Last week, a major censorship controversy erupted when Facebook began deleting all posts containing the iconic photograph of the Vietnamese “Napalm Girl” on the ground that it violated the company’s ban on “child nudity.” Facebook even deleted a post from the prime minister of Norway, who posted the photograph in protest of the censorship. As outrage spread, Facebook ultimately reversed itself — acknowledging “the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time” — but this episode illustrated many of the dangers I’ve previously highlighted in having private tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google become the arbiters of what we can and cannot see.
Having just resolved that censorship effort, Facebook seems to be vigorously courting another. The Associated Press reports today from Jerusalem that “the Israeli government and Facebook have agreed to work together to determine how to tackle incitement on the social media network.” These meetings are taking place “as the government pushes ahead with legislative steps meant to force social networks to rein in content that Israel says incites violence.” In other words, Israel is about to legislatively force Facebook to censor content deemed by Israeli officials to be improper, and Facebook appears eager to appease those threats by working directly with the Israeli government to determine what content should be censored.
The joint Facebook-Israel censorship efforts, needless to say, will be directed at Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians who oppose Israeli occupation. The AP article makes that clear: “Israel has argued that a wave of violence with the Palestinians over the past year has been fueled by incitement, much of it spread on social media sites.” As Alex Kane reported in The Intercept in June, Israel has begun actively surveilling Palestinians for the content of their Facebook posts and even arresting some for clear political speech. Israel’s obsession with controlling Palestinians’ use of social media is motivated by the way it has enabled political organizing by occupation opponents; as Kane wrote: “A demonstration against the Israeli occupation can be organized in a matter of hours, while the monitoring of Palestinians is made easier by the large digital footprint they leave on their laptops and mobile phones.”
Notably, Israel was represented in this meeting with Facebook by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, an extremist by all measures who has previously said she does not believe in a Palestinian state. Shaked has “proposed legislation that seeks to force social networks to remove content that Israel considers to be incitement,” and recently boasted that Facebook is already extremely compliant with Israeli censorship demands: “Over the past four months Israel submitted 158 requests to Facebook to remove inciting content,” she said, and Facebook has accepted those requests in 95 percent of the cases.
All of this underscores the severe dangers of having our public discourse overtaken, regulated, and controlled by a tiny number of unaccountable tech giants. I suppose some people are comforted by the idea that benevolent Facebook executives like Mark Zuckerberg are going to protect us all from “hate speech” and “incitement,” but — like “terrorism” — neither of those terms have any fixed meanings, are entirely malleable, and are highly subject to manipulation for propagandistic ends. Do you trust Facebook — or the Israeli government — to assess when a Palestinian’s post against Israeli occupation and aggression passes over into censorship-worthy “hate speech” or “incitement”?
While the focus here is on Palestinians’ “incitement,” it’s actually very common for Israelis to use Facebook to urge violence against Palestinians, including settlers urging “vengeance” when there is an attack on an Israeli. Indeed, as the Washington Post recently noted, “Palestinians have also taken issue with social-media platforms, saying they incite violence and foster an Israeli discourse of hatred, racism and discriminatory attitudes against Palestinians.”
In 2014, thousands of Israelis used Facebook to post messages “calling for the murder of Palestinians.” When an IDF occupying soldier was arrested for shooting and killing a wounded Palestinian point blank in the head last year, IDF soldiers used Facebook to praise the killing and justify that violence, with online Israeli mobs gathering in support. Indeed, Justice Minister Shaked herself — now part of the government team helping Facebook determine what to censor — has used Facebook to post astonishingly extremist and violence-inducing rhetoric against Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his other top ministers have done the same. As Al Jazeera America detailed in 2014:
The hate speech against Arabs that gathered momentum on Facebook and Twitter soon spilled out onto the streets of Jerusalem as extremist Israelis kicked up violence and caused chaos. This violence then made its way back online: YouTube and Facebook videos show hundreds of angry Israeli mobs running around chanting, “Death to Arabs,” and looking for Palestinians to attack. A video of an Israeli Jew attacking a Palestinian on a public bus shouting, “Filthy Arabs, filthy Arab murderers of children,” emerged from Tel Aviv. And more video footage showing Israeli security forces using excessive force on a handcuffed Palestinian-American boy further called into question who was really inciting this chaos.
