
Now if you ask whether should people organize in support/against either Palestine or Israel, that's a whole different issue and not what we are debating here.
For a start, I don't outright deny that. Personally I haven't come across a lot, but there are different kinds of people and commentary on social media, so I won't be surprised if a fraction of them are indeed doing so.
Even if they do, Facebook is evidently maximizing resources to moderate calls for violence against Jews/Israel. Which I personally applaud. Palestine is a complex issue that cannot be fixed with violence. It's just that I'd appreciate if Facebook did the same level of moderation when Buddists in Myanmar were doing the same. Otherwise in plain and simple view it seems Facebook does not bother when victims are of certain group.
Remember that Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country (85%+). So naturally there is popular support in favor of Palestine and strong anti-Israel sentiments.
What's really happening is that people are organizing procession and demonstration in support of Gaza, and when they try to organize and communicate online on Facebook and other platforms about this specific issue, their posts are getting moderated out of existence.
Now if you ask whether should people organize in support/against either Palestine or Israel, that's a whole different issue and not what we are debating here.
…and yet, they still use and support these censorship platforms.
They’ll do anything but leave.
They’ll do anything but leave.
Facebook is not the same there as it is here. It's not just a fun app you use, it's a huge part of how African and Asian countries interface with the internet. Trying to lead a group effort to leave the platform wouldn't work at any scale other than complete unanimity, and you're going to have trouble reaching that with the people benefiting from weaponizing Facebook.
> Facebook is not the same there as it is here. It's not just a fun app you use, it's a huge part of how African and Asian countries interface with the internet.
Could you give a little more detail about what that means?
Could you give a little more detail about what that means?
At least in Africa, Facebook is responsible for a large part of internet accessibility. One can say that, in Africa, "Facebook is the internet" [0]. I can't comment on Asia.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/20/facebook-...
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/20/facebook-...
SauciestGNU(3)
As a recent example, the instagram of guardian journalist Owen jones (well known Israel critic) was suddenly suspended without any explanation today.
It has been since restored, after a predictable twitter storm.
It has been since restored, after a predictable twitter storm.
Wasn’t that caused by pro-palestinian people reporting him out of hatred for attending a “butt-mitzvah” Jewish gay party?
People are downvoting me, but the timing was really directly linked: https://www.instagram.com/p/DIMKETPNd5p/
Every pro Palestinian protestor has experienced some form of awareness suppression and content removal. They have known this was a thing long before anyone else did.
Same thing happened during 9/11. Muslims saw suppression, bullying by the police and no one covered it. Then the tables turned on maga republicans after j6.
Same thing happened during 9/11. Muslims saw suppression, bullying by the police and no one covered it. Then the tables turned on maga republicans after j6.
I’m too stupid to navigate this topic in anything other than a crude and adolescent way, however I think it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations.
My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.
My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.
> it could be tricky for pro-palestinians because they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations
Any excuse is good when you have power and want to justify repression. For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. Quite a jump. (Meanwhile, the Likud's platform says "from the river to the sea there will be only Israel" but that's fine).
> if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes
They killed much less civilians than the IDF did, and they are not invaders nor illegal occupiers of someone else's country. What is acceptable or unacceptable is decided by those who are in power, and they are currently protecting a country whose prime minister in charge is wanted for crimes against humanity.
Any excuse is good when you have power and want to justify repression. For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal. Quite a jump. (Meanwhile, the Likud's platform says "from the river to the sea there will be only Israel" but that's fine).
> if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes
They killed much less civilians than the IDF did, and they are not invaders nor illegal occupiers of someone else's country. What is acceptable or unacceptable is decided by those who are in power, and they are currently protecting a country whose prime minister in charge is wanted for crimes against humanity.
> For example they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal.
It’s actually just German for “The Bart, The”.
It’s actually just German for “The Bart, The”.
> they tried to claim that the slogan "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" is genocidal.
There is no other meaning. The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. That is literally what it means. Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see? The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli. This is the problem. You yourself dont even know what it is you are calling for, then you get mad when others point out that you are using slogans that call for a genocide. For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan.
As far as counting deaths that doesnt work because Hamas is getting their own civilians killed on purpose while israel is doing the opposite. If hamas had a nuke it would wipe israel off the map, israel does have nukes and the palestinians are more numerous than ever. The palestinaians are deeply oppressed, but theyre also raging assholes who would love nothing more than to not just oppress but kill every isreali. Being oppressed doesnt make them right.
There is no other meaning. The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. That is literally what it means. Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see? The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli. This is the problem. You yourself dont even know what it is you are calling for, then you get mad when others point out that you are using slogans that call for a genocide. For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan.
As far as counting deaths that doesnt work because Hamas is getting their own civilians killed on purpose while israel is doing the opposite. If hamas had a nuke it would wipe israel off the map, israel does have nukes and the palestinians are more numerous than ever. The palestinaians are deeply oppressed, but theyre also raging assholes who would love nothing more than to not just oppress but kill every isreali. Being oppressed doesnt make them right.
It is interesting that you disregard the sentence following it.
And Hamas 2017 charter does not hace that language
And Hamas 2017 charter does not hace that language
> Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine.
Straight from the 2017 version, calling for the genocide of israelis. I think the israeli version of the slogan is genocidal too, as I said originally.
Straight from the 2017 version, calling for the genocide of israelis. I think the israeli version of the slogan is genocidal too, as I said originally.
Reading is hard I guess...
> The slogan is a call to kill every single Israeli. ... Where will the israelis be when palestine is free from the river to the see?
Oh well, this is just unbelievable. So by your logic the Likud platform, where it claims Israeli sovereignty over the whole Palestine ("from the Jordan to the sea") is a call to kill every single Palestinian? So Israel is ruled since thirty years by a genocidal party? And have you denounced this left and right?
> For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan.
I register that when you talk about a protest slogan calling for "freedom" you call it "genocidal"; when talking about the governing party in Israel, whose leader is under arrest order for crimes against humanity, it's just "awful". So is Likud, Israel's ruling party, genocidal or not? Does that make Israel a genocidal state or not? Does it make the US politicians that support the current Israeli government genocidal or not?
By your logic the proposal to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, made by Trump and endorsed by Netanyahu (or more probably the other way around), is also a call to kill every single Palestinian in it? And this is not a slogan, it is literally a proposal by the president of the most powerful country on earth. Did you denounce it?
But you logic is flawed.
What if Israel is dissolved and becomes a different state and Jews and Arabs are both unharmed and free to live in it? Wouldn't then Palestine be free, without the need to kill anyone?
> The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli
This is a mystification. Even the original Hamas charter (the one that was replaced by a much tamer one) explicitly said that under the protection of Islam, Muslims, Christians and Jews would be free to leave in peace with each other.
Oh well, this is just unbelievable. So by your logic the Likud platform, where it claims Israeli sovereignty over the whole Palestine ("from the Jordan to the sea") is a call to kill every single Palestinian? So Israel is ruled since thirty years by a genocidal party? And have you denounced this left and right?
> For the record I think Likud is awful as well, but at least in the US there are no serious israel supporters using the israeli version of the slogan.
I register that when you talk about a protest slogan calling for "freedom" you call it "genocidal"; when talking about the governing party in Israel, whose leader is under arrest order for crimes against humanity, it's just "awful". So is Likud, Israel's ruling party, genocidal or not? Does that make Israel a genocidal state or not? Does it make the US politicians that support the current Israeli government genocidal or not?
By your logic the proposal to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, made by Trump and endorsed by Netanyahu (or more probably the other way around), is also a call to kill every single Palestinian in it? And this is not a slogan, it is literally a proposal by the president of the most powerful country on earth. Did you denounce it?
But you logic is flawed.
What if Israel is dissolved and becomes a different state and Jews and Arabs are both unharmed and free to live in it? Wouldn't then Palestine be free, without the need to kill anyone?
> The hamas charter still to this day calls to kill every single israeli
This is a mystification. Even the original Hamas charter (the one that was replaced by a much tamer one) explicitly said that under the protection of Islam, Muslims, Christians and Jews would be free to leave in peace with each other.
> What if Israel is dissolved and becomes a different state and Jews and Arabs are both unharmed and free to live in it?
What if pigs fly? You know this was the original plan they tried right?
> is Likud, Israel's ruling party, genocidal or not?
I think they probably will be in the future, but right now they could be enacting a genocide and they are not. Hamas is unable to enact a genocide and empirically it really seems like they would do it asap.
> proposal to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, made by Trump... genocide
Obviously but just like most of the shit he says its just a distraction, not something he actually meant. Not that thats a good thing, it just is what it is.
The problem with the "freedom" desired in the slogan is that it is the freedom to kill every israeli. You can pretend that Hamas wants peace with israel or would be open to a one state solution that gives the jews any amount of power/freedom but we both know that is not true. The same is true of the Israelis with respect to the palestinians. Everyone in this conflict has acted horrendously and nobody has any reason to work with anyone else so it does unfortunately seem to me that at least cultural genocide if not full blown racial genocide will be the eventual resolution here. The big question is which group will the genocider and which the genocidee. I wont lie, the Israeli cultural values align more closely to my own so not so hard for me to pick a side. Of course Id love a peaceful resolution but it really seems impossible to me.
What if pigs fly? You know this was the original plan they tried right?
> is Likud, Israel's ruling party, genocidal or not?
I think they probably will be in the future, but right now they could be enacting a genocide and they are not. Hamas is unable to enact a genocide and empirically it really seems like they would do it asap.
> proposal to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip, made by Trump... genocide
Obviously but just like most of the shit he says its just a distraction, not something he actually meant. Not that thats a good thing, it just is what it is.
The problem with the "freedom" desired in the slogan is that it is the freedom to kill every israeli. You can pretend that Hamas wants peace with israel or would be open to a one state solution that gives the jews any amount of power/freedom but we both know that is not true. The same is true of the Israelis with respect to the palestinians. Everyone in this conflict has acted horrendously and nobody has any reason to work with anyone else so it does unfortunately seem to me that at least cultural genocide if not full blown racial genocide will be the eventual resolution here. The big question is which group will the genocider and which the genocidee. I wont lie, the Israeli cultural values align more closely to my own so not so hard for me to pick a side. Of course Id love a peaceful resolution but it really seems impossible to me.
> What if pigs fly?
Oh why, do you think that people living together in peace and freedom is as physically impossible as pigs flying? Guess what, most people disagree with you, and that's why the protesters chant what they chant. And now disprove this.
> I think [Likud] will probably be [genocidal] in the future
So you tell me, pacific protesters chanting "from the river to the sea" are genocidal, while the party that has the same in its platform, has bombed tens of thousands of civilians and is colonising the West Bank, isn't?
> Obviously but just like most of the shit he says its just a distraction
So you tell me, pacific protesters chanting for freedom are genocidal, the prime minister bombing his neighbours and the president of the most powerful nation in the world declaring they want an ethnic cleansing do so just as a distraction?
Listen, are you for real? Because if you're not purposefully being dishonest, then there's some serious cult shit going on here.
Anyway, that's the end of the conversation for me.
Oh why, do you think that people living together in peace and freedom is as physically impossible as pigs flying? Guess what, most people disagree with you, and that's why the protesters chant what they chant. And now disprove this.
> I think [Likud] will probably be [genocidal] in the future
So you tell me, pacific protesters chanting "from the river to the sea" are genocidal, while the party that has the same in its platform, has bombed tens of thousands of civilians and is colonising the West Bank, isn't?
> Obviously but just like most of the shit he says its just a distraction
So you tell me, pacific protesters chanting for freedom are genocidal, the prime minister bombing his neighbours and the president of the most powerful nation in the world declaring they want an ethnic cleansing do so just as a distraction?
Listen, are you for real? Because if you're not purposefully being dishonest, then there's some serious cult shit going on here.
Anyway, that's the end of the conversation for me.
> Guess what, most people disagree with you, and that's why the protesters chant what they chant. And now disprove this.
And the protesters are naive idiots, which is why I called out the original comment.
> protesters chanting "from the river to the sea" are genocidal, while the party that has the same in its platform, has bombed tens of thousands of civilians and is colonising the West Bank, isn't?
Likud could be committing a genocide right now but they are not. Thats why I dont consider them genocidal right now, pretty simple. The side that actually uses the river to the sea chant with any regularity could not commit a genocide right now.
> So you tell me, pacific protesters chanting for freedom are genocidal, the prime minister bombing his neighbours and the president of the most powerful nation in the world declaring they want an ethnic cleansing do so just as a distraction?
Yes? Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Trump loves attention. When he isnt getting it he just says random shit that comes to mind until its back on him. The israeli government has not in any way endorsed trumps plans for what thats worth.
And the protesters are naive idiots, which is why I called out the original comment.
> protesters chanting "from the river to the sea" are genocidal, while the party that has the same in its platform, has bombed tens of thousands of civilians and is colonising the West Bank, isn't?
Likud could be committing a genocide right now but they are not. Thats why I dont consider them genocidal right now, pretty simple. The side that actually uses the river to the sea chant with any regularity could not commit a genocide right now.
> So you tell me, pacific protesters chanting for freedom are genocidal, the prime minister bombing his neighbours and the president of the most powerful nation in the world declaring they want an ethnic cleansing do so just as a distraction?
Yes? Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Trump loves attention. When he isnt getting it he just says random shit that comes to mind until its back on him. The israeli government has not in any way endorsed trumps plans for what thats worth.
Hamas isn't an army, it's the political party voted into office to administer Gaza. The problem is a subset of it, the Al-Qassam Brigades, that conduct asymmetric warfare. If that were shutdown and violence were disavowed, that would give them political respect and would cease giving Palestinians a bad name that holds them back from the atrocities committed against them from being recognized.
> that would give them political respect, cease giving Palestinians a bad name that holds them back from the atrocities committed against them from being recognized
Yes the respect Fatah has. Look at the strong words of condemnation from world leaders for the daily pogroms Palestinians are subjected to in the West Bank. Look at the apartheid being enforced there, look at the demolished houses and villages, at the hundreds of illegal settlements, at the ethnic cleansing going on by the day.
Hamas is an excuse as good as any. In fact, given its overwhelming power and impunity, Israel makes and chooses its counterparts. If a Palestinian leader looks too good, they can kill him. If the protests are too peaceful, they can shoot a few people until they turn a bit violent. Hamas was promoted to weaken Fatah. And so on.
Hamas has proposed multiple times long term ceasefires (10 years) and has recognised the 1967 borders. All these proposals went completely ignored and mostly unmentioned in the Western media because that's not useful to Israel.
Yes the respect Fatah has. Look at the strong words of condemnation from world leaders for the daily pogroms Palestinians are subjected to in the West Bank. Look at the apartheid being enforced there, look at the demolished houses and villages, at the hundreds of illegal settlements, at the ethnic cleansing going on by the day.
Hamas is an excuse as good as any. In fact, given its overwhelming power and impunity, Israel makes and chooses its counterparts. If a Palestinian leader looks too good, they can kill him. If the protests are too peaceful, they can shoot a few people until they turn a bit violent. Hamas was promoted to weaken Fatah. And so on.
Hamas has proposed multiple times long term ceasefires (10 years) and has recognised the 1967 borders. All these proposals went completely ignored and mostly unmentioned in the Western media because that's not useful to Israel.
The reason is as you say: If someone gets too popular or a leadership looks too promising, Israel shoots them or compromises them. Fatah is seen as corrupt and liberal group too conflicted to create any meaningful movements for Palestinians. Hamas is seen as more sincere movement and has stronger support. They are primarily a social movement with a military wing. And so they are a stronger threat to Israel than Fatah could be. Fatah for its part is compromisable and pliable where as Hamas is a conservative strict disciplined movement with no hope for Israel to corrupt them.
wordofx(1)
> Hamas has proposed multiple times long term ceasefires (10 years)
Hamas has broken ever cease fire since they took power. There was a ceasefire in place when they attacked Israel.
