Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Friday, December 21, 2018
Wonder If We Will Go To Facebook Jail For Posting This Article
Pro-Israel Voices Are Being Locked In ‘Facebook Jail’
Policing a community sounds like a good idea. But what sounds good in theory is not always so in practice. And in the case of the Facebook community, this device is being used as a cudgel against pro-Israel voices.
Zahava Englard Shapiro, a staunch pro-Israel activist and past executive director of One Israel Fund, told The Jewish Press that Facebook has banned her for allegedly offensive posts so often that she “can’t even keep track as to how many times.”
Advertisement
“The most outrageous time,” she said, “was when Facebook sent me a notice about a post I had written three years before where I referenced Arab Muslim terrorism, stating a factual account. They claimed it did not conform to community standards, which is the same type of message I receive each time I am banned.”
According to Statista, Facebook currently has 2.2 billion active monthly users, making it the most popular social media platform worldwide. Anyone on Facebook can report a post for including hate speech, fake news, or content related to violence, harassment, or terrorism.
If Facebook administrators believe a post violates the company’s standards, it places its author in “Facebook jail.” Access to his account is then either limited or completely blocked for up to 30 days at a time. Opportunities for redress are few to non-existent.
“I tried to fight the charges, but to no avail. My account was locked for three days,” said Izzy (Yisroel) Weiss regarding a post he wrote in response to a woman promoting BDS. Weiss, who works for former Assemblyman Dov Hikind in Brooklyn, said he has been put in Facebook jail on four different occasions.
“Facebook is a partisan platform,” he asserted. “They do not cater to those whose views they do not align with. It is very clear that on the Israeli-Palestinian issue they are clearly on the side of the Palestinian cause.”
“The truth apparently goes against Facebook’s community standards,” said Shapiro. But “Facebook has no problem allowing Jew-hating posts and pages that clearly explain – with diagrams – how to murder a Jew. Somehow, that isn’t contrary to Facebook community standards,” she said.
Alan Silver – who lives in Telzstone just outside of Jerusalem and runs a pro-Israel Facebook group with over 9,400 members – said he has been blocked “at least 15 times” since joining Facebook. He believes he has “been a target by organized Muslim groups” that bombard Facebook with complaints.
Dr. Elana Heideman, executive director of the Jerusalem-based The Israel Forever Foundation, told The Jewish Press that “Facebook jail represents two specific dangers to the ability to defend Israel in social media. First, it denies the right to freedom of speech specifically of those advocating for Jewish rights in Israel.
“Second, it indicates that there is a targeting system at work that is attempting to silence the voices of those advocates. Much like we see on campuses and in general social discussions, Facebook jail – like any blacklist or other means of censorship – is a perceived risk to potential activists who share their voice.”
She added, “Talking about Israel requires courage, confidence and resolve…. Knowing you can be ‘digitally jailed’ makes it harder for individuals to reach a wider audience and for organizations to increase their impact.”
Some are also hurt financially. Avi Abelow, executive director of the 12Tribe Films, told The Jewish Press that his pro-Israel company was removed from a Facebook platform that allows providers to earn revenue from advertisements. “This was a serious financial hit,” he said.
Abelow tried to get reinstated but ran up against a brick wall. “They are not transparent and are very unhelpful,” he said. “When they removed us from their mobile platform, we asked why in the appeal process. They just sent a formal response with a link to a standards document of tens of pages. No indication of what you did wrong and what you have to fix, just a generic ‘against our standards’ message with no assistance to know what to fix in order to be able to return to the platform.”
Not one to sit and complain, Abelow decided to fight back. “We started an initiative called ‘Don’t Shut Us Up,’” he said. Located online at dontshutusup.com, it is a “fast-growing, grassroots, international movement that uses social media, short video updates, petitions and PR to fight those who are silencing legitimate opinions online,” he said.
Abelow and his team are currently “compiling a list of all the cases of censorship” on social media to be followed by a push for action. They are asking anyone who experienced or knows about incidents of online censorship to contact them.
Facebook did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this story.
Maybe If He Served He Would Have A More Understanding Point Of View
Same Day MSNBC Welcomes New Reporter He Tries To Get $11 Million Border Wall Fundraiser Shutdown
One of the more dispiriting aspects of the border wall debate is the framing of the issue not as those who believe a wall is necessary for border security vs. those who believe isn’t, but instead a fight between bigots who want a barrier to protect them from malevolent, snarling brown people to the forces of light, trying to keep the dark veil of zombie-like fascism from settling upon and suffocating our beloved United States of America.