Can anyone imagine Facebook deleting the posts of prominent Israelis calling for increased violence or oppression against Palestinians? Indeed, is it even possible to imagine Facebook deleting the posts of Americans or western Europeans who call for aggressive wars or other forms of violence against predominantly Muslim countries, or against critics of the West? To ask the question is to answer it. Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit, and so it will interpret very slippery concepts such as “hate speech” and “inciting violence” to please those who wield the greatest power. It’s thus inconceivable that Facebook would ever dream of deleting this type of actual advocacy or incitement of violence:
Facebook is confronting extreme pressure to censor content disliked by various governments. The U.S. and U.K. have jointly launched a campaign to malign Silicon Valley companies as terrorist helpers or ISIS supporters for refusing to take more active steps to ban content from those whom these governments regard as “terrorists.” Israel has been particularly aggressive in attempting to blame Facebook for violence and coerce it to censor. Family members of Israelis killed by Palestinians are suing Facebook claiming the company helped facilitate those attacks, while some Israelis have actually complained that Facebook is biased against Israel in its censorship practices.
About all of this, The Intercept submitted the following questions to Facebook, which has not yet responded; we will update this article if it does:
1) Has FB ever met with Palestinian leaders in an effort to identify and suppress posts from Israelis that incite violence? Is there any plan to do so?
2) If an Israeli advocates that Palestinians be attacked and/or bombed, would those posts violate FB’s terms of service and be deleted? Have any ever been?
3) What role, exactly, is the Israeli government playing in helping FB identify content that should be barred?
4) FB said it “granted some 95% of the requests” from Israeli officials to remove content. What percentage of requests from Palestinians to remove content has been accepted?
5) If someone says that Israel’s occupation is illegal and should be resisted using all means, would that be permitted?
It’s true that these companies have the legal right as private actors to censor whatever they want. But that proposition ignores the unprecedented control this small group of corporations now exerts over global communications. That this censorship is within their legal rights does not obviate the serious danger this corporate conduct poses, for reasons I set forth here in describing how vast their influence has become in shaping our discourse (see here for a disturbing story today on how Twitter banned a Scottish pro-independence group after it criticized an article from a tabloid journalist, who then complained she was being “harassed”).
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Facebook, at this point, is far and away the most dominant force in journalism. It is indescribably significant to see it work with a government to censor the speech of that government’s opponents. But as is so often the case with censorship, people are content with its application until it is used to suppress views they agree with or like.
One of the early promises of the internet, a key potential benefit, was its ability to equalize disparities, to enable the powerless to communicate as freely and potently as the powerful, and to politically organize in far more efficient ways. Those who continually call on companies such as Facebook and Twitter to censor content are seriously jeopardizing those values, no matter how noble their motives might be. It is difficult to imagine any scenario more at odds with the internet’s promise than Facebook executives and the Israeli government meeting to decide what Palestinians will and will not be allowed to say.
Glenn, start the new fb. we’d all follow you. everyone i know would love to be off fb if there was a site they could as easily communicate with each other through. ello lookd like an alternative but for some reason hasn’t caught on because it seems like just a hipster site. how about “openbook”… that would be as important a contribution to open communication as the intercept…
Several years ago, my facebook account was shut down, and I wasn’t able to recover it after I advocated for Palestinian rights on the site. So, it appears this has been their policy for some time.
Another reason for progressives to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. Too supportive of the right wing fascist Netanyahu and the criminalization of free speech with the labeling of BDS movement non-violent free speech as “anti-semitic hate speech”. She’s all in with the repressive/murderous Israeli government. So #I’mNotWithHer and will vote for Jill Stein. Again.
The solution is simple. Boycott Facebook.
I use it to enter contests, so the only thing they know about me is that I ride bikes. Other than that, almost nothing. I got on it due to the pressure of friends who didn’t know better at the time, but I pretty quickly decided it was a scam.