Hamas has broken ever cease fire since they took power. There was a ceasefire in place when they attacked Israel.
The Palestinian people should unilaterally disarm and trust Israel's good faith? Trust the world to protect them? You are asking for a lot.
Oh, I thought Hamas and Palestinians are not the same? So they are?
Interestingly in WW2 a lot of Germans helped to save Jews. Exactly zero gazans helped to save an hostage. Some civilians even held hostages at home themselves.
Interestingly in WW2 a lot of Germans helped to save Jews. Exactly zero gazans helped to save an hostage. Some civilians even held hostages at home themselves.
> Exactly zero gazans helped to save an hostage.
What is that based on?
Hamas is very different than the Nazis. They are holding hostages in a war - they want the hostages to live or the hostages have no value. The Nazis were trying to murder as many people as possible.
What is that based on?
Hamas is very different than the Nazis. They are holding hostages in a war - they want the hostages to live or the hostages have no value. The Nazis were trying to murder as many people as possible.
Mein kampf is a best seller in gaza based in number of copies found everywhere there. And hamas promised to kill all jews, not only in israel.
> Mein kampf is a best seller in gaza based in number of copies found everywhere there.
Do you have any credible source for that?
> And hamas promised to kill all jews, not only in israel.
When? And whatever your theory, what I said is what actually happened.
Do you have any credible source for that?
> And hamas promised to kill all jews, not only in israel.
When? And whatever your theory, what I said is what actually happened.
Violent resistance isn't a successful strategy at this point because the Axis of Evil has already won. The correct strategy is to take the moral high ground with nonviolent, peaceful, moral courage in forums other than where there are snipers. It will be risky but the same-old, same-old isn't working.
Violence doesn't win political credibility when you're extremely weak, and not in control of the media narrative to manufacture consent or justifications for aid and arms shipments.
Violence doesn't win political credibility when you're extremely weak, and not in control of the media narrative to manufacture consent or justifications for aid and arms shipments.
> the Axis of Evil has already won
That's what the Axis of Evil says and actively tries to convey: inevitability, despair, etc. It's basic propaganda.
That's what the Axis of Evil says and actively tries to convey: inevitability, despair, etc. It's basic propaganda.
> they can fall easily into the trap of using party slogans used by proscribed organisations.
It's taking it way to far to suppress speech - political speech, the most important speech - for slipping in the 'wrong' slogans.
> My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes
While Hamas commits many horrors and is oppressive and awful, I don't think the ligitimate army argument holds water:
If Hamas acted like a legitimate army under the laws of war, they'd be massacred in an instant. It would require them to dress in uniforms so they can be identified, and only fight against the enemy's military. Hamas has some rifles and RPGs and a few rockets. Their enemy has tanks, fighter planes, etc etc etc. If Hamas wanted to be a legitimate army, their only option would be to immediately disband.
The laws of war seem written by large powers to protect their interests. There are legitimate 'freedom-fighting' insurgents out there who also are limited in their ability to be a 'legitimate army'.
> (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.
So can people show support for either Israel (it's not the IDF, it's a political entity - Israel) or Hamas (also a political entity)? How do they talk about the war?
It's taking it way to far to suppress speech - political speech, the most important speech - for slipping in the 'wrong' slogans.
> My understanding of Hamas is that they are not considered a legitimate army, but if they were they would be guilty of an insurmountable number of war crimes
While Hamas commits many horrors and is oppressive and awful, I don't think the ligitimate army argument holds water:
If Hamas acted like a legitimate army under the laws of war, they'd be massacred in an instant. It would require them to dress in uniforms so they can be identified, and only fight against the enemy's military. Hamas has some rifles and RPGs and a few rockets. Their enemy has tanks, fighter planes, etc etc etc. If Hamas wanted to be a legitimate army, their only option would be to immediately disband.
The laws of war seem written by large powers to protect their interests. There are legitimate 'freedom-fighting' insurgents out there who also are limited in their ability to be a 'legitimate army'.
> (not unlike the IDF as many would say). Showing support for such things is beyond reasonable accepted discourse in my home country.
So can people show support for either Israel (it's not the IDF, it's a political entity - Israel) or Hamas (also a political entity)? How do they talk about the war?
[deleted]
Since nobody here has actually read the article, it states that the reason the posts were taken down was "prohibits incitement to terrorism praise for acts of terrorism and identification or support of terror organizations." This type of speech (incitement) is illegal in the United States and support is very borderline depending on the type and meaning of "support". Now, if the reason doesnt match the actual content removed that should definitely be addressed which is your point, but I think that the reason is valid.
You can see some examples here (linked in the OP): https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
On the one hand there are comments from users that want to “turn Gaza into a parking lot” or worse and were not removed because they don’t violate the community guidelines.
On the other hand there are people posting educational explainers about Palestinian human rights censored under hate speech or dangerous individuals rules.
On the one hand there are comments from users that want to “turn Gaza into a parking lot” or worse and were not removed because they don’t violate the community guidelines.
On the other hand there are people posting educational explainers about Palestinian human rights censored under hate speech or dangerous individuals rules.
The article links to a much longer article from Human Rights Watch with a good number of examples: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...
One off test, but for this guy, with large BSky and Twitter accounts, made the same pro-UA post on both, the post on Twitter was suppressed for about 12 hours, until it was spammed by hate bots, and then was made widely visible. The BSky post had lots of responses, starting from the moment of posting, almost wholly pro-UA.
https://bsky.app/profile/willhaycardiff.bsky.social/post/3lk...
On the face of it, Twitter itself is suppressing in line with Donald/Elon's agenda, and running hate/love bots.
Also saw another BSky poster showing a horrific anti-immigration post on Twitter getting spammed by love-bots.
https://bsky.app/profile/willhaycardiff.bsky.social/post/3lk...
On the face of it, Twitter itself is suppressing in line with Donald/Elon's agenda, and running hate/love bots.
Also saw another BSky poster showing a horrific anti-immigration post on Twitter getting spammed by love-bots.
I just re-read the article, and there’s no evidence of wrong doing. There’s a bunch of circumstantial stuff that people are choosing to feed into their narrative.
Facebook has some rules and community guidelines, the Israeli government recognized some posts that violate those and asked for them to be taken down, and Facebook complied in accordance to their own rules.
Facebook has some rules and community guidelines, the Israeli government recognized some posts that violate those and asked for them to be taken down, and Facebook complied in accordance to their own rules.
Nothing illeagal. Just dirty.
The article doesn't even prove that anything is dirty. It's just carefully insinuating that these takedown requests are wrong, without actually showing any proof of this.
Manipulating the free flow of speech is inherently wrong. They are demonstrably censoring pro Palestine content without any regard at all to pro Israel content, or even pro Israel content that incites or calls for violence
> Manipulating the free flow of speech is inherently wrong.
That is an absurd statement.
Almost every platform has mechanisms for taking down content, for good reason. Is asking to take down copyrighted content "inherently wrong"? Is asking to take down illegal content like child pornography "inherently wrong"?
What about someone publishing the name and address of a pro-Palestinian activist and saying "let's get together and kill him"? Would taking down that be wrong?
Without knowing the actual content that was asked to be removed, we can't judge whether it made sense or not.
> They are demonstrably censoring pro Palestine content without any regard at all to pro Israel content, or even pro Israel content that incites or calls for violence
Is this demonstrated in the article? I might have missed it but I didn't see any comparison to how pro-Israel content is handled.
That is an absurd statement.
Almost every platform has mechanisms for taking down content, for good reason. Is asking to take down copyrighted content "inherently wrong"? Is asking to take down illegal content like child pornography "inherently wrong"?
What about someone publishing the name and address of a pro-Palestinian activist and saying "let's get together and kill him"? Would taking down that be wrong?
Without knowing the actual content that was asked to be removed, we can't judge whether it made sense or not.
> They are demonstrably censoring pro Palestine content without any regard at all to pro Israel content, or even pro Israel content that incites or calls for violence
Is this demonstrated in the article? I might have missed it but I didn't see any comparison to how pro-Israel content is handled.
Having a system of rules does not mean that the system is inherently well-designed or well-intentioned.
Just want to call out that the head of the trust and safety/integrity division, Guy Rosen, is an Israeli citizen with a strong pro-Israel bias. He’s also a person of questionable morals. From Wikipedia:
“ Guy Rosen and Roi Tiger founded Onavo in 2010. In October 2013, Onavo was acquired by Facebook, which used Onavo's analytics platform to monitor competitors. This influenced Facebook to make various business decisions, including its 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp. Since the acquisition, Onavo was frequently classified as being spyware, as the VPN was used to monetize application usage data collected within an allegedly privacy-focused environment.”
That Meta considered his questionable ethics a feature not a bug, and repeatedly promoted him, is very problematic.
“ Guy Rosen and Roi Tiger founded Onavo in 2010. In October 2013, Onavo was acquired by Facebook, which used Onavo's analytics platform to monitor competitors. This influenced Facebook to make various business decisions, including its 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp. Since the acquisition, Onavo was frequently classified as being spyware, as the VPN was used to monetize application usage data collected within an allegedly privacy-focused environment.”
That Meta considered his questionable ethics a feature not a bug, and repeatedly promoted him, is very problematic.
I was there during the onavo scandal. It was straight up spyware. They would regularly show graphs of snapchat usage vs messenger vs whatsapp and the snapchat data was explicitly attributed to onovo logs.
It's a conspiracy theory. Plenty of Israeli citizens support Palestinian rights and are opposed to what their government is doing. The guilt by association leads to things like antisemitism and anti-Palestinian hate and all the rest.
In what way is this a conspiracy theory or guilt by association? I don't think it is. (Except maybe the statement that he's an Israel citizen, though I think in this context it's a legit statement to make.)
The parent post explicitly makes two separate statements - 1. that he's an Israeli citizen, and 2. that he has questionable morals. I don't necessarily agree with the second statement, but it's explicitly not saying he's immoral because he's Israeli (guilt by association).
The parent post explicitly makes two separate statements - 1. that he's an Israeli citizen, and 2. that he has questionable morals. I don't necessarily agree with the second statement, but it's explicitly not saying he's immoral because he's Israeli (guilt by association).
On 2, a few additional quotes from Wikipedia might help (they admittedly don’t directly implicate Guy Rosen, though you’d have to be extremely charitable in assuming he wasn’t party to these decisions):
“ Onavo, which allowed the company to read network traffic on a device prior to its being encrypted, thereby giving the company the ability "to measure detailed in-app activity" and to collect analytics on Snapchat app usage from devices on which Onavo was installed.[12] It did this by creating "fake digital certificates to impersonate trusted Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon analytics servers to redirect and decrypt secure traffic from those apps for Facebook’s strategic analysis."[13] The program, which was named "Project Ghostbusters" in reference to Snapchat's ghost-shaped logo, was later expanded to include Amazon and YouTube”
“ On January 29, 2019, TechCrunch published a report detailing "Project Atlas"—an internal market research program employed by Facebook since 2016. It invited users between the ages of 13 and 35 to install the Facebook Research app—allegedly a rebranded version of Onavo Protect—on their device, to collect data on their app usage, web browsing history, web search history, location history, personal messages, photos, videos, emails, and Amazon order history. Participants received up to $20 per-month to participate in the program, which was promoted to teenagers via targeted advertising on Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook Research is administered by third-party beta testing services, including Applause and BetaBound, and requires users to install a Facebook root certificate on their phone. On iOS, this is prohibited by Apple's Enterprise Developer License Agreement, as the methods used are intended solely for use by a company's employees (for use cases such as internal software specific to their environment, and internal pre-release versions of apps)”
“ Onavo, which allowed the company to read network traffic on a device prior to its being encrypted, thereby giving the company the ability "to measure detailed in-app activity" and to collect analytics on Snapchat app usage from devices on which Onavo was installed.[12] It did this by creating "fake digital certificates to impersonate trusted Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon analytics servers to redirect and decrypt secure traffic from those apps for Facebook’s strategic analysis."[13] The program, which was named "Project Ghostbusters" in reference to Snapchat's ghost-shaped logo, was later expanded to include Amazon and YouTube”
“ On January 29, 2019, TechCrunch published a report detailing "Project Atlas"—an internal market research program employed by Facebook since 2016. It invited users between the ages of 13 and 35 to install the Facebook Research app—allegedly a rebranded version of Onavo Protect—on their device, to collect data on their app usage, web browsing history, web search history, location history, personal messages, photos, videos, emails, and Amazon order history. Participants received up to $20 per-month to participate in the program, which was promoted to teenagers via targeted advertising on Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook Research is administered by third-party beta testing services, including Applause and BetaBound, and requires users to install a Facebook root certificate on their phone. On iOS, this is prohibited by Apple's Enterprise Developer License Agreement, as the methods used are intended solely for use by a company's employees (for use cases such as internal software specific to their environment, and internal pre-release versions of apps)”
There are in general a lot of different companies doing things which some segment of the population considers immoral. Around HN, things having to do with privacy-violations are often frowned upon by a large percentage of the population here.
I don't always agree with these assessments, and I even less agree that this means you can point to people at various positions in these companies and call them "immoral".
Some people will consistently hold the belief that anyone working at Facebook, or Google, or whatever, are immoral. Most will inconsistently hold that belief - if they're arguing against someone, they'll use this kind of reasoning, but not in general. I'm mostly against this line of thinking in general.
Look - In some corners of HN, having worked with or served in the US military in any capacity is enough to make someone immoral. In some corners, working at a gambling company in any capacity makes you immoral. In some corners, being a doctor in any way related to performing abortions is immoral. In others, taking part in the capitalist system in any way is immoral. I doubt you or anyone agrees with all of these positions - so I think the general rule is that just being associated with something that some portion of people think is immoral is simply not enough to consider someone immoral.
(There are of course things that almost everyone considers immoral, and being associated with them could be enough, though even that barometer is sometimes wrong.)
I don't always agree with these assessments, and I even less agree that this means you can point to people at various positions in these companies and call them "immoral".
Some people will consistently hold the belief that anyone working at Facebook, or Google, or whatever, are immoral. Most will inconsistently hold that belief - if they're arguing against someone, they'll use this kind of reasoning, but not in general. I'm mostly against this line of thinking in general.
Look - In some corners of HN, having worked with or served in the US military in any capacity is enough to make someone immoral. In some corners, working at a gambling company in any capacity makes you immoral. In some corners, being a doctor in any way related to performing abortions is immoral. In others, taking part in the capitalist system in any way is immoral. I doubt you or anyone agrees with all of these positions - so I think the general rule is that just being associated with something that some portion of people think is immoral is simply not enough to consider someone immoral.
(There are of course things that almost everyone considers immoral, and being associated with them could be enough, though even that barometer is sometimes wrong.)
Yeah, there’s no objective and universal barometer for what is or isn’t immoral. I’m providing evidence (as opposed to pulling things out of thin air) for why it’s reasonable for many, or even most, people in the western world to find Guy Rosen immoral. It’s okay for individuals to not find this compelling.
> In what way is this a conspiracy theory or guilt by association? I don't think it is. (Except maybe the statement that he's an Israel citizen, though I think in this context it's a legit statement to make.)
Yes, the Israeli citizen comment. Obviously the comment is meant to criticize Rosen. Being an Israeli citizen is only a criticism by some conspiracy theory or guilt by association.