This kind of fatuousness usually manifests itself most acutely in the form of the brothers Krassenstein or the kind of Twitter users who have an overused caps lock key, at least three blue wave and two red rose emojis by their Twitter name and absolutely no access to a thesaurus.
The Washington Post, for as much intractable eye-rolling as their “Democracy Dies in Darkness” schtick tends to induce, hasn’t quite been relegated to this status. Neither, in fact, has MSNBC — even though Joy Reid is a staple of their weekend broadcasting schedule.
I mention this because, on Thursday, Tony Romm was announced as an MSNBC contributor. He’s also been ensconced at The Post for some time. And he thinks that a GoFundMe campaign to help finance the wall is against the site’s terms of service because they prohibit “intolerance of any kind.”
So, first, here’s Romm being announced as MSNBC’s latest flapping head:
A warm welcome to @washingtonpost technology policy reporter @TonyRomm, our newest @NBCNews and @MSNBC contributor!
31 people are talking about this
On the same day, Romm decided to tweet about an effort to raise money for the border wall via GoFundMe, a campaign started by a man named Brian Kolfage.
Do you think this reporter should issue an apology?
“Like a majority of those American citizens who voted to elect President Donald J Trump, we voted for him to Make America Great Again. President Trump’s main campaign promise was to BUILD THE WALL. And as he’s followed through on just about every promise so far, this wall project needs to be completed still,” Kolfage wrote on GoFundMe.
“As a veteran who has given so much, 3 limbs, I feel deeply invested to this nation to ensure future generations have everything we have today. Too many Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens and too many illegals are taking advantage of the United States taxpayers with no means of ever contributing to our society.”
He noted that “Democrats are going to stall this project by every means possible and play political games to ensure President Trump doesn’t get his victor. They’d rather see President Trump fail, than see America succeed. However, if we can fund a large portion of this wall, it will jumpstart things and will be less money Trump has to secure from our politicians.”
Romm decided it was time to celebrate by calling Kolfage an incorrigible bigot.
“So there’s an effort on GoFundMe to raise cash money for a border wall. Has more than $5M in donations (seeking $1B) and claims to have contacts in the Trump admin (have asked for more). But it got me thinking: is that, like, allowed on the site? (1/3),” Romm wrote. (As of this writing, it’s now up to $10 million, for whatever that’s worth.)
“GoFundMe terms prohibit attempts to raise cash money rooted in “intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases,” among other limits (2/3)”
So there's an effort on GoFundMe to raise cash money for a border wall. Has more than $5M in donations (seeking $1B) and claims to have contacts in the Trump admin (have asked for more). But it got me thinking: is that, like, allowed on the site? (1/3)
505 people are talking about this
GoFundMe terms prohibit attempts to raise cash money rooted in "intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases," among other limits (2/3)
563 people are talking about this
As it turns out, it was like, allowed on the site.
So I asked GoFundMe if this wall fundraiser violates that. Spox: "This campaign does not violate our terms of service. The funds are safely held by our payment processor and we will work with the organizer to transfer funds" or return them if target isn't met (3/3)
491 people are talking about this
However, why would one even question this in the first place? A border wall is quite obviously an attempt to enforce our immigration laws (remember those?) by placing a physical border in the area where an inordinate amount of immigration crime is committed. There is no “intolerance of any kind relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases.” The only intolerance involves those who break our laws.
But if you thought this was uncalled for, Romm wanted you to know that you doth protest too much.
the state of our discourse is such that this thread -- which merely explores the funding campaign in the context of the site's ToS -- is a political lightning rod. somehow the most boring legalese has turned into a rallying cry for a certain set of users to go on the attack
201 people are talking about this
I wonder why this would be a lightning rod. Perhaps because you openly accused anyone who supports a border wall of being a prima facie bigot. That’s not exactly “boring legalese.” Boring legalese would be contemplating whether or not private funds could be transferred to the government to help build the wall. Boring legalese is not, nor will ever be, calling people racists.
When The Washington Post said that “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” I believe what they meant was the darkness of government opacity, not of the human heart. Helpfully, Mr. Romm is around to bequeath a double meaning to the paper’s ham-fisted motto. And now Romm can export that darkness directly to your cable dial. If it all gets too much for him and he has to cut back on his duties at The Washington Post, may I recommend the Krassenstein brothers? They seem right about the level The Post is pitching itself at right now.