You are right…
I had this convo with Heer Jeet months ago when he was applauding the death of comments sections. I told him that corps now largely control free speech and that this is an issue. Sadly, he did not get this at all and sent me a link to the Bill of Rights.
Facebook is pure evil and sadly people seem to not notice! Long before censorship the company preformed experiments on people feeds to change their moods! Facebook is the perfect vision of what the Nazi propagandists tried to do, control what people see and then let them share with their friends! Facebook is built to collect data then sell thst data to the highest bidder, nothing is sacred and everything is recorded! Cendorship is the next step to creating a mindwashed nation! You can see this in the current US election with their hate of Trump and love of Clinton! Facebook kills story favorable to Trump, and makes sure to play damage control for Clinton! The new news feed makes sure to cater to a persons idealogical leanings creating a mirrored chamber, never showing alternative points of view. This is a form of censorship and quite unrealistic as it creates perfect bubbles for people that do not represent the real world. Facebook hides behind algorythms and their faviorate term creating a better user experience to justify censorship and social engineering. It is gross and can be stopped, but only if people quite using the site! For all the worry of governments watching your every move it is ironic how fast people will run to a company that openly states that is exactly what they are doing because it offers a free service!
Pat Nguyen: first, learn to spell “Palestinian”. Second, if you had any idea at all about what has befallen the Palestinians at the hands of their illegal and wicked occupiers, you would not have written “professional victims”. You should be really embarrassed.
The only ones occupying the “Palestinians”‘ are their corrupt leadership and cynical Arabs from other nations. Fix that, and they are just as good as everyone else.
But thanks for the laugh
Tell your brother Raj I said hi and ask him for a quarter
Lol.
Dee, you should stick to asking your brother for quarters.
The only ones occupying the wretched “Palestinians” are their corrupt leaders and other cynical Arabs.
I know all I need to know about the occupation which is defensive in nature.
Thanks for playing sister!
Lol.
Dee, you should stick to asking your brother for quarters.
The only ones occupying the wretched “Palestinians” are their corrupt leaders and other cynical Arabs.
I know all I need to know about the occupation which is defensive in nature.
Thanks for playing sister!
ROFL…Yea, Patricia, you whiny little anti-Semite, and you should stick to nagging your zio-mommy for tit-milk, because it’s clear she weaned you far too early.
No, you frum little israel-worshiping Zionist anti-Semite, the only ones belligerently occupying Palestine are your wretched, fake, “ethnic” Bible-jooooooooooooooo wannabes.
No, you zio fruitcake, your broken little brain only “knows” what your zio terrorist overlords need you to “know”, which is why you don’t even know that belligerent occupation is a wholly aggressive act, and that: A BELLIGERENT OCCUPYING POWER CANNOT USE MILITARY FORCE IN TERRITORY IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AS THE BELLIGERENT, OR AGAINST THE PEOPLE IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AS THE BELLIGERENT, AND JUSTIFY IT AS “SELF-DEFENSE”.
It’s the Palestinians who fight in self-defense, sweet cheeks, not your wretched little fake “ethnic” Bible-jooooooo terrorist colonizers.
And thanks for the entertainment, zio cretin.
Thank you for this informative and enlightening article
I think it would be an extreme shame if the next generation has the same thoughts I had as a kid discovering South Africa had apartheid and having to verify that it was for real with more than a few adults before believing it actually existed in my time
Notice how we dont here much from BLM lately?
Because they made the disasterous decision to allow themselves to be hijacked by the parasitic Palsitinian movement.
Now any platform or massage BLM mau have had has been undercut and comproimised. Nothing good can come from partnering with these professional victims who have nothing to offer.
Bye BLM.. Perhaps some responsible leadership can come along and serve this needful community
The Palestinians do not have a unique religion, language, genetic identity, or place of origin – unless you count having an ancestor who lived in Mandate Palestine for at least two years as establishing rootedness there. But they have a historical narrative with which they very strongly identify.
