Excerpt: "Facebook has been working with Israeli Government officials to suppress Palestinian voices in the social media sphere."
Facebook has been blocking Palestinian content. (photo: Reuters)
Social Media Imperialism? Facebook Bans Palestinian Content at Behest of Israel, US
31 December 17
Meanwhile, The Washington Post is asking why accounts belonging to sanctioned officials in Venezuela, Iran and Russia are "allowed" to remain online.
acebook has been working with Israeli Government officials to suppress Palestinian voices in the social media sphere according to a report published on Saturday in The Intercept. The partnership between the social media giant and officials in Tel Aviv has resulted in the censorship, removal or blocking of content deemed critical of the Israelis with these posting being branded as �incitement.�
The observations, which were made in an article by journalist Glenn Greenwald, come in light of a dramatic uptick in Israeli military repression toward Palestinian civilians in the aftermath of U.S. President Donald Trump's recognition of Tel Aviv's exclusive claims to the illegally occupied city of Jerusalem.
Facebook's virtually unlimited acquiescence with Israeli requests to remove content, has been described as a �censorship rampage� by Greenwald and have been carried out since Tel Aviv began blaming alleged, �online incitement� for unrest and resistance that overwhelmingly resulted in violence against Palestinian civilians. The hue and cry raised by Tel Aviv resulted in an arrangement between Facebook and the Israeli state, struck in Sept. 2016, that resulted in the creation of teams devoted toward the monitoring and removal of alleged �inflammatory content� criticizing the occupation.
Following the arrangement, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked � who has posted racist remarks about Palestinian �little snakes� (children) and �African infiltrators� (migrants) � bragged that the social media giant was honoring 95 percent out of 158 requests to remove Palestinian content. In Greenwald's words, Facebook's collaboration with Tel Aviv gave the Israelis "virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians."
Despite Facebook's vigilance over content, the Israelis deemed �inflammatory,� posts by extremist Jewish settlers and far-right Zionist officials calling for brutal repression and violence toward Palestinians went unchecked, leaving the dispossessed people with little leverage to combat the occupation's control of the popular social network. Palestinian complaints highlighting an increasing Israeli social media discourse of hatred remained ignored by the California-based company.
The Facebook�s ban even extended to four editors of Shehab News Agency, a page with 6.3 million likes, and to three executives from Quds News Network, which has 5.1 million likes. The journalists and officals were barred from accessing their personal accounts on the basis of violating the site's �community standards".
"The concern is that Facebook is adopting Israeli policy and terminology when it comes to defining what incitement is," Nadim Nashif, a co-founder of the Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media, told Al Jazeera at the time.
In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson cited the need to make the network a �safe� space: "We want people to feel safe when using Facebook, and for that reason, we've developed a set of community standards which make it clear there is no place for terrorists or content that promotes terrorism on Facebook."
Meanwhile, the journalist added, Palestinians have virtually no opportunity to pressure the Israelis in reciprocal moves as widespread anti-Arab incitements for violence among Israeli netizens remains largely unhindered and undeterred by the social media giant.
Greenwald's commentary was released as The Washington Post reported that Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov had been barred from using Facebook-owned photo-sharing app Instagram, primarily because of U.S. sanctions. The article continues to ask �why only� Kadyrov was removed due to his inclusion on the sanctions list, naming other officials who could be barred from the social network such as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and various Russian officials. The Post is owned by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos.
Earlier this week, the Twitter account belonging to imprisoned Palestinian teenage girl Ahed Tamimi was inexplicably deleted following her arrest and imprisonment by Israeli authorities. The deletion came as hashtags calling for her release were trending across the globe, raising suspicions that Twitter, too, was acting in accordance with Tel Aviv's demands.
�One can create a fantasy world in one�s head if one wishes, in which Silicon Valley executives use their power to protect marginalized peoples around the world by censoring those who wish to harm them,� Greenwald noted.
�But in the real world, that is nothing but a sad pipe dream. Just as governments will, these companies will use their censorship power to serve, not to undermine, the world�s most powerful factions.�
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
As to the alleged "value" of certain information, that is irrelevant. The point is not that someone "could" (allegedly) have sold the information in question. The point is that Bradley Manning did nothing of the sort.
The covering up of war crimes is itself a crime. The Bradley Manning court martial is itself a crime.
Not ruling on Manning's guilt or innocence at the moment, it is clear that the military establishment itself is profoundly guilty, and that no judgment by this court can be legitimate in the slightest.
We could start referring to Manning, with Wikileaks, Assange, Snowden and other courageous whistle blowers who will emerge to shine the unwelcome light of truth on the Military-Corpor ate state with it's decades-long violations of human rights and dignity, collectively as the "New White Rose" and their judge(s) as "Friesler the Latter"!
Spread it around folks.
clip Someone attending a pre-trial hearing recorded a plea statement Manning made accepting responsibility for 10 of the 22 charges against him. Lind registered her strong displeasure with that action, a violation of courtroom rules, but did not significantly alter security procedures.
Don't know what else to do. It feels feeble, but I am so let down by the official bias against whistle-blowers / whistle-blowing . I agree with Snowden's father that Attorney General Holder's promising that Snowden wouldn't get the death penalty and wouldn't be tortured if he returns to the U.S. - already shows bias and assumption of guilt. As Snowden's Dad said, Holder should have been voicing "rule of law," and "trial by peers," etc. "Presumption of innocence until proven guilty." Why is Holder so uninformed as to go with the bias he shows? Have we no adults left on the scene? Well, young adults Manning and Snowden certainly earn "adult" label. They've voluntarily put themselves into the scene.
--- umm, is Bradley Manning being charged with releasing for free information that could have been sold (by whom) to a foreign intelligence service? Or, is he charged with releasing for free information which would save the foreign intelligence $1.9 million to acquire via their own efforts? Or, is he charged with releasing for free information that the foreign intelligence could then use to save itself $1.9 million in military efforts? What is the crime and what does the dollar value of the information refer to? How does it relate to the safety of American citizens or residents of the United States? It has never been clear what danger Bradley Manning's releases ever posed to the safety of our country, of our citizens, or of the residents of this United States.
Aye, only to those who are the real traitors, finks and nepotists. Wonder if he's had any information through his hands about the Iraq "missing billions"?
I'll bet my kilted toosh that KBR/Haliburton/ Cheyn-gang/Dimw its/Blair want him shut up!