
Facebook Collaborating with Israeli Government on What Should Be Censored - marcusgarvey
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/12/facebook-is-collaborating-with-the-israeli-government-to-determine-what-should-be-censored/
======
davemel37
>"Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit,
and so it will interpret very slippery concepts such as “hate speech” and
“inciting violence” to please those who wield the greatest power."

This story does everything other than show a single example of hate speech and
inciting violence posts being a "slippery concept" or a single example of
Israel asking for something to be removed that doesnt directly incite
violence.

I cant imagine someone thinking a video of a cleric waving a knife telling his
followers to stab Jews or of little kids being taught to stab jews as being
slippery or possibly interpreted as not inciting violence.

The only thing mentioned is that Israel will help Facebook identify violence
inciting posts...not hate speech, not political speech, strictly violence
inciting posts...and the Author goes out on a massive limb to paint a picture
of censorship and abuse of power and finger pointing at other offenders...
remove any calls to violence...especially when you can directly link it to
actual violence!

Edit: updated quotes

~~~
bitchypat
Slippery enough? (The timing is impeccable)

[https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-
fr...](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-
white-supremacists-an-explainer/)

~~~
milankragujevic
Ha ha ha, hillaryclinton.com. Pepe is not a white supremacy symbol, however
some white supremacists may also use the Pepe frog meme. Declaring an innocent
frog used by weirdos on 4chan how just want to be edgy and cool to be a white
supremacy symbol is, frankly, naive.

~~~
mafribe

       naive
    

It's not naive, but a well-executed damage-control move to detract attention
away from Mrs Clinton's health problems. The ludicrousness of discussing frogs
close to the election of the world's sole superpower is part of the
effectiveness of the move.

------
throwanem
> It’s true that these companies have the legal right as private actors to
> censor whatever they want. But that proposition ignores the unprecedented
> control this small group of corporations now exerts over global
> communications.

I've had my differences with Mr. Greenwald over the years. But he's exactly
right about this. I cannot imagine a clearer or more concise statement of the
essential issue here at hand.

------
eranation
Censorship, especially a state interference in censorship smells really bad.
Even if done for "good reasons" this can go bad really quickly.

Having that said, and I'm all for free speech, but a post calling to use a
better knife to inflict more damage on an ethnic group (I'm not making this
up: [http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-
on-h...](http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-how-to-
stab-jews-spreads-on-social-media)) should probably be legitimately removed.
(and it _was_ removed by Facebook / Google / Twitter)

Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be
removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis.

Some examples of posts that were probably the trigger of this:

[http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Do...](http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Documents/PalIncitementSocialMedia191015.pdf)

Facebook should follow one rule - any post that is illegal should be removed.
How do they decide what is illegal? they let their legal department interpret
it I assume, or wait to be sued and then decide ([http://www.jpost.com/Arab-
Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...](http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-
Conflict/20000-Israelis-sue-Facebook-over-incitement-to-violence-by-
Palestinians-430112))

Still, Facebook should handle it as it handles things anywhere else. Maybe
Israel have some good examples of content that should have been removed, but
in most cases it has been removed, so basically Facebook is outsourcing
moderation to the Israeli Government because they don't have enough moderators
that can read Arabic or just not enough manpower? No matter if it's justified
or not, a government should not meddle with the moderation operations of a
global public platform.

~~~
barkbro
> Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be
> removed

What about a post that calls for women to vote? Or for black people to sit in
the front of the bus?

That sounds like a recipe for abuse. It would be more reasonable to only ban
enticing violence, for example.

~~~
tedunangst
So, uh, how many posts calling for women to vote has Facebook deleted?

------
Animats
Of the big three in social outside China, Google and Facebook both have Jewish
CEOs. So does Yahoo, if that still matters. Twitter's CEO is Catholic.

Of the new generation of social networks, Instagram is owned by Facebook,
Snapchat's CEO is Episcopalian, and Tumblr is owned by Yahoo. So 5 out of 7
are under Jewish control.

~~~
jrapdx3
IMO this comment exemplifies a fairly common logical/factual error, and is
therefore misleading.

While the enterprises named were founded or headed by individuals with Jewish
ancestry, there is not much else of significance being said. The statement
implies that "Jewish control" is a meaningful idea, but it is not.

First of all, Jews are a very heterogeneous group and vary considerably
ethnically, religiously and politically. There is absolutely no central Jewish
"authority", and Jews hold very diverse views on all topics. Secondly,
imagining there's communication among the 5/7 CEO's to coordinate their
corporate policies on the basis of any "Jewish agenda" is in tinfoil
territory, and absurd in the extreme. Finally if the commenter is implying
there's some kind of built-in, genetic "Jewish worldview" that predisposes to
disfavored corporate policies, that's obviously fallacious.