It is a relatively new narrative, having originated in the mid-20th century as a reaction to the establishment of the Jewish state. It is to a great extent false – there is no long-term ‘Palestinian’ presence in the land of Israel (claims going back to biblical times are ludicrous, and few ‘Palestinians’ can trace their lineage in the land prior to about 1830; most are descended from 20th century migrants). Their story about their dispossession by the Zionists is also to a great extent false and self-serving. But none of this matters.
What does matter is that virtually all Palestinians believe the narrative, and it is perfectly designed to combine with the features of the Arab and Muslim culture of the Palestinians in such a way as to create endless, insoluble conflict with the Jewish state.
The narrative tells of a proud culture rooted in the land, dispossessed by foreign invaders who have no connection with it. It tells about humiliation of the Palestinian people, their wealth and property taken from them. It tells about a Muslim land being ruled by infidels, or almost worse, by Jews, Mohammad’s historic enemies whose inferior role is demanded by the Qur’an. It tells about Arab manhood being insulted by repeated military defeats by the children of pigs and monkeys.
The narrative tells about an intolerable condition, and its collision with Arab culture and Islam can’t be resolved by a compromise which permits the continuation of Jewish sovereignty in any real sense. Any solution acceptable to the Palestinians must include the return of their ‘property’ – that is, the ‘return’ of the descendents of Arab refugees to ‘their homes’. For Muslims, there is also the fact that the entire land, having been ruled at one time by Muslims, is a part of dar al islam and must return to Muslim rule. And of course, no situation in which a Jew is superior to a Muslim in any way is acceptable.
http://abuyehuda.com/2016/09/its-the-narrative-stupid/
TL/DR.
Did you have a point about the article in there or are you just copypasting from the hasbara folder?
Gotta love halfwit hatemongers who are too stupid to know their attempts at historical revisionism are pointless here.
The delegitimized projecting onto their victims rather than addressing the article just screams desperation.
You aren’t even a journalist Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald continues to show why he is the most biased, one-sided propagandist online. With tens of thousands of anti-Semitic posts from “Palestinian” Arabs and other Muslims, Glenn doesn’t have the courage to link to any. Facebook has become a cesspool for anti-Semitic hate that is coming directly from Arab and Muslim agitators. Greenwald continues to be a hypocrite and an intolerant bigot and this article is proof. Greenwald is a coward for bowing down to Islamic supremacists and their anti-Israel bigotry.
Exactly. This platform is a circle-jerk of some perhaps a handful of well-intended but naive folks but dominated by bigots and uninformed people who are hardly distinguished from their alt right fellow travelers
Thanks for the hasbara!
Next!
Glenn is a wonderful human being, who is very smart, and gives us hope in humanity
Disgusting article!
Over 50 Israelis sidewalkers were murdered by Palestinians during the past year. This came on a time which tens of the thousands of posts went online in Palestine – not “criticizing the Israeli policies”, but calling to murder jews, clearly and repetitively. Many of the terrorists who went out and did in fact murdered, including one who killed a Jewish child in her bedroom 4 months ago, wrote on their Facebook wall their intentions. Facebook is finally taking responsibility over pro-murder content published on her site by an incited mob.
100% Correct.
So Fakebook wants to face off and go the distance against the American people, knowing Israel helped do the 9-11 attacks, the mininuke to the Marine barracks in Lebanon, The Fukushima radiation and sabotage, etc.? That knuckle head lucked out in making a profit with Fakebook. He is a few cards short of a full deck.
Howard, Howard, Howard. “… Israel helped do… The Fukushima radiation…”!? Wow – so God really IS on Israel’s side then huh? I mean, now Israel can create tsunamis… look out world! Zuck might be a schmuck, but it’s YOU who’re a few cards short of a full deck.
Last I heard, FB was losing US users and only growing due to expansion in other countries.
They were also padding their numbers in an attempt to mislead advertisers and investors.
Anyway, great questions for FB by GG.
Perhaps some discussion of removing their link from this site if they refuse to respond to the questions is in order?
Advertisers, the non-scammy ones, know the online ad game is a failure. If ads actually worked on Facebook, then ad dollars would support their infrastructure. Instead, our taxes prop them up.
