Censorship has been done to both people with right-wing views and left-wing views. It's not a question of if it's been done.
We need to stop censorship of people on both sides. Obviously, this is very hard (or it would have been done by now). My idealist brain wants some big, overarching solution but I don't think that's really possible.
I'm not sure it's correct to classify this particular instance as either left- or right-wing; additionally, misinformation should be censored.
From the article:
>Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam
This issue seems almost parallel to the paradox of tolerance in that algorithms which promote content at a global scale - largely without human oversight - should not be unregulated.
It is factual to say that human rights violations are occurring in Palestine. It is also factual to say that people have a right to defend themselves, and to recognize that atrocities are atrocious. But to silence the already-oppressed furthers oppression, and Meta is to blame here, again.
We should also consider the potential implications that Meta, with a market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars, has in regard to US foreign policy vis-a-vis support of Israel.
How is it a fallacy? I mean misinformation by definition; you’re correct that power structures may distort truth to achieve an objective, and that’s not good - that’s the prima facie misinformation I’m talking about here.
I agree it would have been better if news outlets like the NYT didn’t regurgitate things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as factual, but that will happen when the intelligence community is embedded at said news organizations.
The fallacy is that there will be no objective classification of what is considered misinformation. Rather, it will be arbitrary. So you can't censor misinformation. You will censor information.
As someone who professionally dealt in mis- and dis-information, I strongly disagree. It sounds as though you’re bending the definition to your own dystopian ideas.
What you've cited is US-centric; it's both reductive and fallacious to categorize this as left- or right-wing, when again, the article states that this phenomenon was observed in more than 60 countries.
Perhaps where you're located it is a predominately left-wing viewpoint, but the rest of the world in general is very much against what Israel is and has been doing.
The casual admission that support of war crimes / apartheid being a US right-wing viewpoint is somewhat unsurprising, though.
The majority of the UN has consistently recognized and attempted to resolve what Israel is doing, as evidenced by their voting history in the years (decades?) prior to the events of the last few months.
I didn't downvote you but I can see why you were - your Wikipedia article doesn't support your argument - the strongest point it makes is that the UN HRC has an enquiry into Israel's actions.
There's several references to various NGOs calling for action against Israel but as we've seen recently at the Harvard and other Ivy's, that's deeply murky territory.
That's very, very far away from your claim that the rest of the world generally accepts that Israel is committing war crimes and instituting apartheid. To repeat, its well established that the rest of the world generally (and increasingly) supports a humanitarian ceasefire in the region.
That should be a sufficient sample to show this viewpoint is not isolated to only NGOs or one geographic area, and the variance in time should highlight how long this commonly-held recognition has been stated publicly by elected officials.
Many of these examples have external or ideological reasons to do so though. Criticising Israel has no costs while supporting them has costs, but I would imagine that most of them are not going to put actual policy with consequences with that. If anything, they'd be more than enthusiatic to work with Israel when the question of a trade deal or security agreements come up.
"Criticising Israel has no costs while supporting them has costs"
It often carries a cost in domestic support. It carries trade costs as the US, Uk and others punish BDS, while no Arab countries impose secondary sanctions on countries that trade with Israel (as many themselves do). This is just untrue.
You’re now arguing in bad faith - your original claim was the world generally accepts that Israel commits war crimes and institutes apartheid.
You’ve just posted a bunch of links that reference criticisms of Israel, most of which mention neither war crimes nor apartheid. Every nation has faults and the West Bank settlements are deservedly criticised.
They are neither apartheid nor a war crime, however.
It's not accurate to say that the non U.S. world largely supports Palestine in this conflict. At least the EU seems to lean more towards Israel support.
There’s a good piece from someone (formerly?) at Reddit about how to do moderation without consideration if content; I’m not expressing a take either way behind it being worth a look.
We need to stop censorship of people on both sides. Obviously, this is very hard (or it would have been done by now). My idealist brain wants some big, overarching solution but I don't think that's really possible.