The motivation for making such assertions is unclear, indeed what the writer
hoped to communicate is equally foggy. However, the comment emits an aura of
antisemitism, as if attempting to attribute undesirable corporate behavior to
the mere fact of CEO's presumed Jewish origins. I believe that represents
troublesome prejudice that needs to be discouraged.

~~~
Animats
There's a central "support Israel" authority in the US - AIPAC.

It's Randi Zuckerberg, Mark's sister, who's the "super Jew" (her words). [1]
She organizes trips to Israel for tech executives and supports AIPAC. She
heads Zuckerberg Media.

The Facebook censorship seems to be a response to pressure from Israel.[1]

[1]
[[http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/randi_zuckerb...](http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/randi_zuckerberg_silicon_valley_girl)]

[2] [http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-
su...](http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-sue-Facebook-
over-incitement-to-violence-by-Palestinians-430112)

~~~
CommanderData
Interesting. But how does it mean Facebook will align itself to Israels
interests? Just because Zuckerberg's sister supports AIPAC doesn't mean
Facebook is.

While a relationship between Facebook and Israel seems strong. How does it
affect posts that are critical to Israeli policy? For example, if I post
something that highlights activity that is illegal according to the UN how is
Facebook to justify the removal of that post?

------
tempodox
> Facebook is confronting extreme pressure to censor content disliked by
> various governments.

So much for all the Constitutions, right to free speech and what have you. The
tiniest bout of bad weather makes them go away in a jiffy, if you let our
governments decide. One bad day, and we're back to burning witches, because
that's still the best PR campaign for any ideology.

------
tuna-piano
For more information on this "digital intifada", the documentaries from vice
are pretty good: [https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-
uprisin...](https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprising-
digital-intifada-part-1)

~~~
s_q_b
The phrase "digital intifada" induces an eye-roll nearly as severe as it's
cousin "digital holocaust."

Comparing the deaths of massive numbers of civilians to Facebook posts is
tone-deaf at best.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Intifada literally means tremor or shaking, and in context it means "to shake
off" or "uprising"

It's a real concept with reasonable meaning- digital revolution, digital
uprising, etc. Not necessarily related to the first and second initfadas, the
historical events.

~~~
s_q_b
In this case it means uprising. The choice to use that particular word,
especially in English, deliberately links current acts of free speech to two
previous brutal civil wars.

This is neither a real event nor a reasonable use of terms. It is an abuse of
terminology to engender in the reader a particular set of emotions, which
leads to a desired set of actions.

In politics, language matters.

------
mark_l_watson
A slippery slope. Absolutely posts promoting or justifying violent acts should
be blocked - at least in my opinion.

However posts, in this case critical of the Israeli or Palestinian
governments, that criticize actions of public figures and organizations should
be protected as free speech.

~~~
vkou
> justifying violent acts

So, when the POTUS is going to start drumming up support for the next war,
Facebook should block him, her supporters, and the media puppet-show that will
cheer-lead this adventure?

What about Israeli settler groups? They use violence to take land from its
owners. Should they also be blocked?

~~~
dogma1138
>They use violence to take land from its owners

Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of
land grab by force.

Israeli leftist organizations constantly try to publish the deals knowing that
it would result in likely deaths as the penalty of selling land to a Jew (not
Israeli but a Jew) under PA law is death, and if the PA doesn't get to you the
neighbourhood mob will.

The Israeli settlements especially around the B areas are a problem but it's
less the settlement itself and more the supporting infrastructure associated
with, primarily the fact that the Israeli armed forces have to step in and
provide protection.

Israeli settlement policy is inconsistent they are actively dismantling the
smaller settlements and supporting the big ones, however there is also a
perception issue every time there is some headlines of 100,000 homes being
built it's a gross and intentional misrepresentation of the facts; since they
account for every construction permit as a housing unit even if it's a permit
to change the porch or move the sidewalk, and there seem to be complete
disregard to the difference between E. Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks
which are effectively cities and the smaller settlements which spawn
sporadically (and often dismantled) deeper within the west bank.

~~~
vkou
Just because an exchange of money takes place does not at all mean that it's
not under duress. A camp prisoner selling their personal property, or their
talents to a prison guard is not a fair exchange of value either.

The creation of support infrastructure, and the need to defend it is an
obvious consequence of settlements - just like the obvious consequence of that
defense is the partitioning of Palestinian land, military checkpoints,
disruption of freedom of travel, arbitrary detention, and the occasional
excursion and killings.

These settlements can't exist without the frequent application of violence.