Currently the GGP comment says, "with a strong pro-Israel bias". I don't think it was there when I commented or I wouldn't have said what I said.
Yes, the Israeli citizen comment. Obviously the comment is meant to criticize Rosen. Being an Israeli citizen is only a criticism by some conspiracy theory or guilt by association.
Currently the GGP comment says, "with a strong pro-Israel bias". I don't think it was there when I commented or I wouldn't have said what I said.
“ I don't think it was there when I commented”
Yes, it was there.
This sort of thing has happened before in the US:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-b...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-b...
This is the same reason they want to buy TikTok and banned it had nothing to do with Chinese influence it was that the censoring of pro Palestinian content was not being done like in western platforms and Israel and Israel bought US politicians did not like it.
The role of the media (including social media) is to move in lockstep with US domestic and foreign policy. This has been known for some time [1]. It's never as simple as the White House calling up Mark Zuckerberg and saying "hey, silence X". It's about a series of filters that decides who is in the media and who has their thumb on the algorithmic scales, as per the famous Noam Chomsky Andrew Marr interview [2] ("What I'm saying is if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting").
Noam Chomsky is a national treasure.
When a former Netanyahu adviser and Israeli embassy staffer seemingly has the power to suppress pro-Palestinian speech on Meta platforms [3], nobody should be surprised.
If you're a US citizen who is a journalist critical of a key US ally, that ally is allowed to assassinate you without any objection of repercussions [4].
This is also why Tiktok originally got banned in a bipartisan fashion: the Apartheid Defense League director Jonathon Goldblatt said (in leaked audio) "we have a Tiktok problem" [5] and weeks later it was banned. Tiktok simply suppresses pro-Palestinian speech less than other platforms.
[1]: https://chomsky.info/consent01/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvGmBSHFuj0
[3]: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/metas-israel-policy-chief...
[4]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/16/israeli-forces-kil...
[5]: https://x.com/Roots_Action/status/1767941861866348615
Noam Chomsky is a national treasure.
When a former Netanyahu adviser and Israeli embassy staffer seemingly has the power to suppress pro-Palestinian speech on Meta platforms [3], nobody should be surprised.
If you're a US citizen who is a journalist critical of a key US ally, that ally is allowed to assassinate you without any objection of repercussions [4].
This is also why Tiktok originally got banned in a bipartisan fashion: the Apartheid Defense League director Jonathon Goldblatt said (in leaked audio) "we have a Tiktok problem" [5] and weeks later it was banned. Tiktok simply suppresses pro-Palestinian speech less than other platforms.
[1]: https://chomsky.info/consent01/
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvGmBSHFuj0
[3]: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/metas-israel-policy-chief...
[4]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/16/israeli-forces-kil...
[5]: https://x.com/Roots_Action/status/1767941861866348615
Hey this Chomsky guy seems pretty smart! Would be great to get him on mainstream media sometime.. hah
> It's never as simple as the White House calling up Mark Zuckerberg and saying "hey, silence X".
The government got so comfy it really got to be that easy:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh... (Aug 27, 2024)
> White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”
> The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.
The government got so comfy it really got to be that easy:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh... (Aug 27, 2024)
> White House, “repeatedly pressured” Facebook for months to take down “certain COVID-19 content including humor and satire.”
> The officials “expressed a lot of frustration” when the company didn’t agree, he said in the letter.
"Meta has complied with 94% of takedown requests issued by Israel...Meta removed over 90,000 posts to comply with TDRs submitted by the Israeli government in an average of 30 seconds...All of the Israeli government’s TDRs post-October 7th contain the exact same complaint text, according to the leaked information, regardless of the substance of the underlying content being challenged. Sources said that not a single Israeli TDR describes the exact nature of the content being reported"
Realistically, how can we uncover this type of foreign interference? As in, is there any hack someone in our community can perform to expose Israeli propaganda? Israel locked journalists out of Ghaza, and has pretty much dominion over social media in the US. How can someone remain informed or expose misinformation campaigns (ideally without repercussions, which is a dangerous control they have over our gov)?
Meta could start by being transparent when they are asked to take down a post and could be transparent when they comply.
They have released this data for at least ten years at this point. That's one of the sources the Human Rights group used.
One defense against it might just be to actively crawl Facebook and externally record the contents of posts as soon as they're posted. Then you have a record of everything that got deleted.
I don't know how you scale that up to make it easy for everyone to find "disappeared" content on any platform. Maybe some kind of peer-to-peer system where everyone's browser cache basically acts as a searchable archive, with a browser plugin that inserts a button into web pages to show disappeared content.
(It's also worth noting that probably a lot of content that was removed by moderators was removed for a legitimate reason. So, ideally you'd have some sort of crowd moderation to get rid of the stuff that really is spam or hate speech or whatever.)
I don't know how you scale that up to make it easy for everyone to find "disappeared" content on any platform. Maybe some kind of peer-to-peer system where everyone's browser cache basically acts as a searchable archive, with a browser plugin that inserts a button into web pages to show disappeared content.
(It's also worth noting that probably a lot of content that was removed by moderators was removed for a legitimate reason. So, ideally you'd have some sort of crowd moderation to get rid of the stuff that really is spam or hate speech or whatever.)
“According to internal communications reviewed by Drop Site, as recently as March, Cutler actively instructed employees of the company to search for and review content mentioning Ghassan Kanafani, an Arab novelist considered to be a pioneer of Palestinian literature.”
So this person is actively thinking about a Palestinian revolutionary that was assassinated by Mossad over half a century ago, and is using their position to push for internal censorship of him accordingly.
Imagine if a Palestinian employee at Meta suggested censoring mentions of past members of Haganah.
So this person is actively thinking about a Palestinian revolutionary that was assassinated by Mossad over half a century ago, and is using their position to push for internal censorship of him accordingly.
Imagine if a Palestinian employee at Meta suggested censoring mentions of past members of Haganah.
[deleted]
Our minds have been so colonized or beaten down by powerful forces that _any_ support of the plight of the Palestine people is seen as pro-Hamas, even if I shout at the top of my voice that I don't care for the armed factions and political jockeying of either side.
I will expect to be downvoted to hell for this.
I will expect to be downvoted to hell for this.
> Our minds have been so colonized or beaten down by powerful forces that _any_ support of the plight of the Palestine people is seen as pro-Hamas,
What makes you say that? Plenty of people express support for the Palestinian people, including plenty of governments and heads of state, etc.
I personally think that being pro-Palestine means you should be anti-Hamas, since they are a brutal dictatorship that's plundered its people's resources to engage in a war with Israel that has destroyed their lives.
The main worrying thing is when someone is not pro-Palestinian, they're either pro-Hamas or anti-Israel.
What makes you say that? Plenty of people express support for the Palestinian people, including plenty of governments and heads of state, etc.
I personally think that being pro-Palestine means you should be anti-Hamas, since they are a brutal dictatorship that's plundered its people's resources to engage in a war with Israel that has destroyed their lives.
The main worrying thing is when someone is not pro-Palestinian, they're either pro-Hamas or anti-Israel.
I agree with the last two paras, with the following addendum. I'm also pro-Israeli people, but I find their leadership (and the settlers) the same as Hamas. No different.
As for the first para, I have very close friends who have been harassed for expressing support for plight. If you are a university student in the US today and said exactly what I have said, you can be found guilty as a terrorist-sympathizer. I have been downvoted to hell on reddit and elsewhere for putting it as mildly as I did here.
As for the first para, I have very close friends who have been harassed for expressing support for plight. If you are a university student in the US today and said exactly what I have said, you can be found guilty as a terrorist-sympathizer. I have been downvoted to hell on reddit and elsewhere for putting it as mildly as I did here.
Reddit is full of paid trolls that will pile in huge number to kill any discussion that is percived against Israel, you can\t talk about the latest war crimes Israel is doing without a number of accounts piling on you, accusing you of fascism, racis, that you do not know history, that the articles are false and no childrens were murdered, if they were some children killed then for sure some terrorists were hidding there with the children etc. It is actually impossible to talk about this topic on reddit, I can shit on Putin and Ruzzians all day so it is clear Israel has more money invested in their cyber army then the Zeds.
Out of curiosity - how do you know they are paid trolls and not just people with those views on this issue?
Personally, I don't use Reddit much, but this is definitely not the sense I get from seeing reading e.g. Twitter, in which there are plenty of extremely anti-Israel voices.
Remember - we're all seeing our own personal echo chamber of content.
Personally, I don't use Reddit much, but this is definitely not the sense I get from seeing reading e.g. Twitter, in which there are plenty of extremely anti-Israel voices.
Remember - we're all seeing our own personal echo chamber of content.
I don't use it too much, but I really recommend checking out the worldnews subreddit. Each story surrounding the me conflict is heavily curated, and the headline is chosen to minimise israeli culpability and direct discussion to other aspects. The comments are also overly vague and misdirecting, often focusing on different points and instantly tying in different issues which take a whole chain to address unpack, and then reorient towards the original discussion, even if having the guise of helpful discussion. You'll recognise it right away if you know what you're looking for.
The most common comments used to drown out actual criticism of israel and how to address its actions are actually the "aren't you glad we didn't vote for biden because he was bad for palestine" type. They will often be 4-5 of the top comments. Similar tactics are sadly used when discussing the crimes of the attack by emphasising the vileness of the acts in detail (despite both groups having plenty, and the world knowing both) and twisting the knife to make it too painful for people to engage with the discussion to exhaust them.
Let us not forget Israel has had a citizen driven hasbarah app which gives citizens "goals" (pre pasted propaganda messaged they are expected to post on their accounts) every morning to carry out online for over 7 years (reported by haaretz) https://youtu.be/iYzVOlcENZ4?si=IrN3FALmKVvIYkNJ I imagine it is much more discreet and efficient now.
The most common comments used to drown out actual criticism of israel and how to address its actions are actually the "aren't you glad we didn't vote for biden because he was bad for palestine" type. They will often be 4-5 of the top comments. Similar tactics are sadly used when discussing the crimes of the attack by emphasising the vileness of the acts in detail (despite both groups having plenty, and the world knowing both) and twisting the knife to make it too painful for people to engage with the discussion to exhaust them.
Let us not forget Israel has had a citizen driven hasbarah app which gives citizens "goals" (pre pasted propaganda messaged they are expected to post on their accounts) every morning to carry out online for over 7 years (reported by haaretz) https://youtu.be/iYzVOlcENZ4?si=IrN3FALmKVvIYkNJ I imagine it is much more discreet and efficient now.
I assume people that are not paid have a bit of shame and they are also lazy and not work hard to justify why killing children is OK and also jump instantly a topic is posted, and also try to shut me up with accusation of being an anti-semite.
There is also an easy but not perfect way to check, you look at the account age and post history. If you check a normal user account like mine you will see it ha many years long, that I post say on average 3 comments a day, some days nothing and maybe soem days more. That I also have low activity and different sections like Star trek, or some video game I was into at that time, or soem TV show, With paid accounts they are all very new, they all post on the same topic like defending Ruzzia or Israel, they are very active only on this topic.
Also there is known that Ruzzia and Israel have paid cyber worriors so for sure they have scripts that will alert when something about their regime is posted and they worriors will pop up and repeat their propaganda to excuse the war crimes.
There is also an easy but not perfect way to check, you look at the account age and post history. If you check a normal user account like mine you will see it ha many years long, that I post say on average 3 comments a day, some days nothing and maybe soem days more. That I also have low activity and different sections like Star trek, or some video game I was into at that time, or soem TV show, With paid accounts they are all very new, they all post on the same topic like defending Ruzzia or Israel, they are very active only on this topic.
Also there is known that Ruzzia and Israel have paid cyber worriors so for sure they have scripts that will alert when something about their regime is posted and they worriors will pop up and repeat their propaganda to excuse the war crimes.
> I assume people that are not paid have a bit of shame and they are also lazy and not work hard to justify why killing children is OK
In other words, you assume that people that disagree with you must be bots or paid trolls? That certainly explains why you think Reddit is full of them :)
I will often write stuff that you would probably consider pro-Israeli. I'm not a troll and don't get paid for it. Do you simply dismiss anything I say because you assume I'm either a bot or a "Israeli paid cyber warrior"? That makes you wrong, and makes you unable to ever learn new things or new perspectives.
(I'm not disputing, btw, that there are a lot of trolls. From my perspective, 90% of people posting anything about the conflict, including some major accounts, are absolutely trolls - they have no skin in the game and little real knowledge of the situation, and simply want to post provocative things, whether pro or anti, to get engagement.)
In other words, you assume that people that disagree with you must be bots or paid trolls? That certainly explains why you think Reddit is full of them :)
I will often write stuff that you would probably consider pro-Israeli. I'm not a troll and don't get paid for it. Do you simply dismiss anything I say because you assume I'm either a bot or a "Israeli paid cyber warrior"? That makes you wrong, and makes you unable to ever learn new things or new perspectives.
(I'm not disputing, btw, that there are a lot of trolls. From my perspective, 90% of people posting anything about the conflict, including some major accounts, are absolutely trolls - they have no skin in the game and little real knowledge of the situation, and simply want to post provocative things, whether pro or anti, to get engagement.)
I give you a lot of clues on how to detect a bot
I did not said that all people that disagree with me ar bots, for example I disagree with lot of MAGA uninformed people and they are not bots, I can see they are behaving like regular people.
Read those hints again, is your account a f ew days old, do you only post about Israel? do you comments appear super fast in response to my comments like it was triggered by alarms? If those are yes then you are a bot, can't be 100% sure if you are paid, could be someone doing is mandatory unpaid military service.
Read those hints again, is your account a f ew days old, do you only post about Israel? do you comments appear super fast in response to my comments like it was triggered by alarms? If those are yes then you are a bot, can't be 100% sure if you are paid, could be someone doing is mandatory unpaid military service.
> I give you a lot of clues on how to detect a bot I did not said that all people that disagree with me ar bots,
You're putting a bunch of barriers between hearing someone else's opinion and accepting it as valid.
> Read those hints again, is your account a f ew days old, do you only post about Israel?
In my case, no and no.
> do you comments appear super fast in response to my comments like it was triggered by alarms?
I do what plenty of other HN users do - I use a 3rd party service that notifies me when someone replies to any of my posts.
> can't be 100% sure if you are paid, could be someone doing is mandatory unpaid military service.
Which is exactly the problem with your approach. You can write off anyone, including me, as "well they are actually being paid". How can I prove that I'm not?
Also, most Israelis between the ages of 18-21 are doing their mandatory military service, that in itself isn't a reason not to listen to them.
Btw, military service is not unpaid; IDF soldiers receive a salary, though it's much lower than almost any market wage.
You're putting a bunch of barriers between hearing someone else's opinion and accepting it as valid.
> Read those hints again, is your account a f ew days old, do you only post about Israel?
In my case, no and no.
> do you comments appear super fast in response to my comments like it was triggered by alarms?
I do what plenty of other HN users do - I use a 3rd party service that notifies me when someone replies to any of my posts.
> can't be 100% sure if you are paid, could be someone doing is mandatory unpaid military service.
Which is exactly the problem with your approach. You can write off anyone, including me, as "well they are actually being paid". How can I prove that I'm not?
Also, most Israelis between the ages of 18-21 are doing their mandatory military service, that in itself isn't a reason not to listen to them.
Btw, military service is not unpaid; IDF soldiers receive a salary, though it's much lower than almost any market wage.
>I do what plenty of other HN users do - I use a 3rd party service that notifies me when someone replies to any of my posts.
