You can’t be pro-Palestine if you’re not anti-Hamas.
Remember, Netanyahu is pro-Hamas because he knows Hamas is bad for Palestinians.
Sadly this is turning into one of those “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war” moments. People just hear “pro-Palestinian people” and immediately think “omg, you support Hamas and terrorists!”
I dunno. This just seems like one of those stupid talking points that sounds clever on the surface but when you actually think about it, it’s dumb as hell.
Like, are you really stupid enough to believe Hamas would sabotage any legitimate chance of getting Jews out of Israel because they prefer Gazans to be oppressed? Nah. They’d rather be in control of Israel.
Unfortunately, the snowball effect has already taken hold, so those who can’t think for themselves will just parrot what you’re saying without second thought in order to fit in.
Duh. This censoring is why antisemitic conspiracy theories take hold in the first place. I understand moderation, but if you flag any discussion that goes against mainstream narrative as extremist, all that is left is an echo chamber. It’s right out of 1984 playbook. I am wondering how long before Lemmy will be called an antisemitic platform for even posting news like that?
deleted by creator
Yes
Case in point both Instagram and X have removed the account of @eyeonPalestine
Website for reference: https://www.eyeonpalestine.ps/eye-on/index.html
@eyeonpalestine was removed after showing signs of the account being compromised. NBC
These accounts were initially locked for security reasons after signs of compromise, and we’re working to make contact with the account owners to ensure they have access
Why not make it read-only until they make contact with the owners. Seems like an awfully convinient excuse otherwise.
Facebook are pretty upfront about the reasons for taking down accounts. It’s possible before they were detected they managed to upload some stuff that would get the account banned right away.
Oh, so some guy posts CP to Twitter, Twitter removes the post and reinstates the guy entirely … but it’s tooootally not suspicious when FB nukes an account from orbit for “signs” of being compromised…
Yea, no. I call BS.
X (formerly known as Twitter) is a different company than Facebook. They have different policies.
Facebook tend to be upfront about the reasons they removed an account. And they’ll ignore any and all evidence to the contrary after they’ve made that decision. There was a guy who hit the HN frontpage this week because he can’t advertise his online courses on Python and Pandas. Apparently they thought he was trying to sell live animals instead of teaching people how to do data science.
Twitter just does whatever Musk wants this week.
Way to miss the point. They’re pretending to be up front. The real reason is the censorship you’re so adamantly denying.
Perhaps you can calm down and wait for eyeonpalestine to actually publish a statement before jumping to conclusions?
deleted by creator
The question before SCOTUS boils down to: “Is it against the First Amendment for the government to inform social media platforms that a post/account violates that platform’s TOS?”
The Biden administration is explicitly NOT ordering these platforms to take down posts, but reporting them to mods, like any other user can.
Pro-palestine posts are anti-semetic don’t you./s
Anyone else find it weird how it’s not okay to be anti-semetic, but it’s okay to be: anti-Chinese, anti-Russian, and anti-muslim?
Bigoted hypocrites seldom realize they’re bigoted or hypocrites. At least not in any meaningful way. There were a shitload of them before this attack. Why so surprised they all have the wrong opinion? It’s exactly what they always do: blame the victim.
These are the people that ask, “well what was she wearing?” after someone gets SA’d…
It’s ok?
Yes, even encouraged.
You can be anti war crimes without being anti semetic, or anti Russian, or anti China. You can be anti terrorist without being anti Muslim. You needn’t be a bigot.
Once you start making social media platforms legally liable for the contents of their users’ posts, this is what will always happen. E.g. this state of affairs appears to be the express purpose of Canadian law. I don’t know why anyone is surprised.
If you want free speech, you have to stop punishing the courier who delivers messages you don’t like.
What’s the opposite of Betteridge’s law
Worseflat’s law?
Obviously censoring is bad, but which side is the
goodbetter guys?The civilians who are just trying to survive anyway they can.
And what if they’re killing other civilians in the process?