~~~
dogma1138
>Just because an exchange of money takes place does not at all mean that it's
not under duress.

The average sale is over 50 times the value of the property.

>A camp prisoner selling their personal property, or their talents to a prison
guard is not a fair exchange of value either.

Your analogy is really really wrong.

>These settlements can't exist without the frequent application of violence.

That is a correct statement, but if you actually deconstruct it the argument
isn't the one you are trying to make.

Without the violence towards Jews the settlements would not be needed at all,
if a Jew can buy a house in Hebron which had a vibrant Jewish community up to
it's slaughter during the Arab revolts at the end of the 19th century and live
there in peace and quiet there would be no need to call it a settlement.

Many of these "settlements" aren't towns, they aren't cities, they are
apartments that were purchased in a town where Jews used to live and were
driven out. This includes places like Hebron and Jerusalem, because according
to the press and some people a Jewish family moving into a house in E.
Jerusalem is a new settlement, or at least an expansion of an existing one.

If Jews could live there without the fear of violence there would be no reason
for the "infrastructure" which causes so much "inconvenience" to Palestinians,
I'm pretty sure that the Jews would also prefer it that way, they might
actually be able to open a window.

------
kobayashi
The Intercept seems to have a real problem with providing fair coverage of
anything related to Israel. The problems of incitement to violence on Facebook
result in actualized civilian deaths in Israel.

~~~
joobus
Israel has a real problem allowing journalists to accurately cover Israel's
illegal occupation of Palestine.

~~~
anon1385
For those asking for evidence:
[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/14/media-
frustrat...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/14/media-frustrated-
over-gaza)

>UK news organisations are becoming increasingly frustrated by the continuing
ban preventing foreign correspondents from crossing into the Gaza Strip, more
than two weeks after Israel's military offensive against Hamas began.

>After months of attempting to limit access, the Israel Defence Forces are
still refusing to open the Erez crossing they closed on 27 December, when the
bombing campaign began, to anything other than humanitarian aid – despite a
supreme court ruling ordering the government to allow members of the
international press into Gaza.

>David Mannion, the ITV News editor-in-chief, branded the Israeli media ban
"disgraceful", while Dominic Wagthorn, the Sky News Middle East correspondent,
said the "unprecedented" level of interference was "very frustrating".

~~~
lr4444lr
That's not evidence of suppressing news about the occupation. Israel
unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Still controls everything that goes in and out of Gaza. Including essential
supplies like medicinea and food. They also reserve the "right" to invade Gaza
whenever necessary, while keeping the population locked in. The whole world
agrees that it constitutes an occupation.

~~~
lr4444lr
> Still controls everything that goes in and out of Gaza

Gaza is a part of a separate sovereign state, with which Israel has tense
foreign relations and is within its rights to control exports. and they're
posting border guards for those exiting it. It's legally no different from
inspections that take place at U.S./Mexico border checkpoints.

> They also reserve the "right" to invade Gaza whenever necessary

Source?

> while keeping the population locked in

Source? No country is obligated (except for E.U. member states) to allow the
free flow of people without visas. The only thing I've read which might
qualify for this claim is naval blockade of the coastline.

> The whole world agrees that it constitutes an occupation

Gaza? Source?

~~~
Synaesthesia
Gaza is being kept separated from the West Bank and the rest of the world by a
total blockade, maintained by Israel in violation of the Oslo accords, which
Israel signed 20 years ago. Immediately after the signing of those accords
(1993) Gaza was closed off with a fence and travel was severely curtailed with
an electronic card system. The blockade has only become more severe since
then.

Regarding you request for source on the "right to invade Gaza": > "Israel will
continue to control Gaza's coastline and airspace and reserves the right to
undertake military operations when necessary. (Art 3.1)."
[http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/mfadocuments/p...](http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/mfadocuments/pages/revised%20disengagement%20plan%206-june-2004.aspx)

This is also evident by the many incursions Israel has made on Gaza. Israel is
still firing shells into Gaza with tanks and mortars!
[https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hundred...](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hundreds+attacks+gaza+2016&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=gaza+attacked+2016+tanks)

Regarding the Israeli control of Gaza being an occupation:

>In January 2012, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General stated that
under resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the UN
still regards Gaza to be part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.[15]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-
occupied_territories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-
occupied_territories)

~~~
lr4444lr
I agree that the seacoast and airspace represents a problem, and so is the
reliance of Gaza on water and power infrastructure within Israel, which is a
difficult humanitarian problem when mutual hostilities exist. I'm pleased to
see that you've narrowed your statements to that issue, as it's a huge step in
a discussion about the logistics of a solution.