But do you get notified when I chat with Bob about Israel? Or get a notification when someone says something bad about Israel?
OK, let me know why I am mistaken to name Israel killing civilian including children a war crime. Also explain why the recent war crime of killing red cross members (again) is not a war crime . The assholes denied it until video evidence was shown. (very , very shitty behaviour, the same like Ruzzian bots claiming the Azerbaijan airplane was downed by birds and still denying until today that it was Ruzzia).
This is other clue to detect a paid bot, denies evidence until their Mistry pof Invazions confirm it with a spin why it was not them or it was a excusable .
But do you get notified when I chat with Bob about Israel? Or get a notification when someone says something bad about Israel?
OK, let me know why I am mistaken to name Israel killing civilian including children a war crime. Also explain why the recent war crime of killing red cross members (again) is not a war crime . The assholes denied it until video evidence was shown. (very , very shitty behaviour, the same like Ruzzian bots claiming the Azerbaijan airplane was downed by birds and still denying until today that it was Ruzzia).
This is other clue to detect a paid bot, denies evidence until their Mistry pof Invazions confirm it with a spin why it was not them or it was a excusable .
> But do you get notified when I chat with Bob about Israel? Or get a notification when someone says something bad about Israel?
No. I'm not trying to prove myself to you - I'm sure that someone is actively monitoring mentions of Israel, though I doubt the Israeli government particularly cares what happens on HN - it's fairly niche.
I do sometimes search for mentions of Israel in HN search, sometimes including comments, but I don't do it that often.
> OK, let me know why I am mistaken to name Israel killing civilian including children a war crime.
I think any decent person mourns innocent people being killed, on either side. I personally also mourn for non-civilians being killed - it's not like Israeli soldiers trying to defend their country are people that should be killed, and it's not like most Hamas militants who (in their mind) are defending themselves from a foreign occupier deserve death either. I have far less sympathy for the leaders who know better.
But to your question - killing civilian, both morally and in a legal sense, is not in general a war crime unless those civilians were directly targeted, or unless their targeting was disproportionate to valid military aims.
Whatever you may think of Israel, Hamas has custom-designed their war to make it extremely difficult to rescue Israeli hostages, and extremely difficult to get to Hamas, without killing civilians. Btw, the more "evil" you think Israel is, the more evil and cynical this makes Hamas - since they knowingly protect themselves with the lives of the civilians under their care.
So Israel killing civilians is not, in itself, proof of a war crime. It's a sad fact of reality that civilians die in war. Especially ones in which one side is exploiting their civilians to save themselves.
That all said, there is no doubt that many war crimes have been committed. Some are documented and Israel has investigated them and taken steps to stop the people committing them. Some are swept under the rug. I imagine many are never reported. I don't think Israel is especially moral or especially immoral - this is just true of any war.
> Also explain why the recent war crime of killing red cross members (again) is not a war crime .
I don't have all the facts and neither do you. From what we've seen so far - it definitely seems like a war crime. I reserve judgement because I have some faith in the IDF - you rush to condemn Israel for the opposite reason, I imagine. I've also seen many stories turn out to be far more complicated after investigation than any immediate, attention-grabbing headline would suggest.
In any case, I think this should be investigated and, if it was a war crime, for the perpetrators to be prosecuted.
No. I'm not trying to prove myself to you - I'm sure that someone is actively monitoring mentions of Israel, though I doubt the Israeli government particularly cares what happens on HN - it's fairly niche.
I do sometimes search for mentions of Israel in HN search, sometimes including comments, but I don't do it that often.
> OK, let me know why I am mistaken to name Israel killing civilian including children a war crime.
I think any decent person mourns innocent people being killed, on either side. I personally also mourn for non-civilians being killed - it's not like Israeli soldiers trying to defend their country are people that should be killed, and it's not like most Hamas militants who (in their mind) are defending themselves from a foreign occupier deserve death either. I have far less sympathy for the leaders who know better.
But to your question - killing civilian, both morally and in a legal sense, is not in general a war crime unless those civilians were directly targeted, or unless their targeting was disproportionate to valid military aims.
Whatever you may think of Israel, Hamas has custom-designed their war to make it extremely difficult to rescue Israeli hostages, and extremely difficult to get to Hamas, without killing civilians. Btw, the more "evil" you think Israel is, the more evil and cynical this makes Hamas - since they knowingly protect themselves with the lives of the civilians under their care.
So Israel killing civilians is not, in itself, proof of a war crime. It's a sad fact of reality that civilians die in war. Especially ones in which one side is exploiting their civilians to save themselves.
That all said, there is no doubt that many war crimes have been committed. Some are documented and Israel has investigated them and taken steps to stop the people committing them. Some are swept under the rug. I imagine many are never reported. I don't think Israel is especially moral or especially immoral - this is just true of any war.
> Also explain why the recent war crime of killing red cross members (again) is not a war crime .
I don't have all the facts and neither do you. From what we've seen so far - it definitely seems like a war crime. I reserve judgement because I have some faith in the IDF - you rush to condemn Israel for the opposite reason, I imagine. I've also seen many stories turn out to be far more complicated after investigation than any immediate, attention-grabbing headline would suggest.
In any case, I think this should be investigated and, if it was a war crime, for the perpetrators to be prosecuted.
Ok, you are very balanced in your opinion.
My issue is whit extremists from all sides,
I can't complain on reddit about Israel crimes without getting accused of supporting Hamas, or nazis or stuff like that.
What I see from pro-Israel gov accounts is bullshit like 1 we have video of war crimes, like killing red cross 2 pro Israel bots(I told you the clues ) come and deny the news is real,video appears so deny the video is real, then they claim that for sure there must have been some weapons or Hamas leader hiding there.
Also what is your opinion on Trump and Israel cleaning up Gaza of Palestinians and making building soem comercial crap there? Genocide does not always mean killings.
What I see from pro-Israel gov accounts is bullshit like 1 we have video of war crimes, like killing red cross 2 pro Israel bots(I told you the clues ) come and deny the news is real,video appears so deny the video is real, then they claim that for sure there must have been some weapons or Hamas leader hiding there.
Also what is your opinion on Trump and Israel cleaning up Gaza of Palestinians and making building soem comercial crap there? Genocide does not always mean killings.
> I'm also pro-Israeli people, but I find their leadership (and the settlers) the same as Hamas. No different.
I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't go quite so far, neither in the goals nor the tactics. Also, "Israeli leadership" is a pretty broad term - there are specific very bad actors, but the most extremist actors are largely a minority (with, unfortunately, far more political power than their minority support should give them).
Hamas is bad - current Israeli leadership is bad. But there are degrees of badness and I don't think it's correct to equate them.
It's also, tactically speaking, a pretty bad way to discuss these things, as most on the pro-Israel side will not really be receptive to arguments made from people who equate the two. Assuming your goal is to actually persuade people on the pro-Israeli side.
> As for the first para, I have very close friends who have been harassed for expressing support for plight. If you are a university student in the US today and said exactly what I have said, you can be found guilty as a terrorist-sympathizer.
That's pretty awful that that's the case. What can I say? I'm against it. Both in the broader sense of supporting free speech, and in the specific case here in which statements in support of the Palestinian people are obviously totally fine (and, IMO, the only moral stance).
I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't go quite so far, neither in the goals nor the tactics. Also, "Israeli leadership" is a pretty broad term - there are specific very bad actors, but the most extremist actors are largely a minority (with, unfortunately, far more political power than their minority support should give them).
Hamas is bad - current Israeli leadership is bad. But there are degrees of badness and I don't think it's correct to equate them.
It's also, tactically speaking, a pretty bad way to discuss these things, as most on the pro-Israel side will not really be receptive to arguments made from people who equate the two. Assuming your goal is to actually persuade people on the pro-Israeli side.
> As for the first para, I have very close friends who have been harassed for expressing support for plight. If you are a university student in the US today and said exactly what I have said, you can be found guilty as a terrorist-sympathizer.
That's pretty awful that that's the case. What can I say? I'm against it. Both in the broader sense of supporting free speech, and in the specific case here in which statements in support of the Palestinian people are obviously totally fine (and, IMO, the only moral stance).
That's because the Palestine protests are full of people who actually are pro-Hamas, and not only that but often rabidly antisemite on top of that. Your side linked the two together for whatever reason.
Wut?
[deleted]
[deleted]
If Apartheid South Africa could last just a little bit longer, they would still be an apartheid state like Israel is today.
Western media is just as complicit in this genocide as the fascists in charge of the Israeli government. And media are self-censoring which is reprehensible.
The idea of Hamas wouldn't exist if Gaza (and the West Bank) wasn't occupied by land, air and sea; their land stolen on a daily basis, and Palestinian people treated as subhuman animals.
Western media is just as complicit in this genocide as the fascists in charge of the Israeli government. And media are self-censoring which is reprehensible.
The idea of Hamas wouldn't exist if Gaza (and the West Bank) wasn't occupied by land, air and sea; their land stolen on a daily basis, and Palestinian people treated as subhuman animals.
Palestinian violence predates the 1967 and 1948. Also Gaza wasn't occupied since Israel left it in 2005.
Here's is one example from 1954 when Israel did not control Gaza or the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27ale_Akrabim_massacre
"The Ma'ale Akrabim massacre, known in English as the Scorpions Pass Massacre, was an attack on an Israeli passenger bus, carried out on 17 March 1954, in the middle of the day. Eleven passengers were shot dead by the attackers who ambushed and boarded the bus. One passenger died 32 years later of his injuries, in a state of paralysis and partial consciousness. Four passengers survived, two of whom had been injured by the gunmen."
Palestinians are largely in the reality they're in due to the violence.
Here's is one example from 1954 when Israel did not control Gaza or the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27ale_Akrabim_massacre
"The Ma'ale Akrabim massacre, known in English as the Scorpions Pass Massacre, was an attack on an Israeli passenger bus, carried out on 17 March 1954, in the middle of the day. Eleven passengers were shot dead by the attackers who ambushed and boarded the bus. One passenger died 32 years later of his injuries, in a state of paralysis and partial consciousness. Four passengers survived, two of whom had been injured by the gunmen."
Palestinians are largely in the reality they're in due to the violence.
Can you remind us whether this bus attack in which 11 people died came before or after the 1948-1949 Plan Dalet during which over 500 Arab villages were destroyed or depopulated by military forces under the direction of later first prime minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion?
Israelis and Palestinians are largely in the reality they're in due to the violence.
The plan's tactics involved laying siege to Palestinian Arab villages, bombing neighbourhoods of cities, forced expulsion of their inhabitants, and setting fields and houses on fire and detonating TNT in the rubble to prevent any return. Zionist military units possessed detailed lists of neighborhoods and villages to be destroyed and their Arab inhabitants expelled.
This strategy is subject to controversy, with some historians characterizing it as defensive, while others assert that it was an integral part of a planned strategy for the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, of the area's native inhabitants.
Israelis and Palestinians are largely in the reality they're in due to the violence.
Why are we moving the goal posts?
Parent claims the violence is simply due to:
"The idea of Hamas wouldn't exist if Gaza (and the West Bank) wasn't occupied by land, air and sea; their land stolen on a daily basis, and Palestinian people treated as subhuman animals."
This is not true. And this is what I'm addressing in my reply.
We can litigate 1948 as well. Plenty of Palestinian violence pre-1948. Their refusal to accept the UN's partition plan (which was a lot more generous than the two state solution people are talking about today).
EDIT: Also I hope you're not trying to say that Israel's actions during the war in 1948 (even if we accept they were in the wrong, which I do not) justify boarding a bus and slaughtering civilians 6 years later.
Your last statement I guess is true but not helpful. Plenty of violence to go around.
Parent claims the violence is simply due to:
"The idea of Hamas wouldn't exist if Gaza (and the West Bank) wasn't occupied by land, air and sea; their land stolen on a daily basis, and Palestinian people treated as subhuman animals."
This is not true. And this is what I'm addressing in my reply.
We can litigate 1948 as well. Plenty of Palestinian violence pre-1948. Their refusal to accept the UN's partition plan (which was a lot more generous than the two state solution people are talking about today).
EDIT: Also I hope you're not trying to say that Israel's actions during the war in 1948 (even if we accept they were in the wrong, which I do not) justify boarding a bus and slaughtering civilians 6 years later.
Your last statement I guess is true but not helpful. Plenty of violence to go around.
All military actions made by oppressed peoples is legitimate resistance and your framing of Palestinians as instigators is troubling.
not wearing uniform, attacking civilians, capturing hostages and holding your own civilian population hostage by violently taking over the commercial distribution of free humanitarian aid can not be called legitimate in any way
You're right, Hamas should focus on uniform production(they wear uniform bandanas BTW, watch their videos) while Gaza has a higher proportion of destroyed buildings than Germany in ww2. You certainly got your priorities straight.
They have other problems that are higher priority apparently:
"A 22-year-old Palestinian man was tortured and killed by Hamas militants after he criticized the group publicly and participated in rare anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, his family said.
Uday Rabie was taken last week by dozens of armed fighters with Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, in the Tal al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City, his brother Hassan Rabie told CNN on Tuesday." - https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/middleeast/uday-rabie-palesti...
And by the way, while they do have uniform, they don't wear them when they fight. Only for celebrations like their marching of civilian hostages. Gaza also has a higher proportion of structures used for military purposes (like all of them?) then Germany in WW2. There have been cities in Germany during WW-II that have been completely destroyed - we can pick that as a comparison. Picking entire Germany vs a tiny area is not reasonable.
Uday Rabie was taken last week by dozens of armed fighters with Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, in the Tal al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City, his brother Hassan Rabie told CNN on Tuesday." - https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/middleeast/uday-rabie-palesti...
And by the way, while they do have uniform, they don't wear them when they fight. Only for celebrations like their marching of civilian hostages. Gaza also has a higher proportion of structures used for military purposes (like all of them?) then Germany in WW2. There have been cities in Germany during WW-II that have been completely destroyed - we can pick that as a comparison. Picking entire Germany vs a tiny area is not reasonable.
Not massacring civilians by the hundreds would be a good start.
And what about by the tens of thousands?
The IDF is not "massacring civilians by the tens of thousands". You could argue the IDF is very loose with its targeting and is willing to go after military targets even if many civilians get hurt. The Hamas was significantly looser with their targeting with 10's of thousands of rockets fired randomly into population centers.
The situation is completely different. One action is a defensive response and the other was an offensive initiative. There is no reality in which the Hamas attack can be framed as defensive or justifiable by any western values. The IDF response however is very much in line with what western nations have actually done, e.g. the US response to 9/11, the response to ISIS, WW-II or any other war you can think of.
The US went to the other side of the world to get the people it thought wanted to harm it. There wasn't even any real threat to its territory or people. It was simply about deterrence and getting even and it was significantly more heavy handed. Similarly other western powers that went after ISIS. Israel to contrast is facing an existential threat and parts of the country are/were unlivable because of the threat of attacks. It has no option other than the complete removal of Hamas from Gaza (and Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon which has largely been accomplished).
The situation is completely different. One action is a defensive response and the other was an offensive initiative. There is no reality in which the Hamas attack can be framed as defensive or justifiable by any western values. The IDF response however is very much in line with what western nations have actually done, e.g. the US response to 9/11, the response to ISIS, WW-II or any other war you can think of.
The US went to the other side of the world to get the people it thought wanted to harm it. There wasn't even any real threat to its territory or people. It was simply about deterrence and getting even and it was significantly more heavy handed. Similarly other western powers that went after ISIS. Israel to contrast is facing an existential threat and parts of the country are/were unlivable because of the threat of attacks. It has no option other than the complete removal of Hamas from Gaza (and Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon which has largely been accomplished).