If you’re going to censor hate speech – censor all hate speech equally. Form a coalition group defining the terms, Palestinians, Israeli, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, and Americans who call for turning the sandbox into glass….
Freedom is a two way street period. History shows us that governments want full control, and will use oppression. When facebook begins to choose, they will lose, and another will take its place. The same as any government in history. Sad that we must fight for basic rights.
““Israel has argued that a wave of violence with the Palestinians over the past year has been fueled by incitement, much of it spread on social media sites.”
Where else is it going to come from? Certainly not the Israel controlled worldwide corporate media.
So is it only acceptable that Israel puts forth a wave of violence as they have since they started their amoral land grab, cruel displacement of innocent people, and barbaric disproportionate response to “justified” retaliation upon so many innocent women, children and elderly?
Santa Clause is about 180 years old.
Zionism is about 150 years old.
The conflating of Christ’s birth with the concept of Santa Clause has greatly contributed toward creating the amorality and hardships attributed to consumerism.
The conflating of the spirituality of Judaism with the concept of Zionism has amorally contributed to hardships over decades from stealing the homes, livelihoods, and murders of Palestinian family members, while simultaneously unnecessarily fostering resentment of the most reverent and spiritual Jewish people, which on a religious basis wanted no part of a Jewish state.
Social media serves the same function as organised religion and nation-states; it is a factory farm where dullards imbibe ‘curated’ pabulum, and actually feel good about doing so.
If people line up to be told what to think, then of course someone will engage in cultural ‘gavage’ – and the moment the platform achieves any real level of social significance, the world’s parasite classes will beat a path to their doors.
The only reason to have an account on (((Facebook))), is to prevent someone else from impersonating you on it.
Is Facebook owned by an American Jew?
What’s new here? Nothing as far as I can see. The writing is on the wall. In less than a decade, the Star of David will fly over the White House, so Americans had better start learning Hebrew.
That kind of comment is exactly undermining any attempt to resist israel’s occupation. Yes, we could have had Bernie Sanders (who is jew) in the white house.. and we could still have Jill Stein (although the media try their best to ignore her).
But as a matter of fact, these two are the presidential figures less likely to support Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies.
Israel is an apaertheid state
Interantional legal scholalrs and human rights activists the world over have declared this so. And as I co-wrote (citations omitted):
The fundamental truth is that the growth of these settlements is fueled not only by neutral forces of supply and demand, but primarily by a sophisticated governmental system designed to encourage Israeli citizens to live in the settlements. In essence, the process of assimilation blurs the fact that the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel anywhere in the world since the apartheid regime in South Africa.
The Palestinian Authority, who exercise control over areas A and B that resemble enclaves, function as a kind of Bantustan government reliant on Israel to suppress political resistance similar to the governments of Transkei and KwaZulu. “One of the meanings of Oslo,” former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote, “was that the PLO was . . . Israel’s collaborator in the task of sti?ing the first intifada and cutting short what was clearly an authentically democratic struggle for Palestinian independence.”
Gaza
Gaza could also be said to be a Bantustan in terms of the blockade’s restrictions which harm the economy and political autonomy of the Palestinians living there. Gaza has been under an Israeli land, sea and air blockade since 2007, which has reduced Gaza’s GDP by 50%. Nearly 2 million Palestinians in Gaza are ‘locked in’, denied access to the rest of occupied Palestinian territory as well as the greater, outside world. Indeed, they are barred from leaving Gaza even to attend their own wedding. Less than 1% of construction materials required to rebuild houses destroyed and damaged during Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in the summer of 2014 have been allowed to enter.
I hae more documentation, if requested in good faith.
Desmond Tutu said: “Whether Jews like it or not, they are a peculiar people. They can’t ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people.”
