Hacker News Reader

Comment by bhouston | Hacker News Reader

Meta's censorship policies reflect the ideology of their owner.

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:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/meta-new-poli...

https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/metas-zionism-zionist-h...

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

https://theintercept.com/2024/10/21/instagram-israel-palesti...

It is all inconsistent.

View on HN

> 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 society 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:

"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/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com