"' We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement."
The "from the river to the sea" is a call for genocide of Israelis. Thus Meta is consistent here not allowing for calls for violence against civilians in both cases.
Speaking about lies. Lets look at a pretty typical one mentioned by GGP.
>“Israel bombs the Baptist Hospital in Gaza City killing over 500…”
Running that news directly from the Hamas' mouth, the CNN even had to use the photo of large destruction from completely unrelated location (could be easily checked using satellite images for example). Later the real photos appeared. CNN updated the article
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/middleeast/gaza-hospital-expl...
and you can see that the explosion didn't even make any crater in the pavement to speak of. While these windshields and windows are cracked, the cars at 30-40 ft even still have their windshields and windows. The cars closer are mostly damaged by fire, and only the closest few have blast damage. The solar panels on the roof of the 2 story building next to the parking lot are undamaged (just look at that "house of card" installation of the panels - them still where means no blast wave reached them). There is no way for that explosion to damage the hospital building, and not surprisingly there aren't photos of such a damage. That explosion couldn't kill people beyond the distance of about 30ft. I.e. only people near those damaged cars could have been killed. Even if there was a crowd, such weak explosion doesn't kill beyond the first couple rows of people. So, we're talking at worst 10-20 people, if those for some reason crowded right near those damaged cars (in the middle of the night, why?).
Now, where did the warhead came from? The explosion, judging by night video of it and the described damage on the photos, does look like a rocket of Grad class, definitely not larger. Israel doesn't use such weak warheads in its stand-off weapons. Whereis Hamas does use thousands of such rockets. And these rockets, mostly built by Hamas in underground shops, have high rate of failure, i.e. Gaza is regularly showered with tens of malfunctioning Hamas rockets. And there is even a video from that night with a salvo of Hamas rockets with at least one going in that direction.
No it isn't. Expressing a desire for freedom and regaining ownership of land may make occupiers uncomfortable, but that doesn't constitute genocide.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha...
Where will Jews live if there is a Palestinian state from river to sea?
I'm not saying this would be worse for the users, because I agree that "allow all content + powerful filtering tools" would suit me just fine. But it's worth noting that there would be a real serious monopoly problem if there were no conscious choices to differentiate. This would conflict with your main point of friction here: that a bunch of SV nerds shouldn't get to define our Overton window. If one platform provided free speech + filters, and became the only game in town, it wouldn't be long before we were back in the situation we're in today, except the group of toxic SV billionaires running the show would be even smaller.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst...
Personally, I oppose both Russian expansionism and the genocidal antisemitic Hamas terrorist movement, so the Meta policy aligns with my views. But I am deeply uncomfortable with having a small cabal of Silicon Valley executives define the acceptable bounds of discourse for the rest of society. It would be better if they allowed all legal content no matter how objectionable and gave individual users tools to block what they don't want to see.