> It is all inconsistent.

As has been every attempt at censorship thus far, since everyone that attempts it has their own agenda. A tale as old as time, and nothing new under the sun. Also, the reason why censorship will never be the ideal solution to any problem.

> They have loosened hate speech restrictions in some areas to curry favour with Trump but declared that Zionism is a protected category while they have banned a ton of Palestinian voices

That’s crazy because the most explicit antisemitism I see now days is on Facebook. And I mean real antisemitism.

> That’s crazy because the most explicit antisemitism I see now days is on Facebook. And I mean real antisemitism.

I haven't seen that on Facebook but I guess it depends on context. I see the absolute worst racism of all types (antisemitism, Islamophobia, explicit white/Christian nationalism) on X though - with 10s of millions of views. It is a total cesspool and I think it is corrosive on social as a whole as it encourages tribalism as it raises voices of the most intolerant.

What is inconsistent between banning hate speech and banning advocacy for terrorism?

> What is inconsistent between banning hate speech and banning advocacy for terrorism?

Two things, Meta has reduced controls for hate speech except in the areas relating to Israel and Zionism. That seems inconsistent - Meta hasn't just overall become more restrictive, it is very selective restrictions.

The HRW report I cited is not about Meta removing "advocacy for terrorism" posts, it is a human rights group after all. Here is a key quote from the report:

Here is the key passage: "Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel. The documented cases include content originating from over 60 countries around the world, primarily in English, all of peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways."

https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

True, they shouldn't ban jihadists, but forward the intel to the army so drone operators can dispatch them once and for all.

You are aware that when HRW is talking about the systematic censorship of Palestinian voices by Meta, they are not talking about jihadists. I encourage you to read the article rather than that just repeating prejudices:

> "Of the 1,050 cases reviewed for this report, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved removal of content in support of Israel. The documented cases include content originating from over 60 countries around the world, primarily in English, all of peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways."

https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

I read the report and it actually made me realize how much of a propaganda campaign HRW was engaging in. It reminded me of PETA campaigns and how offputting many of them were (this is coming from someone who was vegan for 7 years in spite of them).

I know that organizations like HRW and SPLC have to draw attention to topics, but I found the bias and lack of nuance in the report very troubling. The report suffers from the same sort of bias that is so prevalent in most reporting these days, which has gotten to be tiresome.

If HRW reviewed over a thousand cases of censorship, why don't they provide the raw, unedited examples? Instead they include categories of examples, like stating the slogan "From the river to the sea Palestine will be free" was frequently censored. For many that is seen as a call for a different type of genocide, one which HRW gives no indication of whatsoever, simply stating:

  For instance, the words in each of these statements on their face do not constitute incitement to violence, discrimination, or hostility.

It's true that other slogans that were censored are neutral, such as "Ceasefire now" and "Stop the genocide." But lumping the first phrase in as if there were no legimate concerns with it is disingenuous at best.

That said, I'll still support HRW in much of its work, but I hate the tactics that mirror the broad cultural shift to inject more and more biased viewpoints. I really want to go back to the time where bias in the media and nonprofit organizations was much less pronounced in general.