[deleted]
>The situation is completely different. One action is a defensive
There's nothing defensive about embarking on a self-described colonial endeavour.
There's nothing defensive about embarking on a self-described colonial endeavour.
There's no colonial endeavor. Jewish people returning to their historical homeland is not a colonial endeavour. Arab expansion in the middle east is a colonial endeavor. European expansion to the Americas and other places is a colonial endeavor.
I don't know where you live, your nationality or heritage, but you're likely more of a colonizer than any Israeli. Since most are. I'll bet you think you have the right to defend yourself, your family, your nation.
EDIT: Also I should thank you for saying that. A lot of people try to pretend that if only Israel behaved differently then everyone would live happily ever after. Most do not even understand what "Palestine" is and what "Israel". Where's the West Bank and where's Gaza. But the Palestinians and the Arabs believe the Israelis are colonizers (of the entire region) and invaders and therefore they have the right to kill them, civilians or otherwise, until they repel them out of the region and Israelis do not have the right of self defense. This is of course absurd and would discourage many people from supporting their cause so they try their best to not say this outwardly. The truth is that if the Palestinians and the Arab countries recognized the Jewish people's legitimate rights in the region and were looking for peace we'd have peace a long time ago.
I don't know where you live, your nationality or heritage, but you're likely more of a colonizer than any Israeli. Since most are. I'll bet you think you have the right to defend yourself, your family, your nation.
EDIT: Also I should thank you for saying that. A lot of people try to pretend that if only Israel behaved differently then everyone would live happily ever after. Most do not even understand what "Palestine" is and what "Israel". Where's the West Bank and where's Gaza. But the Palestinians and the Arabs believe the Israelis are colonizers (of the entire region) and invaders and therefore they have the right to kill them, civilians or otherwise, until they repel them out of the region and Israelis do not have the right of self defense. This is of course absurd and would discourage many people from supporting their cause so they try their best to not say this outwardly. The truth is that if the Palestinians and the Arab countries recognized the Jewish people's legitimate rights in the region and were looking for peace we'd have peace a long time ago.
The IDF captures Palestinian civilians, dresses them in IDF uniforms, and forces them at gunpoint to walk in front of their military while conducting military operations in Gaza. Every accusation is a confession.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/03/israel-gaza-...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-soldier-palestinians-hu...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/03/israel-gaza-...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-soldier-palestinians-hu...
None of the articles say what you claim. There's no mention of dressing civilians in IDF uniforms. The claim is they are forced to enter suspected booby trapped building, not "conducting military operations". It's quite possible that this happens sometimes, and yes it's not supposed to, but that's war for you.
From the CNN article btw: "The soldier said that he and his comrades refused to carry on with the practice after two days and confronted their senior commander about it. Their commander, who first told them not to “think about international law,” saying that their own lives were “more important,” ultimately relented, releasing the two Palestinians, the soldier said. "
This goes to show you to what degree Israeli soldiers do consider the international law and these sort of moral questions. They would rather risk their own lives. But yes, over a long war of this kind the threshold is going to become lower. It's the Hamas choice to keep fighting the way it does (booby trap every civilians building e.g.).
Now find me the Hamas "soldier" who refused to carry out orders to murder civilians or refused to hold civilian hostages and got their commander to free them. Let's see where's the moral equivalence.
From the CNN article btw: "The soldier said that he and his comrades refused to carry on with the practice after two days and confronted their senior commander about it. Their commander, who first told them not to “think about international law,” saying that their own lives were “more important,” ultimately relented, releasing the two Palestinians, the soldier said. "
This goes to show you to what degree Israeli soldiers do consider the international law and these sort of moral questions. They would rather risk their own lives. But yes, over a long war of this kind the threshold is going to become lower. It's the Hamas choice to keep fighting the way it does (booby trap every civilians building e.g.).
Now find me the Hamas "soldier" who refused to carry out orders to murder civilians or refused to hold civilian hostages and got their commander to free them. Let's see where's the moral equivalence.
From that same CNN article:
> “They dressed us in military uniforms, put a camera on us, and gave us a metal cutter,” he said. “They would ask us to do things like, ‘move this carpet,’ saying they were looking for tunnels. ‘Film under the stairs,’ they would say. If they found something, they would tell us to bring it outside. For example, they would ask us to remove belongings from the house, clean here, move the sofa, open the fridge, and open the cupboard.”
> “They dressed us in military uniforms, put a camera on us, and gave us a metal cutter,” he said. “They would ask us to do things like, ‘move this carpet,’ saying they were looking for tunnels. ‘Film under the stairs,’ they would say. If they found something, they would tell us to bring it outside. For example, they would ask us to remove belongings from the house, clean here, move the sofa, open the fridge, and open the cupboard.”
Fair enough. I missed that while scanning through it. The evidence of one Palestinian but sure. Could have happened.
I know this is a tough one but the question is what are the norms. One anecdote (including one unit where this is practiced) doesn't answer the question. The anecdotes are just that. This practice could have happened 10 times out of 100K, could have happened 100 out of 100K, could have happened 1000 out of 100K.
I'm pretty sure this is not the norm. I.e. that all/most/many IDF units advance in Gaza by capturing Palestinians, putting them in IDF uniforms, and sending them in the front. Very very far from it.
I would rather we had zero stories like this one.
I know this is a tough one but the question is what are the norms. One anecdote (including one unit where this is practiced) doesn't answer the question. The anecdotes are just that. This practice could have happened 10 times out of 100K, could have happened 100 out of 100K, could have happened 1000 out of 100K.
I'm pretty sure this is not the norm. I.e. that all/most/many IDF units advance in Gaza by capturing Palestinians, putting them in IDF uniforms, and sending them in the front. Very very far from it.
I would rather we had zero stories like this one.
Edit window is past but I just want to make this absolutely clear that these sorts of actions are war crimes. The people responsible for these should face consequences. I'm pretty sure they're illegal (there has been a Supreme Court ruling on these practices) and also go against IDF rules.
War crimes happen during wars. The French, the Americans, the British, The Australians etc. etc. have all committed war crimes in all their wars since WW-II (and before, that concept didn't exist). In terms of accountability in those militaries it's O(0). The IDF has on many occasions put soldiers on trial for violating rules of war. It's a core value in the IDF to fight morally. And yes, in today's Israel and today's war it's not the same as it has been but relative to western armies it's within the practiced norms. Relative to Hamas whose strategy and tactics are one big war crime there's no comparison.
War crimes happen during wars. The French, the Americans, the British, The Australians etc. etc. have all committed war crimes in all their wars since WW-II (and before, that concept didn't exist). In terms of accountability in those militaries it's O(0). The IDF has on many occasions put soldiers on trial for violating rules of war. It's a core value in the IDF to fight morally. And yes, in today's Israel and today's war it's not the same as it has been but relative to western armies it's within the practiced norms. Relative to Hamas whose strategy and tactics are one big war crime there's no comparison.
The problem with this framing is that it will never lead to the palestinians accomplishing their goals. As long as they continue to commit terrorism against israel israel will continue to oppress them and annex their land until the genocide becomes a reality and all the palestinians are dead or in a diaspora. No one will stop israel as long as they can credibly make a security argument. You may claim the same is true in a non violent plan but it is 100% guaranteed on the current path. So sure, the resistance is legitimate, that doesnt mean it is helpful to their cause though.
Easy to refute, here it is from Sheikh Ahmed Yassin himself: https://x.com/incontextmedia/status/1720877046664986750
Right and this is exactly why the Hamas covenant says:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
I mean he must just love the Jewish people. Lovely guy indeed.
I mean he must just love the Jewish people. Lovely guy indeed.
Do not take texts out of context, I'll leave it at that.
michaelsshaw(1)
Funny how easy it is to forget that guerilla terrorist actions were introduced to the region by Zionists in the 1940s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
Just to name a notable event amongst many.
Many of the masterminds of the early Zionist insurgency later became top Israeli government officials.
Sad to think that Jews and Arabs lived ok side by side. Right wing radicals realized their destiny could only be completed with Palestinian displacement.
Just to name a notable event amongst many.
Many of the masterminds of the early Zionist insurgency later became top Israeli government officials.
Sad to think that Jews and Arabs lived ok side by side. Right wing radicals realized their destiny could only be completed with Palestinian displacement.
Why are we changing the topic? This isn't a "who started" question. The assertion was that Palestinians are murdering Israeli civilians only because of how they're are treated in the West Bank and in Gaza. And that's somehow justified. My example shows this is clearly not true. Palestinians murdered Israeli civilians when the West Bank and Gaza were not even under Israeli control. And well before that as well. The correct order of events here is that Israel is responding to violence and defending its citizens. Not that the Palestinians are peace loving people who are under such dire conditions that it justifies blowing up busses and murdering children. For what it's worth the answer to "who started" is the Arabs unless you consider Jewish presence/immigration/return to their historic homeland as an affront, which ofcourse the Arabs do. If your position is that Jews are not allowed to live in the middle east despite their strong historical connection and their legal claims then ofcourse nothing they can do is right.
The King David hotel was the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces. They were also warned to evacuate and this was a splinter group that executed the attack not really representative of the majority of the Jewish population.
This attack for the most part is relevant in the context of the British occupation of the region. Current day Palestinian narrative essentially puts the Jewish people as British agents who are colonizing Israel. Total nonsense.
You're not wrong that figures like Begin and Shamir eventually became the government though that was decades later. Shamir was one of the first Israeli prime ministers to try and seek a peaceful solution during the Madrid Conference: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/madrid-confer... [EDIT: And Begin promised to give Palestinians autonomy as part of the peace agreement with Egypt]
It's the Palestinians who are creating the Israeli right wing radicals. It's the Palestinians who are creating a situation where the only way Israelis can live in peace is by displacing the Palestinians. It's the Palestinians who are playing a lose-lose game instead of a win-win one. You could see that in 1948 when they attacked Israel. You could see that when Israel left Gaza in 2005. You could see that in the suicide bombing campaign of the early 2000s. And you can see this right now with Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
Jews and Arabs lived ok side by side only when the Jews "knew their place" or when the Jews had power. There is no precedent for anything else. The Israeli right wing extremism is more or less a mirror image. They used to be outlawed and have risen as a result of a campaign of violence against Israel. There is no example since 1948 of when Palestinians came and said we are going to stop violence and settle things through negotiation. They've always negotiated out of one side and murdered civilians out of the other. And here we are.
EDIT2: It's worth noting the British prevented Jewish people from immigrating to Palestine which sealed the fate of many to death in WW-II. They also put illegal immigrants in camps and mass deported them back to be killed in Europe. They also hanged and imprisoned quite a few Jewish people during the British Mandate period. They hanged quite a few Arabs as well. That said the majority of the Jewish community did not support violence against the British. It's worth noting the mandate given to the British was essentially to establish a Jewish state in that region (initially including Jordan).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine
The King David hotel was the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces. They were also warned to evacuate and this was a splinter group that executed the attack not really representative of the majority of the Jewish population.
This attack for the most part is relevant in the context of the British occupation of the region. Current day Palestinian narrative essentially puts the Jewish people as British agents who are colonizing Israel. Total nonsense.
You're not wrong that figures like Begin and Shamir eventually became the government though that was decades later. Shamir was one of the first Israeli prime ministers to try and seek a peaceful solution during the Madrid Conference: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/madrid-confer... [EDIT: And Begin promised to give Palestinians autonomy as part of the peace agreement with Egypt]
It's the Palestinians who are creating the Israeli right wing radicals. It's the Palestinians who are creating a situation where the only way Israelis can live in peace is by displacing the Palestinians. It's the Palestinians who are playing a lose-lose game instead of a win-win one. You could see that in 1948 when they attacked Israel. You could see that when Israel left Gaza in 2005. You could see that in the suicide bombing campaign of the early 2000s. And you can see this right now with Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
Jews and Arabs lived ok side by side only when the Jews "knew their place" or when the Jews had power. There is no precedent for anything else. The Israeli right wing extremism is more or less a mirror image. They used to be outlawed and have risen as a result of a campaign of violence against Israel. There is no example since 1948 of when Palestinians came and said we are going to stop violence and settle things through negotiation. They've always negotiated out of one side and murdered civilians out of the other. And here we are.
EDIT2: It's worth noting the British prevented Jewish people from immigrating to Palestine which sealed the fate of many to death in WW-II. They also put illegal immigrants in camps and mass deported them back to be killed in Europe. They also hanged and imprisoned quite a few Jewish people during the British Mandate period. They hanged quite a few Arabs as well. That said the majority of the Jewish community did not support violence against the British. It's worth noting the mandate given to the British was essentially to establish a Jewish state in that region (initially including Jordan).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/conflict-Palestine
[deleted]
Poor Palestinians for defending themselves and their home land - maybe they should just sit and take it like the native populations in America, Canada, Australia, South Africa did.
Shelomo Dov Goitein admits that the Jews lived best when they lived with Muslims (and under their protection). This "knew their place" is not true, go talk to Syrian Jews (there's an interview with one on youtube) on what it was like before the brits made israel.
Who gave the british the right to declare who has the right to live in land they stole? The whole thing is insane when you think about it.
Shelomo Dov Goitein admits that the Jews lived best when they lived with Muslims (and under their protection). This "knew their place" is not true, go talk to Syrian Jews (there's an interview with one on youtube) on what it was like before the brits made israel.
Who gave the british the right to declare who has the right to live in land they stole? The whole thing is insane when you think about it.
> Who gave the british the right to declare who has the right to live in land they stole?
It’s nuts, I agree. But it has to be understood that such authority is assumed, it isn’t granted, and the only way to refute it is to refute it. If nobody does that, the assumption of authority persists.
It is the basis for international relations. Authority is assumed under duress, it is never granted unless under duress.
It’s nuts, I agree. But it has to be understood that such authority is assumed, it isn’t granted, and the only way to refute it is to refute it. If nobody does that, the assumption of authority persists.
It is the basis for international relations. Authority is assumed under duress, it is never granted unless under duress.
- It's the Jewish homeland. The Jewish people are the native population. The Arabs are the invaders. There are some Arabs who have lives in the region for a long time but many current day Arabs in the region are immigrants from Egypt and other Arab countries.
- The Palestinians are not "defending themselves".
- Your statement about the Jews in Arab countries is patently false. You're just repeating propaganda. Jews were discriminated and persecuted against everywhere when they lives under Arab and Muslim rule. You should talk to Jews whose families come from Lebanon or Syria. Do you know how many Jews are left in Syria? The Palestinians and Arabs boast they treated them better than the Europeans that massacred them or forced them to convert to Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Musl...
The fact of the matter is that Arabs living in Israel under Israeli rule have the most freedom of any other Arab in the middle east. They're also amongst the most prosperous. To contrast in all Arab countries Jewish people have been ethnically cleansed.
It wasn't just the British who acknowledged that Israel is the home of the Jewish people. It was the league of nations and later the UN. I.e. everyone. The Jewish people were forced off this land (including by Arabs) and their right trumps the right of the Palestinians. Those that came there before 1948 (and during Ottoman rule) joined Jewish people who have lived there forever, are legal immigrants, and had to buy their land back (including places like Hebron or Jerusalem) where they were forced out. There was also a Jewish community in Gaza by the way, also ethnically cleansed.
Who gave the Ottoman's who came before the British any rights? Why aren't you challenging the right of the British to give Jordan to the Hashemites who came from Saudi Arabia? Or any of the other countries that France and Britain carved out? Why shouldn't the Kurdish people have their own country? Or the Druze? But OK. The white people from the Americas can return to Europe (+ all the more recent immigrants from everywhere). Same for Australia and New Zealand. The Arabs can return to Arabia. The Jewish people will return to their home in the middle east. And then according to you everything is now "correct".