I don't see the text you've cited from your first source when I follow the
link about the prerogative of general military operations. There is similar
wording in B 3.1 et ff., but limited to defense, and context is needed: Israel
is formally at war with Hamas, which (after suspending every election in Gaza
after they were put in power) is the de facto regional authority. This is not
a claim of a peacetime "right" any more than our in

The second link is not a source, and the most recent attacks at the top of the
search are claimed to be a self-defense response.

The link in the third source is nowhere to be found, but it likely rests on UN
Resolution 242, of which Hamas (and the PNA insofar as Abbas represents it)
has not honored by rejection of affirmation 1(ii): "Termination of all claims
or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State
in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized
boundaries free from threats or acts of force"
[http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf](http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch3.pdf)

------
xenosapien
They're probably right. There was virtually no violence in the region before
Facebook. /s

------
thr0waway1239
Is there anyone here who is against what FB is doing in this situation but
supported FB's backdown on the napalm episode? Welcome to the slippery slope
of bad precedents.

Why does no one actually talk about the fact that no one should tell FB what
it can and cannot bring down on _its_ property? Feeling unhappy about their
heavy handedness? Just stop using FB.

If you see my comments history, you will know that I actually despise FB a lot
- but on this issue, I not only feel sorry for them, but I am a little
surprised by the double standards.

Question for those who are now suggesting that government of country X should
decide what is best to allow on FB's private property (remembering that FB
would want to play it safe and in their ideal world would prefer that FB
resembles Disneyland where people just wave and smile and buy expensive stuff)

1\. Which government?

2\. What if the government has an opposing government which has the exact
opposite view on the censorship?

3\. How can you be so sure the government you support is doing the right
thing?

Is there anyone here who is actually surprised a government pounced on the
first sign of placation from FB to now demand things which should be best left
to FB's discretion? And do you honestly think the governments of other
countries are not queueing up with their demand next?

And let us suppose that FB does follow some government's diktat, and takes
some action which somehow counterintuitively worsens the situation somehow?
Would you all then personally also take responsibility for the consequences?
Here is what everyone will say at that point: well, no one can predict the
future, and _of course FB had to do these things at its own discretion_.

And what about this statement: "All of this underscores the severe dangers of
having our public discourse overtaken, regulated, and controlled by a tiny
number of unaccountable tech giants."

No company has any more power on these matters than that which we give them,
often willingly. They certainly exploit it, but why is the article talking
about this as if FB sent its troops to scatter people who had gathered for
public discourse? In your mind, maybe FB's censorship looks the same - but
that is only true if you are left with no alternatives. Public discourse has
not been "overtaken", people just want to have their cake (undisturbed
expression of thoughts) and eat it too (on property that does not belong to
them, or to the public).

I noted before, but FB should have been left alone to bring down any post it
wanted, as long as it consistently enforces its rules even if you feel the
rules are too naive and simplistic (e.g. nude picture of child).

~~~
gmarx
The Norway thing amused me because I imagine many (most) of the people who
were outraged by that would be perfectly happy with censorship of things they
do consider offensive.

As Facebook stated, there is no way to please everyone on this. Even a simple
policy of "we censor nothing" is bound to piss off huge numbers of people and
many governments

------
mitchellst
Just saying, "Collaborating" was a very poor choice of words.

------
mbloom1915
Someone define 'collaborating' here =/

------
mary_fortran
Y Combinator loves to bash Israel (and Jews!) for some reason. I agree with
your assessment. There's plenty of Israel critical material on Facebook. Only
a very few items--items that would be not legal under US law, have been cited
as examples. There's no secret kabal conspiracy here.

~~~
dang
That's a false and absurd smear. I can't do better than davemel37's well-
reasoned reply.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12488743](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12488743)
and marked it off-topic.

------
DominikR
Edit: Intercept is not British, my bad.

~~~
gort
British media?

~~~
DominikR
-

~~~
saiya-jin
> Yes and not just their media but also their politicians. The UK society
> seems to be much more critical of Israel than the US or continental Europe.

well US is crystal-clear on this - they let Israelis do almost anything they
want. Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony
in this case is slightly beyond ridiculous). Europe probably goes +-in same
footsteps. I mean, it's the only +- western society that for sure won't go
jihad way against west in very lucrative and rich region. they need them and
vice versa, business as usual.

that said I must say I have big respect for them for striving in such a
hostile environment. or maybe it's exactly because of that - growth due to
challenge and whatnot

~~~
dogma1138
>Build biggest concentration camp post WWII? sure, no problem (the irony in
this case is slightly beyond ridiculous).