That means that we should not accept as Gospel anything Desmond Tutu says if it concerns the Jews because he’s biased.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1742/bishop-tutu-is-no-saint-when-it-comes-to-jews
Religion News Service, 28 November 1984 as quoted in
The Jewish Wars, Edward Alexander, page 67
https://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=Whether+Jews+like+it+or+not,+they+are+a+peculiar+people.&source=bl&ots=uasAedsztI&sig=7btf5nw5VIc6N2q_ch6ELDJ6DqI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNjazfxIzOAhVj7YMKHfLjAq0Q6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Whether%20Jews%20like%20it%20or%20not%2C%20they%20are%20a%20peculiar%20people.&f=false
Desmond Tutu has proven to be an anti-Semitic bigot many times. He is not too different than the average no name Islamic supremacist douchebags spewing hate on Facebook.
It’s significant how much news I have missed.
Thank you for an excellent article with extremely interesting links, Mr Greenwald.
FACEBOOK is a PUBLIC SPACE therefore it has no right or legal option to censor participants. FACEBOOK is a PUBLICLY TRADED company, NOT a “private entity” and it solicits PUBLIC memberships. Just as cake bakers HAVE to bake homosexual cakes, and wedding planners HAVE to “accept” homosexual weddings, SUCKERberg has to accept opinions, videos, and pictures he does not like.
A lowly COUNTY CLERK was jailed for refusing to “do her duty” by not issuing homosexuals marriage licenses
Does that mean that news websites cannot censor comments?
That is not the law.
Good arguements are made that very large social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter should be treated like historical public spaces such as Town Halls and parks. But that is not yet the law — yet. I wrote about this below.
No, you inane israel-worshiping cretin, it means that Zionism swilling anti-Semites like you cannot read.
Damn, LOL, that was hilarious!
Simply abandon Facebook. The same goes now for YouTube. Attempts to change these organizations will be mostly in vain.
Why tolerate these monopolies? Google is another. Then there is Amazon. The owners are today’s John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan . . . the new Robber Barons. They have their vast mansions and their children will be around a long time using the wealth to distort what is good in the USA. For that matter the Bush’s and Clinton’s will do the same thing. Chelsea Clinton will probably run for the Presidency some day. And she will not need to use public office to get rich like her parents have. What we have is new group of nouveau riche. With all the usual vulgarity and scandal. It is national soap opera that unfortunately a lot of Americans enjoy.
At the same time Obama’s flunky is calling Netanyahu’s ethnic cleansing comments “unhelpful”. Obama gets what he wants, a pledge that Israel will spend more of its US aid money on American weapons.
Big Brother is definitely cracking down. I’m not a foul mouthed, ad hominem attacker in my comments and posts. I try to be a reasonable, informed voice of liberty. Yet I am rejected by numerous sites: Natural News, RT, PressTV and FB have all banned me in whole or in part. Free speech, even the polite kind, is history until at least when the NWO is history. It is within my “rights” to speak freely about diversity, LGBT “rights”, Palestinian massacres, chemtrails, phony gurus, the Jewish banker elite, etc. Someplace obviously there are policies in place to control this and any chance of measured debates is on hold. The ideal state of the future may well be modern day China. That’s very bad and sad news for all of us.
FACEBOOK is a PUBLIC SPACE therefore it has no right or legal option to censor participants. FACEBOOK is a PUBLICLY TRADED company, NOT a “private entity” and it solicits PUBLIC memberships. Just as cake bakers HAVE to bake homosexual cakes, and wedding planners HAVE to “accept” homosexual weddings, SUCKERberg has to accept opinions, videos, and pictures he does not like.
A lowly COUNTY CLERK was jailed for refusing to “do her duty” by not issuing homosexuals marriage licenses
One of many reasons I’ve never had a Facebook or Twitter account.
1) Censorship;
2) Future employment prospects;
3) Re: my life and interests–both are a waste of time with little productive benefit (although I periodically read the Twitter feed of a handful of journalists and a few others);
4) Don’t like my personal info being sold or used to market crap to me that I’ll never buy while slowing down my computer;
5) Zuckerberg is arguably, based on certain historical events, a thief and a jerk so why would I ever willingly contribute to that guy becoming any richer than he already is;
6) Any company that has Peter Thiel on its board can kiss my ass;
7) Facebook should be broken up employing anti-trust laws;
8) Zuckerberg’s funding of teacher’s union busting and charter school expansion;
9) The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is a sick joke and philanthrocapitalism bullshit; and, finally
10) Mark Zuckerberg’s face makes me want to punch it (oh wait, that’s not relevant to why I don’t like Facebook even if subconsciously true).
