Meta has said it will expand its hate speech policy to cover more uses of the word “Zionist” when applied to Jews or Israelis on its platform.

We will now remove messages targeting ‘Zionists’ in several areas where our investigation has shown that the term tends to be used to refer to Jews and Israelis, with dehumanising comparisons, calls to harm, or denials of existence," the company said in a press release on Tuesday.

In December, Human Rights Watch said that Meta was guilty of “systemic censorship of Palestine content” during Israel’s war on Gaza.

  • chrash0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    most Zionists i’ve met are white Protestants, and most Jews i’ve met aren’t Zionists…

  • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Zionists: It’s anti Semitic to say Zionists control social media.

    Also Zionists: from now on you’re not allowed to criticize us on social media.

  • bazus1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Headline next week: Meta has said it will expand its hate speech policy to cover more uses of the word “Nazi” when applied to white males on its platform.

    • Manos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      5 months ago

      Probably fitting. Babbling leftists have thrown that word around so much its lost all meaning as well.

      • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Let’s not pretend that there isn’t an active effort to undermine the meaning of Nazi. I’ve seen many more claims of Nazi being overused than I have of anyone actually accusing someone of being a Nazi, in good faith or otherwise

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    Conflating Jews and Zionists is obligatory for Mark “Donated $125.000 to Zaka” Zuckerberg.

    Also denial of the existence of israel is now forbidden in Germany and on Meta platforms. Free speech btw.

        • MajinBlayze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Pretending the state of Israel isn’t a form of regional power doesn’t make it go away.

          Don’t get me wrong, Israel has shown time and again that it does not deserve that power and must be dismantled. But that doesn’t sound like what the law is talking about.

          Maybe I’m being overly pedantic about the language in use

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            To be clear I’m talking about the government form of one single state and calling it Palestine, Not booting out everyone living there.

            Israel could be recognized as a country. In fact Palestinians have presented a two state solution for mutual recognition. If israel accepts it, it will become a country. Even Hamas has said to be open to this

            Palestinians have the right to recognize israel as a country as they have stolen their land. We do not have that right. Lucky for israel if they aren’t super Nazis looking to expand their Lebensraum, they can agree to that two state solution right now.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Also denial of the existence of israel is now forbidden in Germany and on Meta platforms. Free speech btw.

      Maybe it’s just me, but calling for the eradication of a country is bad (controversial take, I know)

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Calling for the eradication of a religious ethnostate that engages in genocide and colonialism is surprisingly a good thing.

        Or do you think it was bad the world eradicated Nazi Germany?

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s an excellent historical analogy — too bad you’ve misunderstood it. Germany was not dissolved after WW2, and its population was not thrown to the wolves. We only replaced their government. I agree that Likud needs to go (ideally to the Hague) but the people here wanting to wipe the country from the map are dangerous lunatics.

          • Deceptichum@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            The countries of East and West Germany would like a word with you. The state of Nazi Germany very clearly ceased to exist.

            • cygnus@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              The division was because the winners couldn’t coexist, not because Germany inherently needed to be split. The whole thing could have been treated like West Germany.

              • Deceptichum@quokk.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                No, the division was because the winners couldn’t agree on who gets to build a new country where the old one was.

                No one was going to leave the Nazi state in power.

                • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The division was because the winners couldn’t coexist,

                  No, the division was because the winners couldn’t agree on who gets to build a new country where the old one was.

                  Sounds to me like we’re in agreement here? In any case, the Allies didn’t give have Poland annex German territory or whatever. It continued to exist. Lots of people in this thread on the other hand want to delete Israel altogether and give it all to Palestine (which, incidentally, has never been a state at any point in history)

    • daddyjones@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      shown that the term tends to be used to refer to Jews and Israelis, with dehumanising comparisons, calls to harm, or denials of existence,"

      This is not confusing the two - this is specifically targeting anti-semitism

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        No this is banning criticism of israel along with it. Using Judaism as a shield for Zionists.

        If they wanted to ban antisemitism they would not have included non-antisemitism in there.

        • daddyjones@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          You think that dehumanising, calling for harm or denials of Jewish existence aren’t anti-semitism?

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Why are you bringing up Judaism?

            The article separately mentions Zionism. This has nothing to do with Judaism.

            • daddyjones@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              You mentioned Judaism. You think Zionism had nothing to do with Judaism? You think dehumanising anyone - including Zionists is ok?

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        That is exactly it. Antisemites figured out a while back that they could say whatever they want about Jews as long as they swap out the word Zionist. This has been a feature of white supremacy for ages. It used to be “people with big noses” or “people who wear hats” or even “bankers,” or “globalists.” The latter two are more similar to the use of “Zionist” because they represent actual groups that people criticize. That gives more cover to the actual antisemites.

        This is actually a good thing, because it removes that cover from bigots who want to hijack the movement and hide behind it.

        • tjsauce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Isn’t it incredibly dangerous to ban “Zionist” only because it’s misused? It can be used to legitimately describe people who have a vested interest in Isreal occupying Palestine. I understand it’s used as a slur, but banning otherwise normal words will make the discourse much more difficult.

          • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Who said anything about banning it? You can read the full statement here. As I said, this is about bigots co-opting the word to say bigoted shit, taking into account the nuance of how a word can be used or misused. Literally no one other than propagandists are talking about Meta “banning” the word.

            We do not allow content that attacks people on the basis of protected characteristics such as nationality, race, or religion, among others. We do allow people to criticize adherents of political affiliations and ideologies.

            • tjsauce@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              My apologies, I did not read the article on the assumption Meta would choose the irresponsible option. The article was surprisingly nuanced, and I hope the enforcement of Meta’s policies are equally nuanced.

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Lol have you ever tried to report abuse on Facebook or Instagram?

    They won’t do shit about obvious racist abuse or hate speech. Let them define what they want, they will do what they always do - nothing.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Their algorithm appears to work on bots only which auto crawl content for words.

      When it comes to media they do remove some material there are a few articles of people working in a meta moderation centers with traumas from what they have seen posted.

  • StaySquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    So… hate speech toward a political ideology? Are they going to do the same for the other political ideologies?

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is specifically not that. It’s about people misusing the term “Zionists” to refer to Jews, which is also a thing that happens.

      The complete statement is here if you want to see it. The posted article does a pretty poor job explaining it.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Okay… so people call white cis males, “fascists”

        So we need to make it fair then and make all speech against political ideologies as, “hate speech”.

        Any one person supporting the elimination of our right to free speech should be turned into its basic form of carbon without hesitation.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sorry, but I believe that terror groups (such as the KKK, Proud Boys, GDL, ISIS/Daesh, NJP, Patriot Front) should not be allowed unlimited free reign to spread their message and recruit followers but that’s just me. I understand the argument for unlimited free speech on every platform, but I happen to disagree.

          • StaySquared@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            That’s a slippery slope. That would then include political ideologies like Marxism, Zionism, Communism, Socialism, and other social-political groups you forgot to include like BLM and Anti-Fa.