Jewish concentration camps fired 100,000 rockets into German cities? I never
knew, it certainly explains a lot.

------
neves
FB is the main news outlet of a majority of friends. The fact that FB owner
and some its main investors are from Jewish ascent is really an menace to the
diversity of points of views.

~~~
neves
The downvote of any kind of discussion of the influence of the religion in the
acts of people, also curbs the freedom of information.

------
blablabla123
"Can anyone imagine Facebook deleting the posts of prominent Israelis calling
for increased violence or oppression against Palestinians?"

The author is suggesting censorship is good and bad at the same time. ;)

~~~
ta_donk_gt
I took it to mean that censorship is generally one-sided and logically
inconsistent...I guess we see what we want to see.

~~~
blablabla123
Why is that? Censorship is there for a reason, usually because a government
wants to protect itself. (When something illegal is removed, it's not
censorship.) But unless people who advocate against it accomplish to create
consistent arguments, they won't be very successful.

~~~
ta_donk_gt
> Why is that?

Why is what? Why did I interpret this as what the author was saying? Why is
censorship generally implemented in a biased way?

If the former, based on the way the article was written, I interpreted that
phrase as saying that FB is worrying about censoring one side of Isreali-
Palestinian, but not the equivalent views on the other side.

And that leads to the conclusion of the latter question above, which is that
this is how it generally goes with censorship. We generally only want to
censor opposing viewpoints, but not our own views which are often logically
equivalent (because being so emotionally invested in our own viewpoints and
only being able to see the world from our own vantage point does not allow us
to see the opposing views as logically equivalent). That is one-sided and
logically inconsistent, but is human nature.

I wasn't saying anything about what should be illegal and what should not,
only that I think you misinterpreted what the author was trying to convey.

~~~
blablabla123
> We generally only want to censor opposing viewpoints

Some people call that integrity or being self-aware: only doing things that
you don't regret. I don't have to explain this, right?

------
gavanwoolery
I like how mainstream media is always quick to mention Israel's "occupation"
\- but never brings up the fact that they were exiled from their homes
throughout the Middle East:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Mu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries)

And I have "occupation" in quotes because of this (or do your own research,
you will find many similar articles):
[http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-
myth-t...](http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-that-
israel-is-illegally-occupying-its-land)

~~~
brainfire
Your first point is unrelated to the topic.

Your second point is unrelated to the topic and runs counter to the opinion of
the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the
International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Court of
Justice.

~~~
gavanwoolery
The article uses the term "occupation" so I'd say it is related.

The United Nations is one of the most corrupt political entities so their
stance is of dubious value IMHO.

[https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2](https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1853.2)
[http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-
and...](http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-
for-reform/)

------
reitanqild
Worth noting here is that until now Facebook has been fairly anti-Israelic, so
hopefully this is just an attempt to make it more neutral.

Edit: If you have a lot of pro Israeli friends and didn't care to check
outside of that thats not my fault (feel free to check, some of you might be
delighted to see all the hate against Israelis that exists there ;-)

~~~
ceejayoz
If you look hard enough on Facebook you'll find both anti-Israeli and anti-
Palestinian (and pro-both). Anecdotes from a single person's filter bubble
aren't really evidence.

~~~
reitanqild
There were a test a while ago (January 2016 I think) were two exactly similar
groups were created:

One were full of hate messages towards Israelis.

The other one were full of hate messages towards Palestinian Arabs.

One were closed almost immediately.

One were not.

Care were taken to make sure they were exactly similar.

Sources:

[https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+grou...](https://www.google.no/search?q=israeli+palestinian+hate+group+facebook+test)

(Please note that Facebook admitted this to be the case.)

~~~
ceejayoz
Top result for me: [http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-
test-...](http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-proves-
anti-israel-bias/)

> In a simple test, the organization tracked down two existing Facebook pages
> – one pro-Israeli, and one pro-Palestinian – and uploaded content to each
> that was rife with incitement to violence and hate.

Sample size of two is just another anecdote.

Anyone who's reported large numbers of Facebook pages - like
[https://twitter.com/monteiro](https://twitter.com/monteiro), who's been on a
anti-gun sale campaign - knows getting a page taken down often depends on the
random reviewer assigned to the case. I've personally reported the same page
several times before someone at FB says "yep, deleted".