EDIT: One should also point out that it's extremely well documented that this is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. I.e. whoever lived there knew that. Everywhere you dig you find synagogues, coins with Hebrew writing, and other artifacts. The Palestinians have zero documented connection to the region other than the fact that they happened to live there in 1948 (which I am not disputing). I'm sure there are also Palestinians with lineage going back to the Israelites. There are also immigrants etc. That doesn't really change anything. The claim by Palestinians that they are descendants of the Canaanites or the Phoenicians is a joke. Clearly in 1948 they were Arabs with the same identity as people living in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. No national identity whatsoever and no particular connection to the region we call Israel. Generally speaking. (I'm sure some had stronger connection to the region).
The other thing is this really doesn't matter. Today Israel exists. Israelis are not going anywhere. If you want to fight for justice go fight for the aboriginals to get Australia back or the first nations to get Canada back. That's a real story and your chances of success are better. Palestinians need to change their thinking here if they want an end to violence. Which apparently they do not.
- The Palestinians are not "defending themselves".
- Your statement about the Jews in Arab countries is patently false. You're just repeating propaganda. Jews were discriminated and persecuted against everywhere when they lives under Arab and Muslim rule. You should talk to Jews whose families come from Lebanon or Syria. Do you know how many Jews are left in Syria? The Palestinians and Arabs boast they treated them better than the Europeans that massacred them or forced them to convert to Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Musl...
The fact of the matter is that Arabs living in Israel under Israeli rule have the most freedom of any other Arab in the middle east. They're also amongst the most prosperous. To contrast in all Arab countries Jewish people have been ethnically cleansed.
It wasn't just the British who acknowledged that Israel is the home of the Jewish people. It was the league of nations and later the UN. I.e. everyone. The Jewish people were forced off this land (including by Arabs) and their right trumps the right of the Palestinians. Those that came there before 1948 (and during Ottoman rule) joined Jewish people who have lived there forever, are legal immigrants, and had to buy their land back (including places like Hebron or Jerusalem) where they were forced out. There was also a Jewish community in Gaza by the way, also ethnically cleansed.
Who gave the Ottoman's who came before the British any rights? Why aren't you challenging the right of the British to give Jordan to the Hashemites who came from Saudi Arabia? Or any of the other countries that France and Britain carved out? Why shouldn't the Kurdish people have their own country? Or the Druze? But OK. The white people from the Americas can return to Europe (+ all the more recent immigrants from everywhere). Same for Australia and New Zealand. The Arabs can return to Arabia. The Jewish people will return to their home in the middle east. And then according to you everything is now "correct".
EDIT: One should also point out that it's extremely well documented that this is the historical homeland of the Jewish people. I.e. whoever lived there knew that. Everywhere you dig you find synagogues, coins with Hebrew writing, and other artifacts. The Palestinians have zero documented connection to the region other than the fact that they happened to live there in 1948 (which I am not disputing). I'm sure there are also Palestinians with lineage going back to the Israelites. There are also immigrants etc. That doesn't really change anything. The claim by Palestinians that they are descendants of the Canaanites or the Phoenicians is a joke. Clearly in 1948 they were Arabs with the same identity as people living in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. No national identity whatsoever and no particular connection to the region we call Israel. Generally speaking. (I'm sure some had stronger connection to the region).
The other thing is this really doesn't matter. Today Israel exists. Israelis are not going anywhere. If you want to fight for justice go fight for the aboriginals to get Australia back or the first nations to get Canada back. That's a real story and your chances of success are better. Palestinians need to change their thinking here if they want an end to violence. Which apparently they do not.
Just as an example: Israel's minister of defense is Israel Katz. Katz stands for "Cohen Tzedek". Israel traces his paternal lineage all the way back to priests that served in the temple in Jerusalem during the days of King David. There is no other way to assume the name Cohen or any of the variation of priest family names. Similar for Levy. There is no way to convert and assume that name. The lineage of Jewish priests also has DNA evidence that they are all related.
His family was forced off their land and prevented by force from returning through the ages.
It so happens to be Passover now. Do you know how many time each Jewish person mentions returning to Jerusalem during the Seder every year?
His right to live in his ancestral homeland, just like the right of native in Canada or Australia or the US, never expires. The only way to settle his claim is through mutual agreement, like treaties in Canada.
His family was forced off their land and prevented by force from returning through the ages.
It so happens to be Passover now. Do you know how many time each Jewish person mentions returning to Jerusalem during the Seder every year?
His right to live in his ancestral homeland, just like the right of native in Canada or Australia or the US, never expires. The only way to settle his claim is through mutual agreement, like treaties in Canada.
We know Jews that lived in Syria - their houses are still intact and held for their owners. I already referred to a youtube interview with one you can easily find. He speaks positively of the Syrians.
Islam is very well known to protect the rights of minorities under it, especially the People of the Book: the Jews and the Christians.
By the way, what does the word "Hebrew" mean? Those that crossed the river ;) So someone lived there before the Jews - the Caananites, i.e. the Palestinians. The same people who became Jews and Christians, then Muslims.
Arabs and Muslims did not force anyone off their land. Ottomans did not kick out anyone under the ruling of Islam. The Ottoman Caliphate was an Islamic rule at its peak, not an ethno-rule as some like to falsely claim. Muslims preserve the local culture - this is why Islam spread. And that is why you will see Kung Fu styles adapted by Muslim rituals like Wudu'. Islam does not erradicate the local culture, people accepted it because of the positive interactions they had with Muslims. This is why most Muslims are not Arabs.
When pan-turkism and pan-arabism did arise (due to several reasons, but also instigated by the west, the story of Lawrence of Arabia is well known), that was a big reason to the decline of the Ottoman Caliphate, of course other factors played a role, but it was against the teachings of Islam.
There was no "Saudi Arabia" back in the day lol.
Yes, we reject all of the european colonialist projects and fake borders in the ME. Post WWI european colonization has caused nothing but destruction everywhere it touched, including India - that's why they sought liberation. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. The established view in Islam is that all Muslims are one people, and no borders between us, from Indoesia all the way to Mauritania. Bilad Al-Sham are one, not the sykes-picot borders that they carved out.
Edit: why are they allowed to do this: https://x.com/trackingisrael/status/1911148565692362904
Islam is very well known to protect the rights of minorities under it, especially the People of the Book: the Jews and the Christians.
By the way, what does the word "Hebrew" mean? Those that crossed the river ;) So someone lived there before the Jews - the Caananites, i.e. the Palestinians. The same people who became Jews and Christians, then Muslims.
Arabs and Muslims did not force anyone off their land. Ottomans did not kick out anyone under the ruling of Islam. The Ottoman Caliphate was an Islamic rule at its peak, not an ethno-rule as some like to falsely claim. Muslims preserve the local culture - this is why Islam spread. And that is why you will see Kung Fu styles adapted by Muslim rituals like Wudu'. Islam does not erradicate the local culture, people accepted it because of the positive interactions they had with Muslims. This is why most Muslims are not Arabs.
When pan-turkism and pan-arabism did arise (due to several reasons, but also instigated by the west, the story of Lawrence of Arabia is well known), that was a big reason to the decline of the Ottoman Caliphate, of course other factors played a role, but it was against the teachings of Islam.
There was no "Saudi Arabia" back in the day lol.
Yes, we reject all of the european colonialist projects and fake borders in the ME. Post WWI european colonization has caused nothing but destruction everywhere it touched, including India - that's why they sought liberation. Divide and conquer is the name of the game. The established view in Islam is that all Muslims are one people, and no borders between us, from Indoesia all the way to Mauritania. Bilad Al-Sham are one, not the sykes-picot borders that they carved out.
Edit: why are they allowed to do this: https://x.com/trackingisrael/status/1911148565692362904
... so while we were all worried about TikTok, being owned by a Chinese company, would be a vector for that government to push a skewed/propagandized stream of content on the world, Meta has already been doing it for a foreign government despite not having foreign ownership.
It's all skewed, obviously. It's all about alignment.
[deleted]
This is John Spencer the chair or urban warfare studies at West Point Academy. The most prestigious military academy in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25xaPTsmGGE
People who have been posting against the Israeli genocide have been familiar with this for a long time now. The censorship is extremely evident; thankfully the truth is coming out. Food for thought: if you are on the side of truth, you do not need to censor.
The problem is the pro-Palestine movement irrecoverably linked themselves to Hamas, a terrorist organization, it's made supporting Palestine a toxic position to hold for anyone of any significance.
Actually the Israeli government (Netenyahu) funded Hamas as a way to destabilise the Palestinian authority and conflate palestinianism with terrorism (EU Policy chief Joesep Borrell has stated this on record https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-funded-hamas-claims-e...)
Actually it's the other way around. Fascists in Israel and the US worked very hard to make it so that anyone seen to be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians is seen as pro Hamas, or pro terrorist.
Apparently there are some that even say the Palestinian flag itself is a "terrorist flag" and anyone flying it is also a terrorist.
Apparently there are some that even say the Palestinian flag itself is a "terrorist flag" and anyone flying it is also a terrorist.
Just because a bunch of war criminals keep saying it, it doesn't make it true.
Why shouldn't _any_ radical propaganda (unfortunately this is the case with most of pro-palestine content, even if for understandable or good reasons) be removed?
Globalize the enchilada !
And then Zuckerberg says he's all about free speech, even mocking Europe as not being free-speech enough
He's not wrong though, that Europe isn't free-speech enough. I don't care about the hypocrisy, because free speech is so good and so beneficial that I don't care if the proponent is iffy.
Just like IBM on "IBM and the Holocaust" (a must read). A genocide being supported by the US companies / media just in front of our noses.
If this appals or surprises you but then you call others conspiracy theorists when they're disseminating things that don't align with your mainstream political views, you need to learn from it and stop playing the game.
Or there truly are conspiracies against our natural destinies, we are merely ignorant and incompetent in identifying what they might be.
Covering own asses is natural enough. War crimes and crimes against humanity are serious concerns with serious considerations, yet what if we cannot ourselves be trusted by the very nature of our self lies?
Covering own asses is natural enough. War crimes and crimes against humanity are serious concerns with serious considerations, yet what if we cannot ourselves be trusted by the very nature of our self lies?
>> The data show that Meta has complied with 94% of takedown requests issued by Israel since October 7, 2023.
Nice to see Zuckerberg taking free speech as seriously as he claims.
Nice to see Zuckerberg taking free speech as seriously as he claims.
natch(1)
I m not sure he ever claimed that
I recall he made changes at the beginning of the year specifically because "it's time to get back to our roots around free expression."
Full transcript of his remarks can be found here: https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-mark-zuckerberg-anno...
Full transcript of his remarks can be found here: https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-mark-zuckerberg-anno...
Facebook's boss has repeatedly shown that he's an amoral hypocrite , most blatantly after Trumps election. I m not particularly sympathetic to palestinians but what's going on here. Its not just Israel, facebook has succumbed to authoritarian governments like Turkey in the past. The ubiquity of facebook and its monopolies are directly contradicting the spirit of democratic Constitutions worldwide. What's the point of guaranteeing freedom of expression when a single entity/person controls the attention of billions and billions of people.
I think we need a rethink of freedom of press laws in the age of international monopolies.
I think we need a rethink of freedom of press laws in the age of international monopolies.
Judges have now ruled that suspected "expected beliefs" that are "otherwise lawful" is grounds for deportation, if those suspected thoughts are "antisemitic" (read- supportive of peace in Palestine).
They are literally arresting and deporting people for suspected thoughts.
Student visas are being denied based on social media posts.
This is fascism.
They are literally arresting and deporting people for suspected thoughts.
Student visas are being denied based on social media posts.
This is fascism.
> Judges have now ruled that suspected "expected beliefs" that are "otherwise lawful" is grounds for deportation, if those suspected thoughts are "antisemitic"
Do you have a link to what you are referring to?
Do you have a link to what you are referring to?
Quote from Marco Rubio (confirmed 99-0 in the Senate)
"Rubio said that while Khalil's “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-deported...
The article is a day old, the judges just affirmed that Rubio is allowed to do this today
"Rubio said that while Khalil's “past, current or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful," the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mahmoud-khalil-deported...
The article is a day old, the judges just affirmed that Rubio is allowed to do this today
Thanks for the information. FWIW, I think this is total bullshit and fascism, but your comments aren't telling the whole story.
The most important thing to point out is that "the judges" in this case was actually a single immigration judge. Immigration judges belong to the executive branch, not the judiciary. I agree this law that says that the Secretary of State can essentially just deport anyone they want can't be squared with the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and due process. But that wasn't really this immigration judge's determination to make, i.e. questioning the constitutionality of the law that Rubio is using to deport Khalil. There is a separate case going on in federal court that should address that topic.
This article has more info: https://archive.vn/D890d
The most important thing to point out is that "the judges" in this case was actually a single immigration judge. Immigration judges belong to the executive branch, not the judiciary. I agree this law that says that the Secretary of State can essentially just deport anyone they want can't be squared with the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and due process. But that wasn't really this immigration judge's determination to make, i.e. questioning the constitutionality of the law that Rubio is using to deport Khalil. There is a separate case going on in federal court that should address that topic.
This article has more info: https://archive.vn/D890d
In a different deportation case they just defied a supreme court ruling - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/11/trump-deport...
Didn't realize that the judge in the linked one was an immigration judge and not a judiciary judge thanks for the clarification
Didn't realize that the judge in the linked one was an immigration judge and not a judiciary judge thanks for the clarification
That other deportation case you link to here is even more bizarrely evil to me. At least in the other examples the administration is making the case that they should have the power to deport these people under law (not like I agree with that interpretation, but they are at least trying to make an argument).
In this other case, the administration flat out admitted they made a mistake and that he shouldn't have been deported. So they ship him to this notorious prison and then just do an "oopsies, our bad, he's gone now." Not only do I not see how the administration's stance is defensible, why would you even want to defend it, especially if you actually agreed with their overall stance of wanting to increase deportations of "bad guys". The administration said outright he is not a bad guy!
I simply can't understand it outside of a "the cruelty is the point" framework, but even in that framework the cruelty is normally directed at "bad guys". Now folks are OK with cruelty to random people that was the result of an admitted error. WTF happened to our country?
In this other case, the administration flat out admitted they made a mistake and that he shouldn't have been deported. So they ship him to this notorious prison and then just do an "oopsies, our bad, he's gone now." Not only do I not see how the administration's stance is defensible, why would you even want to defend it, especially if you actually agreed with their overall stance of wanting to increase deportations of "bad guys". The administration said outright he is not a bad guy!
I simply can't understand it outside of a "the cruelty is the point" framework, but even in that framework the cruelty is normally directed at "bad guys". Now folks are OK with cruelty to random people that was the result of an admitted error. WTF happened to our country?
completely agreed.
its nice to find someone else worried about this on hacker news
> the provision allows the secretary of state alone to “personally determine” whether he should remain in the country
That's how it always worked? This idea that someone is entitled to a student visa is just odd, and I am speaking as someone who had a variety of different visas, including two student visas. You're really at the whim of the state department. It just takes getting notice, a minor infraction, not submitting a renewal on time, or lying on a form and you're done. Lawyers may helps there is some way to appeal but it's an incredible uphill battle.
