Facebook Allowing Israeli Security Forces To Shape The News Palestineans See
from the sporadic-pushback-coupled-with-routine-acquiescence dept
Facebook continues to increase its stranglehold on news delivery, reducing pipelines of info to a nonsensically-sorted stream for its billions of users. Despite the responsibility it bears to its users to keep this pipeline free of interference, Facebook is ingratiating itself with local governments by acting as a censor on their behalf.
While Facebook has fought back against government overreach in the United States, it seems less willing to do so in other countries. The reporting tools it provides to users are abused by governments to stifle critics and control narratives. And that's on top of the direct line it opens to certain governments, which are used to expedite censorship. That's what's happening in Israel, as Glenn Greenwald reports:
[I]sraeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:
Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the agreement between the Israeli government and Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.
She’s right. The submission to Israeli dictates is hard to overstate: As the New York Times put it in December of last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook and send the company posts they consider incitement. Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”
This is especially troubling given the context of the Palestinian-Israeli relationship. By favoring Israel's view of "incitement," Facebook is censoring news streams read by Palestinians, giving them a government-approved view of current events. While Facebook is apparently reluctant to take down pro-Israeli calls for violence, it's been moving quickly to delete almost everything Israeli security forces deem "incitement." The info Palestinians see -- filtered through Facebook -- provides a mostly one-sided depiction of ongoing unrest.
What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians.
This isn't just a "war-torn Middle East" problem. It's everyone's problem. As Greenwald points out, the company -- which was willing to fight for the rights of US citizens -- seems far less willing to do so when the government's target is a foreigner.
Facebook now seems to be explicitly admitting that it also intends to follow the censorship orders of the U.S. government. Earlier this week, the company deleted the Facebook and Instagram accounts of Ramzan Kadyrov, the repressive, brutal, and authoritarian leader of the Chechen Republic, who had a combined 4 million followers on those accounts. To put it mildly, Kadyrov — who is given free rein to rule the province in exchange for ultimate loyalty to Moscow — is the opposite of a sympathetic figure: He has been credibly accused of a wide range of horrific human rights violations, from the imprisonment and torture of LGBTs to the kidnapping and killing of dissidents.
But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook’s rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that “Mr. Kadyrov’s accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act.”
That's all it takes: being placed on a list by a government. It's not that Facebook should become a platform for evil people to spread their message, but that it should take more than a government saying it doesn't like someone for Facebook to start deleting accounts. On top of that, Facebook is handling this in classic Facebook moderation mode:
Others who are on the same sanctions list, such as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, remain active on both Facebook and Instagram.
Sanctions list members should be punished by governments, not private companies. If the US government wants to claim an Instagram account equates to a sanction violation, it's welcome to make that argument in court. The problem with Facebook is its actions are consistently inconsistent. It points to a sanction list it's not even following. It battles overbroad warrants in court, fighting back against baseless intrusions by the government, but grants the government enough credibility to disappear anyone nominated for sanctions by the administration,
Around the world, it continues to treat some governments as more equal than others, and it stills seems to prefer access to users to protecting users, especially in countries where censorious actions are the norm. Facebook wants to be all things to all people, but mainly it just wants all people. Sacrificing a few ethical standards is the most expedient choice. While Facebook is welcome to inconsistently apply its moderation standards on its own, it's extremely troubling it's willing to do the same on behalf of world governments. While both may look like censorship, only the latter actually is. And in the long run, it will be the latter that does the most permanent damage.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, censorship, government, israel, official news, takedowns
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Minor correction...
The original article cited says: "... said that Israel submitted 158 requests..."
It's ok to replace "Israel" with its seat of government (Jerusalem) much as we would Ankara for Turkey, Washington for the US, etc., but Tel Aviv is not Israel's capital.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor correction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor correction...
Don't listen to the floppy haired moron in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Minor correction...
