RSS
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.
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
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minor correction...
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | 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...
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | 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?
[ reply to 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Facebook is helping Israel protect its citizens from terrorism... and that's a bad thing?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I've told you this too many times to count
[ reply to this | 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?
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Zuckerberg and Zionism
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zuckerberg and Zionism
[ reply to this | 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
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The First Amendment, US law, and FB
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The First Amendment, US law, and FB
not sure what that means in this case
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | 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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment