So is the guardian. It's standard operating procedure for militant newspapers to express their own opinion by pretending to report on some random third party expressing them.
Typical example is headline in the style of "minister xx condemned for saying yy". And in the body of the article, "condemned" means some random university professor or political activist or even an anonymous tweet quoted saying they really dislike yy. And if the editor of the newspaper likes yy, the headline will instead be "minister xx praised for saying yy". It's all objective reporting of facts!
To claim that someone is biased is little more then to express your disagreement with them. Your source contains all kinds of mutually contradictory disagreements that various people have with HRW, including for example that "HRW rarely criticizes human rights abuses by the United States and its allies, and almost always reaches conclusions consistent with Western foreign policy positions" but also claims of bias against Israel - a US ally that is overwhelmingly supported by western foreign policy.
In the article you linked, the section on antisemitism is mostly about the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) criticism of HRW. The ADL itself is not exactly unbiased - it's primarily a pro-Israeli lobby group nowadays.
HRW is usually criticized for being too closely aligned with American foreign policy. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a notable exception, and HRW's criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians rankles a lot of supporters of Israel.
This seems like a consequence of the bot activity driving those messages, including concerted efforts to spread false information.
I.E. It's possibly in response to (1) fake news reporting from their own users, (2) their EU-misinformation obligations and (3) analysis of messages and traffic sources across their own apps.
Regardless of one's view to the war, it's been trivial to see how misinformation has exploded since October.
And also from a quantitative point of view, there is about 100 muslims in the world for every jew. So even assuming militants and misinformation on each side follows those proportions (probably slightly worse if you include the far left), any attempt at curbing false information will hit the Palestinian side in larger numbers.
Doesn't mean I agree that social networks or the EU should be the arbitrator of truth.
Even the President of the US came out talking about having seen photos of beheaded babies just because he could. First the White House backpedaled, he didn't actually see the photos himself, then the IDF did, there were no photos.
Misinformation obligations, good one.
A widespread effort to belittle or even justify genocide is everywhere you turn... but sure, this magically could be something else in this instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watc...