That's how it always worked? This idea that someone is entitled to a student visa is just odd, and I am speaking as someone who had a variety of different visas, including two student visas. You're really at the whim of the state department. It just takes getting notice, a minor infraction, not submitting a renewal on time, or lying on a form and you're done. Lawyers may helps there is some way to appeal but it's an incredible uphill battle.
> That's how it always worked?
Not really. Yes, the state department has always been the say on who gets visas.
But the Supreme Court has also previously ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens, and that includes free speech. No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of the Turkish student who was abducted in Massachusetts is particularly egregious, because as far as anyone can tell all she did was right an op ed, and not a very controversial one at that.
We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
Not really. Yes, the state department has always been the say on who gets visas.
But the Supreme Court has also previously ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens, and that includes free speech. No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of the Turkish student who was abducted in Massachusetts is particularly egregious, because as far as anyone can tell all she did was right an op ed, and not a very controversial one at that.
We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
> No other previous administrations have been so blatant about revoking visas simply for the "crime" of voicing one's opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
They don’t see it as a free speech issue. They are not imprisoning the person but “simply” sending them home.
> We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
Not really, they specifically ask about membership in various parties, namely the communist party. This is nothing new at all. Any student coming say in the 80s and starting to show up at pro Communist party protests would have been just as easily kicked out.
A visa like J-1 can be revoked for non-criminal reasons. They don’t see a student visa validity as a free speech issue. It has never been and won’t be until the law is changed.
They don’t see it as a free speech issue. They are not imprisoning the person but “simply” sending them home.
> We're in uncharted waters here because previous administrations have generally followed constitutional norms when it came to making visa decisions.
Not really, they specifically ask about membership in various parties, namely the communist party. This is nothing new at all. Any student coming say in the 80s and starting to show up at pro Communist party protests would have been just as easily kicked out.
A visa like J-1 can be revoked for non-criminal reasons. They don’t see a student visa validity as a free speech issue. It has never been and won’t be until the law is changed.
[deleted]
Just for context, that judge is an immigration judge, ie a Department of State employee. Immigration judges are not part of the judicial branch (despite the job title) and can't make precedent or interpret law. They are basically a rubber stamp for whatever policy the Secretary of State is pushing.
> grounds for deportation,
Sadly but nobody is entitled to student visas. They never were. It's mostly at the whim of the state department and they may revoke it for a variety of reasons. Minor misdemeanors or getting caught with DUI would also lead to losing a visa. It's really a "walk on eggshells" kind of situation. Yeah, in some cases appealing and finding a lawyer may help but it's huge uphill battle.
Sadly but nobody is entitled to student visas. They never were. It's mostly at the whim of the state department and they may revoke it for a variety of reasons. Minor misdemeanors or getting caught with DUI would also lead to losing a visa. It's really a "walk on eggshells" kind of situation. Yeah, in some cases appealing and finding a lawyer may help but it's huge uphill battle.
Calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people is not being supportive of peace in Palestine. These students are not innocent.
Once again, the USA is #2 to their Israeli masters.
Honestly who cares? They just fit into the region, which is one murderous, genocidal cesspool. The fact that it happens to the usual genocidal majority in the region (sunni-muslim) is the only thing that drives this artificial outrage and the muslim brotherhood oilstates who push it. They have wiped all minorities from nearly all middle-east countries over the course of the last 70 years, so if a thoroughly murdered minority wants to run a defensively structured ethno-state- be they copt, greek christians, armenians, belotschis, druse, kurds, jesidi, zhorthastrian, hindu or whatever - just go for it.
The western delusional denial about the realities of the ground when it comes to multicultural societies (think Beirut) shouldn't pave the way for more murder and atrocities as it already did.
The western delusional denial about the realities of the ground when it comes to multicultural societies (think Beirut) shouldn't pave the way for more murder and atrocities as it already did.
>Meta’s Director of Public Policy for Israel and the Jewish Diaspora, Jordana Cutler, has also intervened to investigate pro-Palestine content. Cutler is a former senior Israeli government official and advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Concerning...as another billionaire would say
Concerning...as another billionaire would say
Was anyone else confused reading the title? At first pass I was asking myself "metadata from what?" then figured out oh not metadata, data from Meta.
Why is the word Israeli removed from the title? and Meta added? Seems like quite a politically-important modification
Edit: ok you guys, all your responses have convinced me that I misread the room, and I'm going to reverse the title edit now.
-- original reply: --
I did those title edits to (marginally) reduce the flamebait effect of the title, in keeping with standard moderation practice (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Titles have by far the biggest impact on discussion quality, so this is a big deal. Especially when the topic is divisive.
-- original reply: --
I did those title edits to (marginally) reduce the flamebait effect of the title, in keeping with standard moderation practice (see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Titles have by far the biggest impact on discussion quality, so this is a big deal. Especially when the topic is divisive.
I think in this instance the perpetrator is central to the story/article
speaking as someone who gets a lot of their posts flagged (to the annoyance of dang), a less-inflammatory headline can be less satisfying but a post that isn't flagged will get a lot more traffic than one that is flagged
The entire endeavor was orchestrated by Israel - that’s kinda the point here. Meta didn’t act on its own, as the edited title would imply.
I know, but for HN purposes, the point I made about titles is the higher-order bit.
Threads like this, at best, waver on the edge of a hell pit. If it plummets in, the discussion won't stay on HN's front page anyhow. Title de-baiting is a way to support having a discussion that doesn't completely suck, to the extent that this is doable.
Threads like this, at best, waver on the edge of a hell pit. If it plummets in, the discussion won't stay on HN's front page anyhow. Title de-baiting is a way to support having a discussion that doesn't completely suck, to the extent that this is doable.
Thank you for your efforts to preserve the qualities of one of the few bastions of organic discussion on the Internet.
Its meta's website. Its entirely in their control as to how they respond to a takedown request.
At this point, is it feasible to implement user-submitted or generated tags for submissions that can subsequently be concealed?
Our focus is shifting towards the news aspect rather than the hacking aspect, which is the primary reason for my presence here.
Our focus is shifting towards the news aspect rather than the hacking aspect, which is the primary reason for my presence here.
There are fluctuations, such as a swing towards current affairs stories during turbulent times, but the basic mix has been stable for years and the baseline isn't likely to change. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 for how far back this question goes...
Not that it helps, necessarily, but the people who have the opposite preference to yours are complaining loudly about how much they feel the current affairs stories are being suppressed on HN.
Re tags: I've always resisted the idea of adding it to the core HN site, but I do think we can do more to support alternate front-ends to HN. With any luck, we can publish the next version of the API this year, which should make that a lot easier.
Not that it helps, necessarily, but the people who have the opposite preference to yours are complaining loudly about how much they feel the current affairs stories are being suppressed on HN.
Re tags: I've always resisted the idea of adding it to the core HN site, but I do think we can do more to support alternate front-ends to HN. With any luck, we can publish the next version of the API this year, which should make that a lot easier.
Least favorite anecdote: Reddit. After an introduction, a friend said, “Why are you on the front page like a new person?” I am auto-subscribed to the front page content channels when I want to be in my subscriptions. However, I miss relevant content because others overwhelm the front pages.
I appreciate your response and the work you continue on the front ends. I obtain political news content from other sources, so my cumulative content feed contains a significant amount of duplicate content.
I appreciate your response and the work you continue on the front ends. I obtain political news content from other sources, so my cumulative content feed contains a significant amount of duplicate content.
FWIW I support this. It's more relevant to HN to talk about Meta, the big tech company, doing something wrong than a nation, regardless of where you stand on this issue.
I totally understand the contention around this topic but you're altering the keypoint of what the article is about. Why remove one country name and keep the other? The article is not about Meta, but how their platform is being manipulated by one country against the other. Your edit shows a strong evidence you're not taking a partisan position and have a preference. I am not sure you should be editing contenious posts when you don't hold a partisan position. Your edit is in the same realm as what the post is talking about. I understand moderation is tricky, but this goes way beyond moderation.
> this goes way beyond moderation
I'm sorry, but that's not true—quite the opposite.
If you guys had any idea how next-to-impossible it is to host substantive discussions about a topic like this, you should recognize that you're getting what you want (frontpage attention for this story) instead of complaining about a secondary detail (the title edit).
A title edit like that is not making a statement about the underlying story, and certainly not trying to suppress any aspect of it. The article is one click away for people to read and make up their own minds about. This thread is filled with comments about the detail that I took out of the title; no one is missing it.
Rather, what I did was bog standard HN moderation, the sort of thing we've done thousands of times on hundreds of topics over 15+ years, purely for the purpose of supporting a substantive discussion of the article that you (I don't mean you personally, but the set of commenters who have been complaining about this) want to be discussed in the first place. From my point of view, that amounts to demanding 100% instead of saying yes to the 90% that you're getting in this case. That's not a realistic assessment of the tradeoffs with a thread like this.
Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded tetchy—I certainly understand the feeling you're expressing and why it feels that way.
I'm sorry, but that's not true—quite the opposite.
If you guys had any idea how next-to-impossible it is to host substantive discussions about a topic like this, you should recognize that you're getting what you want (frontpage attention for this story) instead of complaining about a secondary detail (the title edit).
A title edit like that is not making a statement about the underlying story, and certainly not trying to suppress any aspect of it. The article is one click away for people to read and make up their own minds about. This thread is filled with comments about the detail that I took out of the title; no one is missing it.
Rather, what I did was bog standard HN moderation, the sort of thing we've done thousands of times on hundreds of topics over 15+ years, purely for the purpose of supporting a substantive discussion of the article that you (I don't mean you personally, but the set of commenters who have been complaining about this) want to be discussed in the first place. From my point of view, that amounts to demanding 100% instead of saying yes to the 90% that you're getting in this case. That's not a realistic assessment of the tradeoffs with a thread like this.
Edit: I'm sorry if that sounded tetchy—I certainly understand the feeling you're expressing and why it feels that way.
I'll try to explain myself better. What triggered my response was that the edit is not different from NYT/CNN publishing an article titled '20 people died when a building collapsed on their head' instead of '<entity> launched a missile on a civilian building'. What's the criteria we are using here to keep or remove '<entity>'? The article involves 3 entities and dropping anyone of them changes the narattive.
I have been hanging out on HN since 2009 and I truely appreciate your dedication to keep this site civil and it definitely is one of the very few that did not degenerate over time. That's the main reason why HN is in my bookmark bar. I appologize if my comment triggered you, and I totally understand where you are coming from as well. If it was my decision, I would keep politics out of HN as I never saw anything fruitful come out of these posts and stresses out moderators as they have to police the thread and find themselves in the way of fire.
I have been hanging out on HN since 2009 and I truely appreciate your dedication to keep this site civil and it definitely is one of the very few that did not degenerate over time. That's the main reason why HN is in my bookmark bar. I appologize if my comment triggered you, and I totally understand where you are coming from as well. If it was my decision, I would keep politics out of HN as I never saw anything fruitful come out of these posts and stresses out moderators as they have to police the thread and find themselves in the way of fire.
The current title (11:36 AM PST) is:
"Leaked Data Reveals Massive Israeli Campaign to Remove Pro-Palestine Posts on Facebook and Instagram"
@dang IDK if this matters, nor when the title was changed (from submission, to now). Just an FYI.
"Leaked Data Reveals Massive Israeli Campaign to Remove Pro-Palestine Posts on Facebook and Instagram"
@dang IDK if this matters, nor when the title was changed (from submission, to now). Just an FYI.
Btw there's a lot more information about the moderation on this post here, if you or anyone want to read about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43657264.
It's unfortunate that turning off flags for a story empowers the people who want to use this site for ideological battle. "dang made an exception once for <my pet topic>, so the guidelines forever more don't apply to it!" There were several variants of this sentiment expressed on the tomhow welcome thread.
I'm not following the argument here, but turning off the flags on a given story doesn't turn HN into a free-for-all on a topic (on the contrary, we don't want too much repetition of any topic), and certainly the guidelines continue to apply as much as anymore. More, in fact ("Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
switch007(1)
The problematic point here is that Facebook is more than willing to obliterate certain topics and political views when requested, not which ones or by whom orders in particular.
[deleted]
kazinator(1)
submeta(1)
MPSFounder(4)
hackerknew(2)
buyucu(1)
submeta(5)
NoblePublius(1)
sfx77(1)
khaledh(2)
zombiwoof(2)
2OEH8eoCRo0(4)
dvdhnt(2)
breppp(2)
[flagged]
No, what it proves is that users will flag unsubstantive flamewar posts on Hacker News, regardless of the topic or the commenter's position on the topic.
This is a good thing. Posts like your comment here break the site guidelines badly*, and the users who flagged it were quite correct to do so, regardless of your (or their) political opinion.
* for example, this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.", and this one: "Don't be snarky.". Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing those things? We'd appreciate it.
This is a good thing. Posts like your comment here break the site guidelines badly*, and the users who flagged it were quite correct to do so, regardless of your (or their) political opinion.
* for example, this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.", and this one: "Don't be snarky.". Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing those things? We'd appreciate it.
[deleted]
Edit: I'm deleting most of my post, to avoid politics part and only preserving my "point"
Basically I'm saying: Nobody has a right to free wide distribution of their thoughts on social media anyway, and also, those who provide these free ad-supported platforms have many reasonable motivations to remove content -- including the belief that the speaker is wrong/spreading lies and propaganda. That doesn't 'silence' them any more than not letting them into my house silences them.
Basically I'm saying: Nobody has a right to free wide distribution of their thoughts on social media anyway, and also, those who provide these free ad-supported platforms have many reasonable motivations to remove content -- including the belief that the speaker is wrong/spreading lies and propaganda. That doesn't 'silence' them any more than not letting them into my house silences them.
It would be interesting to see a random sample of these posts. I know any sample they released would be groomed to make them look good, but it would be interesting if it were possible.
Fair enough, but the social media companies should be honest about it. Instead they brag hypocritically about free speech.
I disagree with you though. These global social media platforms have an incredible amount of sway over our society. As long as they have that reach, they should not be allowed to distort and silence.
I disagree with you though. These global social media platforms have an incredible amount of sway over our society. As long as they have that reach, they should not be allowed to distort and silence.
People still use Facebook?
[deleted]
Personal anecdote: whever I log in to the feed, 1/3 of posts are ads, 1/3 are algorithmic recommendations, and 1/3 are pro-Palestine posts by a former partner.
Almost none of my other connections post anything, though there are occasional exceptions.
Almost none of my other connections post anything, though there are occasional exceptions.
Groups and Marketplace
They ate still very popular
They ate still very popular
Yesterday, my high school son was sitting on the couch. Asked him what he was doing… “social studies on the partitioning of Palestine in 1948”. More spicy a topic that I was expecting. Intrigued, I asked ChatGPT a few questions about the religious populations of modern Israel throughout the centuries. Got some interesting results and asked it for some clarification on the political sensitivity of this topic. It agreed it would be challenged by many. Anyway, decided to share it with my son, and texted it to him on his iPhone from my iPhone. Normally that would be sent via iMessage, fully end to end encrypted, and yet this time, when I was sending potentially politically charged views on israel, it was sent as SMS!! Now, I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist, but… that got me questioning why, on any of the thousands of messages I’ve sent my son, this specific one wasn’t sent encrypted. Hmm
Izr revieves almost 50% of the worlds startup funding for cyber security in any given year. Think about what they do with this.
You may be interested in seeing what Tal Broda, an executive at OpenAI, posted at the start of the war: https://x.com/StopZionistHate/status/1735471349278052584
Isn't another wild thing here that Apple chooses whether to send it encrypted or not? Sorry, haven't used an iPhone with iMessage, not sure how it works.
Try Signal instead perhaps?
Try Signal instead perhaps?