Furthermore, the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital was not due to Trump. Congress recognized Jerusalem as the capital in 1995 by a large, bipartisan margin. Trump merely reiterated the existing policy of the United States and went ahead with the long delayed decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump merely reiterated the existing policy of the United States ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump merely reiterated the existing policy of the United States ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They've turned down multiple offers of a state ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They've turned down multiple offers of a state ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nor are the settlements illegal
Tell that to the Security Council.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nor are the settlements illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Security Council is a purely political organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Security Council is a purely political organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Charter also says that the UN lacks jurisdiction over internal matters.
So much for Israel being “interested in peace” ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Charter also says that the UN lacks jurisdiction over internal matters.
In any case, Israel is not the barrier to the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state. (Jordan is of course the first as it encompasses 2/3 of Palestine and the majority of its population is Palestinian.) The Arabs rejected the creation of a Palestinian state in 1948. They could easily have created one prior to 1967 when Gaza, Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem were under their control. They have been offered a state several times since 1967, but have always rejected it. Their own policy statements indicate that what they actually want is the destruction of Israel. They are opposed to the two-state solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The internal matter is the location of Israel's capital in Jerusalem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The internal matter is the location of Israel's capital in Jerusalem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It has not been stolen from anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"it's willing to do the same on behalf of world governments"
That said, even when they don't bow to governments, the absurd influence they have over the masses is concerning because what it is worth moderating may not be years ahead and we may be building roadblocks to new ideas and general society evolution. I'm not quite sure if there's a solution for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And who sez "platforms" have a "First Amendment Right" to control ALL speech...
So you either disagree with The Masnick on that key point, or you're somehow ignoring what he frequently asserts.
And 2nd time today, back to browser sessions being poisoned AFTER getting a comment in.
It's as though a switch has been turned OFF from my view. I don't believe it's "coincidence": Techdirt is back to old tricks.
Going to re-start, do again... Nope, so A FIFTH TRY... Oh, right, can't have "Masnick" in subject line...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And who sez "platforms" have a "First Amendment Right" to control ALL speech...
YUP, right in after removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And who sez "platforms" have a "First Amendment Right" to control ALL speech...
Recognizing the problem doesn't mean I agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"While Facebook has fought back against government overreach in the United States" -- actually, to protect criminals from US gov't.
Both times helping criminals, see? So not at all the contradiction that you imply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big deal
So Facebook is helping Israel protect its citizens from terrorism... and that's a bad thing?
There's plenty of actually bad things Facebook does. Why are you reporting on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big deal
Perhaps the origins of violence in the middle east is a tad bit more complex than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big deal
The origins of violence in the middle east is actually pretty simple when you get down to it: it's a big desert. With the necessities of life scarce, intense competition for fundamental resources is inevitable. That's at the root of why the whole region has been one big long cycle of violence for millennia, a constant truth that crosses racial, religious, and societal boundaries.
And now Israel is actually building a civilized, modern democracy there, defying all odds, and their neighbors see that they've built something good and want to take it, according to the old ways that the civilized world has moved beyond. Israel has every right to suppress them, and they've shown remarkable restraint thus far. But that doesn't mean they need to sit around and let themselves be attacked. They'd be stupid not to take steps like this to keep their enemies uninformed, at the very least!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big deal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX-atfFWeq8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Big deal
Since the problem is so simple it should be simple to fix ... I suppose said simple fix would be called genocide, slaughter, inhumane by others - but that is just because they do not understand how simple the problem is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big deal
Unfortunately, this is not true. It's often much, much easier to correctly understand a problem than to come up with a good way to fix it--just ask an oncologist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Facebook is helping Israel protect its citizens from terrorism... and that's a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've told you this too many times to count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've told you this too many times to count
And all the innocent people who would die as a result of a nuclear strike against the continental United States—what, we’re not supposed to give a fuck about them so long as Facebook bites it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've told you this too many times to count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've told you this too many times to count
Apparently, wishing for global thermonuclear war so long as Facebook gets nuked in the process is on the list of things that you consider both acceptable and worth rooting for.
