>"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."<p>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.<p>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.<p>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!<p>Edit: updated quotes
> 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.<p>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.
Censorship, especially a state interference in censorship smells really bad. Even if done for "good reasons" this can go bad really quickly.<p>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: <a href="http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-how-to-stab-jews-spreads-on-social-media" rel="nofollow">http://blog.adl.org/international/instructional-content-on-h...</a>) should probably be legitimately removed. (and it <i>was</i> removed by Facebook / Google / Twitter)<p>Posts that call for illegal actions (such as stabbing civilians) should be removed, whether they are posted by Palestinians or Israelis.<p>Some examples of posts that were probably the trigger of this:<p><a href="http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Documents/PalIncitementSocialMedia191015.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Do...</a><p>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 (<a href="http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-sue-Facebook-over-incitement-to-violence-by-Palestinians-430112" rel="nofollow">http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/20000-Israelis-su...</a>)<p>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.
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.<p>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.
> Facebook is confronting extreme pressure to censor content disliked by various governments.<p>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.
For more information on this "digital intifada", the documentaries from vice are pretty good: <a href="https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprising-digital-intifada-part-1" rel="nofollow">https://news.vice.com/video/palestinian-social-media-uprisin...</a>
A slippery slope. Absolutely posts promoting or justifying violent acts should be blocked - at least in my opinion.<p>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.
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.
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.<p>Why does no one actually talk about the fact that no one should tell FB what it can and cannot bring down on <i>its</i> property? Feeling unhappy about their heavy handedness? Just stop using FB.<p>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.<p>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)<p>1. Which government?<p>2. What if the government has an opposing government which has the exact opposite view on the censorship?<p>3. How can you be so sure the government you support is doing the right thing?<p>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?<p>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 <i>of course FB had to do these things at its own discretion</i>.<p>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."<p>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).<p>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).
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.
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.
"Can anyone imagine Facebook deleting the posts of prominent Israelis calling for increased violence or oppression against Palestinians?"<p>The author is suggesting censorship is good and bad at the same time. ;)
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:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Mu...</a><p>And I have "occupation" in quotes because of this (or do your own research, you will find many similar articles):
<a href="http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-that-israel-is-illegally-occupying-its-land" rel="nofollow">http://www.charismanews.com/world/38079-debunking-the-myth-t...</a>
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.<p>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 ;-)