SMS messages get sent when you're outside of data network.
Or when the phone detects questionable content and decides to? I was sitting on my couch, next to my son when I sent the message. We were both connected to the WiFi. Sure, I’ve had messages sent via SMS before, typically when I’m on a plane and just lose 5G connectivity - but never on my couch before. Just seemed like a strange coincidence which made me realize that could be a viable attack pattern against a population.
"Israeli Campaign" is it really that weird for someone to ask to take down posts calling for their annihilation?
The posts are not calling for Israel's annihilation. They call for stopping the genocide. The posts merely document what Israel is doing in Gaza, since Israel doesn't allow independent journalists to verify and show the world the carnage it's causing to the people of Gaza.
Is it just me or is this post very low on the hacker news order even though it has much more upvotes in a short time than much of the posts above it.
This is in the FAQ: see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#whyrank ("Why is A ranked below B even though A has more points and is newer?"). But here's a longer answer.
In the case of a story like this, which has significant new information (SNI) [1] on a major ongoing topic (MOT) [2], and at least some hope of a substantive discussion, moderators sometimes turn off the user flags on the story [3] so that it can spend time on HN's front page.
In such cases, we usually adjust the degree to which we turn off the flags so that the tug-of-war between upvotes and flags isn't affected too dramatically. Usually the best way to support a substantive discussion is for the story to remain on HN's front page, but not in the highest few slots, where it would burn much hotter.
Since upvotes and submission time are public data but flags aren't, it can appear like a story is being downweighted when in fact the opposite is the case, as with this thread. That's not a rule, though—we do also downweight stories sometimes. That's why the FAQ explains that you can't derive rank from votes and time alone.
The reason moderation works this way, btw, is that HN is a curated site [4] (and always has been—here's me explaining this when I took over HN 11 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494621).
Moderators' job is to jiggle the system out of the failure modes [5] it would otherwise end up in if the software were running unattended. Turning off flags on certain stories, and adding downweight to other stories, are two examples. The goal is the same: to support substantive discussion on interesting stories, and (as a necessary condition for that) prevent the site from burning too hot if we can.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[5] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
In the case of a story like this, which has significant new information (SNI) [1] on a major ongoing topic (MOT) [2], and at least some hope of a substantive discussion, moderators sometimes turn off the user flags on the story [3] so that it can spend time on HN's front page.
In such cases, we usually adjust the degree to which we turn off the flags so that the tug-of-war between upvotes and flags isn't affected too dramatically. Usually the best way to support a substantive discussion is for the story to remain on HN's front page, but not in the highest few slots, where it would burn much hotter.
Since upvotes and submission time are public data but flags aren't, it can appear like a story is being downweighted when in fact the opposite is the case, as with this thread. That's not a rule, though—we do also downweight stories sometimes. That's why the FAQ explains that you can't derive rank from votes and time alone.
The reason moderation works this way, btw, is that HN is a curated site [4] (and always has been—here's me explaining this when I took over HN 11 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7494621).
Moderators' job is to jiggle the system out of the failure modes [5] it would otherwise end up in if the software were running unattended. Turning off flags on certain stories, and adding downweight to other stories, are two examples. The goal is the same: to support substantive discussion on interesting stories, and (as a necessary condition for that) prevent the site from burning too hot if we can.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[5] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Thank you for the detailed and professional response. I'm glad I learend something new out of this as I was ignorant about the complexities of managing HN post rankings.
This is a really hard problem. Just consider that there are ~150 Muslims for every Jew worldwide. In the USA it's the reverse - 2:1 in favor of Jews, concentrated in particular geographic areas.
Imagine what it means to get ranking right here - if you let just 1% of the international population into the USA ranking system, you have a majority in favor of Palestine, and of course these ideas will spread in communities without a lot of people who can represent Jewish history. It's clear to me why this happens, but fixing in an algorithmic but fair way is also extremely difficult.
Imagine what it means to get ranking right here - if you let just 1% of the international population into the USA ranking system, you have a majority in favor of Palestine, and of course these ideas will spread in communities without a lot of people who can represent Jewish history. It's clear to me why this happens, but fixing in an algorithmic but fair way is also extremely difficult.
I think there's an erroneous implicit assumption in your reasoning, namely that to be Zionist is equivalent to be Jewish, and to be anti-zionist is to be Muslim (otherwise, why would you be talking about Jew:Muslim ratios). The fact of the matter is that not every Zionist* is Jewish (in fact, the vast majority of Zionists are christian), and vice versa not every Jewish person is a Zionist (Jewish voice for peace, the ultra orthodox, etc).
But even beyond that, I think engaging in censorship to hide an ethnic cleansing is an affront to humanity.
* Here, I'm taking Zionism to mean to be in support of the way Israel has formed and continued to form in the past 77 or so years. I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Zionism (to illustrate the breadth; Noam Chomsky considered himself a Zionist), but this particular interpretation is the one that is relevant to this conversation.
But even beyond that, I think engaging in censorship to hide an ethnic cleansing is an affront to humanity.
* Here, I'm taking Zionism to mean to be in support of the way Israel has formed and continued to form in the past 77 or so years. I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Zionism (to illustrate the breadth; Noam Chomsky considered himself a Zionist), but this particular interpretation is the one that is relevant to this conversation.
sfx77(2)
I think my country (USA) would be healthier if a common sense viewpoint was selected and held.
Conflicts are always terrible, and the Eurasia / Africa region countries are particularly brutal.
Every citizen of every country has a human right (in a civilized civilization / society) to live a life that does not involve violence. A life where they are not worried about RPGs, bombings, (etc,) or military invasions.
Some sources of conflict involve places which various (different) religions hold as sacred / holy. Those sites should become UN world heritage locations and be managed by the UN in ways that only allow non-military peaceful access for any who want to visit.
With respect to Gaza my personal opinion remains unchanged. Both an innocent civilian people who suffer, and a terrorist government, remain in that region. The civilians should be evacuated. The terrorists who remain after (or whom are caught and found guilty in a trial) should be purged. The country should then be cleaned up, rebuilt, and returned to the innocent people along with a training-wheels UN supported government that brings stability, peace, and prevents a resurgence of hate and terrorism. In a few generations the country can grow more stable and graduate from the guided government structure.
That would be not just a two state solution, but a two states and global peace sites solution.
Conflicts are always terrible, and the Eurasia / Africa region countries are particularly brutal.
Every citizen of every country has a human right (in a civilized civilization / society) to live a life that does not involve violence. A life where they are not worried about RPGs, bombings, (etc,) or military invasions.
Some sources of conflict involve places which various (different) religions hold as sacred / holy. Those sites should become UN world heritage locations and be managed by the UN in ways that only allow non-military peaceful access for any who want to visit.
With respect to Gaza my personal opinion remains unchanged. Both an innocent civilian people who suffer, and a terrorist government, remain in that region. The civilians should be evacuated. The terrorists who remain after (or whom are caught and found guilty in a trial) should be purged. The country should then be cleaned up, rebuilt, and returned to the innocent people along with a training-wheels UN supported government that brings stability, peace, and prevents a resurgence of hate and terrorism. In a few generations the country can grow more stable and graduate from the guided government structure.
That would be not just a two state solution, but a two states and global peace sites solution.
I just don't see a way that a two-state solution works. A three-state solution might be feasible (Gaza and West Bank governed separately), but then you have to deal with internal Israeli politics, and I really don't know enough about them to make even an educated guess about how hard it would be to get that through (I would imagine very, but like I said, I know very little about their politics).
Workaccount2(2)
this is grossly misunderstanding the situation in Gaza, a two state solution was never acceptable to Israel, Hamas as it exists today is a result of Netanyahu policy. Israel created the monster to justify their genocide.
That might be the case, but that man cannot live forever. I am thinking long term, but am also just a civilian in the US. If there is good reason to have another policy I would like the experts to articulate that logic to us.
> a two state solution was never acceptable to Israel
Wrong, they accepted the 1947 partition plan and agreed to the Oslo accords
Wrong, they accepted the 1947 partition plan and agreed to the Oslo accords
The Oslo accords were intended - in the words of Rabin - to give the Palestinians 'less than a state', and arguably the division of the West Bank into Areas A, B and C have allowed for the expansion of settlements in the latter.
Whether the 1947 partition was accepted as a final state depends on who you ask, it's fairly clear that prominent figures viewed it as a stop along the way to a more comprehensive settlement. Take Ben Gurion ("After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.") or Chaim Weizmann ("partition might be only a temporary arrangement for the next twenty to twenty-five years"). Menachem Begin's Herut continued to use the slogan 'Both banks of the Jordan River", and this language is reflected in Likud's founding charter.
Whether the 1947 partition was accepted as a final state depends on who you ask, it's fairly clear that prominent figures viewed it as a stop along the way to a more comprehensive settlement. Take Ben Gurion ("After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.") or Chaim Weizmann ("partition might be only a temporary arrangement for the next twenty to twenty-five years"). Menachem Begin's Herut continued to use the slogan 'Both banks of the Jordan River", and this language is reflected in Likud's founding charter.
Not just 1947, Jews have been been in the area continuously and have bought land many times. 27 million dunams, which is equivalent to about 7-8 million acres if I'm not wrong, but were attacked since Jews are somehow an exception for owning land. During the same time period Israel was created, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and I believe 2-3 other Arab Muslim countries were created, yet those countries were not attacked.
Except Hamas took over Gaza in 2006/7 more or less in it's current form, before Netanyahu came back into power at 2009.
Hamas has always been an extreme organization, they executed a bunch of Fatah members by throwing them off buildings when they took over gaza, not exactly a fun loving bunch.
Sure Netanyahu didn't exactly help to see the least, but saying he is somehow solely responsible for Hamas is pretty biased.
Hamas has always been an extreme organization, they executed a bunch of Fatah members by throwing them off buildings when they took over gaza, not exactly a fun loving bunch.
Sure Netanyahu didn't exactly help to see the least, but saying he is somehow solely responsible for Hamas is pretty biased.
> executed a bunch of Fatah members by throwing them off buildings when they took over gaza
Was this before or after Fatah lost an election and then refused to step down, instead staging a violent coup?
Was this before or after Fatah lost an election and then refused to step down, instead staging a violent coup?
Are you actually trying to defend the execution of prisoners?
And that's putting aside whether what you said is right or wrong (which I'm sure you'll get very different answers from each side)
And that's putting aside whether what you said is right or wrong (which I'm sure you'll get very different answers from each side)
>> Hamas has always been an extreme organization, they executed a bunch of Fatah members by throwing them off buildings when they took over Gaza, not exactly a fun loving bunch.
Agreed. And Israel have annihilated over 50,000 Gazans. Not exactly a fun loving bunch.
Agreed. And Israel have annihilated over 50,000 Gazans. Not exactly a fun loving bunch.
I didn't say I agree with what Israel is doing so I'm not sure what the point of your comment is.
The truth is that there are zealots on both sides.
The truth is that there are zealots on both sides.
saying he is somehow solely responsible for Hamas is more than bias it's propaganda and lies. On the one hand people will defend Hamas and claim Israel is the aggressor and in the same sentence damn them while still blaming Israel. What kind of s#$% is that?
> a two state solution was never acceptable to Israel
Most recently in 2008, Israel made exactly such an offer and was rejected.
"Abbas has since confirmed that he turned down an Israeli offer for a Palestinian state on nearly 95% of the West Bank. In September 2008, Olmert had presented him with a map that delineated the borders of the proposed PA state, for which Israel would annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank and compensate the Palestinians with 5.8 percent (taken from pre-1967 Israel), which Abbas stated he rejected out of hand, insisting instead to demarcate the 4 June 1967 borders of Palestine. He said that Olmert did not give a map of the proposal and that he could not sign without seeing the proposal. Abbas also said that he was not an expert on maps and pointed to Olmert's corruption investigation (he was later convicted).[68][69] Abbas said in October 2011 that he made a counteroffer to let Israel annex 1.9% of the West Bank."
Sadly, English wikipedia has a lot less information on this than the Hebrew wikipedia, but maybe turn your translation software to this: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA...
Most recently in 2008, Israel made exactly such an offer and was rejected.
"Abbas has since confirmed that he turned down an Israeli offer for a Palestinian state on nearly 95% of the West Bank. In September 2008, Olmert had presented him with a map that delineated the borders of the proposed PA state, for which Israel would annex 6.3 percent of the West Bank and compensate the Palestinians with 5.8 percent (taken from pre-1967 Israel), which Abbas stated he rejected out of hand, insisting instead to demarcate the 4 June 1967 borders of Palestine. He said that Olmert did not give a map of the proposal and that he could not sign without seeing the proposal. Abbas also said that he was not an expert on maps and pointed to Olmert's corruption investigation (he was later convicted).[68][69] Abbas said in October 2011 that he made a counteroffer to let Israel annex 1.9% of the West Bank."
Sadly, English wikipedia has a lot less information on this than the Hebrew wikipedia, but maybe turn your translation software to this: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA...
"The civilians should be evacuated." They don't want to leave and Israel uses these "evacuations" to make sure Palestinians never return, as they did in 1948, 1967, etc[1][2]. This is whitewashing genocide and is an extremely violent view, packaged in reasonable sounding words. Israel has a long documented history of using terrorism to build its state. If you truly oppose terrorism I recommend starting with the books I've sourced.
[1] The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé
[2] The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 by Rashid Kahlidi
[1] The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé
[2] The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 by Rashid Kahlidi
It should be the UN, and with the express intent outlined in my post above. To return them back to their country once the criminals have been removed.
A two state solution is never possible when one state keeps expanding with impunity, and every time the second state resists it is called a terrorist state.
My country resisted colonization in the mid 20th century and the resistance efforts were called terrorism by everyone, nobody calls them terrorists now.
What country are you from? It is entirely possible they are still terrorists you just decided as society to ignore it.
The ICC has never issued any arrest warrants for our elected/appointed government officials if that's what you are asking.
HappyPanacea(2)
They've also not targeted your country either like they did Israel. Even Hungary has recognized their strange obsession with Israel recently. The ICC is part of the U.N. and have passed more resolutions against Israel, then the rest of the world combined. It's pure insanity. Especially when comparing a democracy in the Middle East, a place where every other country is either authoritarian, totalitarian, run by terrorists, or dictators. Bashar-Al-Assad has killed over 700,000 people, yet somehow Israel is worse. It's pure insanity.
[deleted]
Israel has not expanded. It has shrunk. It returned Sinai to Egypt. It returned Gaza to the Palestinians. It gave control of west bank cities to the Palestinian Authority after allowing it's bitter enemy leadership (the PLO and Arafat) to return to the West Bank.
I'm reading Ireland between the lines. There is zero similarity.
A two state solution is not possible because most Palestinians do not want that solution. They want Israel erased and Jews "erased" from the middle east. Offers were already on the table and refused and the Oslo peace process was killed by Hamas violence.
I'm reading Ireland between the lines. There is zero similarity.
A two state solution is not possible because most Palestinians do not want that solution. They want Israel erased and Jews "erased" from the middle east. Offers were already on the table and refused and the Oslo peace process was killed by Hamas violence.
Correction a two state solution is never possible when your neighbors are a terrorist organization backed by Iran, who coordinates with other terrorist organization who are also funded by Iran. This word play of calling Israel will not work. Unfortunately not everything is relative and words have actual meanings. When an organizations policy is to kidnap, torture, rape, and murder civilians with impunity, that is a terror organization, unlike the defense force of a democracy.
And I assume after this evacuation, purging, and installment of a new government Israel will magically change its ways? You need to address both sides to find a solution.