But please, prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've told you this too many times to count
Surrrrre it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've told you this too many times to count
I doubt you actually mean that, but to say such shit is ridiculous and probably results in you being added to some list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zuckerberg and Zionism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zuckerberg and Zionism
Provide proof that backs up the premise of your little JAQ-ing off session—specifically, proof that Zuckerberg’s religious/ethnic heritage is a deciding factor in the shaping of Facebook’s Israel-centric policies—or fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zuckerberg and Zionism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The First Amendment, US law, and FB
Just as we support Microsoft's battle to tell the US DoJ that documents stored in Ireland are not subject to US laws, it behooves us to note that FB's actions in other countries are subject to the laws of THOSE countries, not those we're used to in the US (and again, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment).
When FB censors things in China, we don't seem to call the Chinese government criminals. They killed more of their own people in Tianenman Square than all the Gaza and West Bank deaths ever. When Iran shut down various apps so there's *no* communication we don't call them criminals yet they imprison more of their own people than Israel has imprisoned *convicted* mass-murderers.
Even our friends the Saudis, treating women like dirt and imprisoning their own royal kin until ransoms of 33% of one's net worth are given to the royal coffers... and nobody says anything.
So I guess if you want to hate on the Israeli government, and FB is following the law of the land where they are operating, this is as good a forum to do it in as any. If you want to get away from Yet Another judge-from-afar discussion and focus on the topic -- it is whether FB should follow local laws, and if not, what should they do?
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The First Amendment, US law, and FB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The First Amendment, US law, and FB
not sure what that means in this case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The First Amendment, US law, and FB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The First Amendment, US law, and FB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they want to stop incitement, they should look at their own "policies" first.
Not that terrorists among the Arab population are defensible whatsoever, but the entire Arab population is treated as terrorists. Huh, where else does that crop up?
I will tell you straight up I have an anti-Isreal bias. It's perfectly rational position. Like an anti-US bias, anti-NK bias, or an anti-Russia bias. They've all been rather consistently some of the biggest bastards on the planet. (Hardly a comprehensive list, that's a given.) Liars tell the truth sometimes, but you don't know when that is, so you look at them more skeptically than you look at someone with a pretty good record with the truth.
Facebook complies with demands to take down things that are not incitement of any kind, unless you want to count reporting on atrocities of the complaining party as "incitement". They also leave up blatantly harassing, inciting, and threatening things. I don't think any of them look good for any of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When Facebook censors the news feeds of users based on orders from a government agency, the call as to whether the content is “news” or “incitement”, regardless of its substantive value, often falls within the purview of whatever government ordered that censorship. If a government wishes to censor news content that paints said government in an unfavorable light, the line between “news” and “incitement” tends to disappear. Any government that carries out such censorship, then, has decided to shape the news that its citizens are allowed to see. And it is not “anti-Israel” to say as much, especially when non-Israeli governments have put their own censorship plans on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Provide proof that backs up the premise of your post—specifically, proof that Zuckerberg’s religious/ethnic heritage is a deciding factor in the shaping of Facebook’s Israel-centric policies—or fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am wound up by the blatant attempt to create support for anti-Semitic sentiment via criticism of Facebook. Fuck that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oy gevalt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, if you want to go on some alt-right messageboard and cry about the Great Zionist Conspiracy or whatever the fuck you call it, go there and do it. Please do not shit up this site with that bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am wound up by the blatant attempt to create support for anti-Semitic sentiment via criticism of Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example he was caught on an open mike suggesting that facebook would help Angela Merkel by suppressing dissent for her policy of bringing in large numbers of migrants from mainly muslim countries.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-confronti ng-mark-z/
Also many will report that fb has been trigger happy in censoring anti-islamic content and quite relaxed about anti-semitic content. In fact the experiment - reported here.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-ngo-says-facebook-test-proves-anti-israel-bias/
would seem to flatly contradict the premise of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
incitement
I don't like censorship, but this article does not convince me that Israel is censoring news or legal political expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definitely One-Sided
A new group called “Sada Social” is collecting examples of social-media censorship, and they do seem to disproportionately target one side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]