Brilliant!! hahah!
Americans really do live in a news bubble universe.
Now the Jewish settlers are victims of “ethnic cleansing” apparently.
Reality is becoming, less and less, a concern for both the US and Israeli governments.
It’s an interesting problem. I don’t want governments telling Facebook what they should and shouldn’t publish. Any more than I want Obama micromanaging “The Intercept”. So other than moral suasion, which seems to lead to nothing more than Mark Zuckerberg laughing all the way to the bank, what can be done?
“Facebook Hires Longtime Netanyahu Adviser”
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/facebook-longtime-netanyahu/
It is an oversimplification to think that FB and other media are is solely driven by profit calculations and not the ideological positions of their owners and workers. It matters who owns our media.
If the large corporations actually had to pay taxes, that would help end their stranglehold on media.
Ordinary Americans should try that, send a letter to Obama: “I’d like to pay taxes…but doing so would have a material impact on my financial position”
If you really believe in security…or more like insecurity.
Israeli cloud-based network security firm Cato raises $30 million
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-israel-cato-idUSKCN11J1PJ?il=0
Now THIS is a reporter.
The internet allows users to go directly to the web pages of newspapers all around the world.
…but now apparently many people wait for stories to appear on their facebook feed.
How do you save people from themselves?
If you renamed Facebook, “Pravda”…more people would be geeking out, proud of their reception of the BBC on the wireless.
But Facebook isn’t the old Pravda, people are choosing to have all the world’s news go through one private filter.
You can bring a horse to water….
Facebook was never conceived of as a news delivery service. Any interest its owners have now to include news, stems not from any journalistic ambition, but from the profit motive.
What is the user’s excuse?
Just like the SpaceX rocket that just blew up (supposedly having Facebook satellite onboard)…why not blow up Facebook altogether?
http://www.quitfacebookday.com/
…oh and I hope Israel gets nuked very very soon.
https://turbofuture.com/internet/Not-Facebook-Alternative-Social-Networking-Sites
Mr. Greenwald
“…….The AP article makes that clear: “Israel has argued that a wave of violence with the Palestinians over the past year has been fueled by incitement, much of it spread on social media sites.”…….”
Israel is reacting to the so-called “knife Intifada” which began in September 2015. According to Wikipedia (to fill in the missing information in the article):
“……..Since the eve of Rosh Hashanah, 36 Israelis, as well as two Americans and an Eritrean were killed in Palestinian attacks,[5] while 222 Palestinians have been killed[6][7] (all but one by Israeli security forces),[5] of which 140 were identified by Israel as assailants.[9] Additionally, a Sudanese attacker was killed.[8] The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recorded 167 ‘terrorist’ attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians and security forces…….”
The Israel government has every right and duty to thwart terrorist attacks against her citizens. If Palestinians are using social media (such as Facebook) as a platform to incite terrorist attacks against Israel, those posts should be removed – especially in light of recent events. Individuals can and should be charged in some cases. And it is fairly clear from the amount of attacks over the past year that “incitement” to murder is a very real possibility in Israel (albeit a gray area in free speech). That is the reason Awlaki was (rightly in my opinion) droned by the US government. His name was tied to several terrorist attacks – and he primarily used social media to call for attacks against the US (besides calling for the murder of a Seattle cartoonist for “offending” Mohammed). Awlaki was clearly a dangerous individual. A lot of innocent people probably died because of his sermons.
It makes little difference if you use Facebook or a local Mosque to incite violence. In 2004, Abu Hamza al-Masri was sentenced in Britain for inciting violence and racial hatred (and received a seven year sentence). He later was extradited to the US where he was convicted of terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life in prison. In 2016, Ajhem Choudary “…..was convicted of inviting support for a proscribed organisation, namely the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, under the Terrorism Act 2000.[5] On 6 September 2016, Choudary was sentenced to five years and six months in prison……”. Essentially, he was convicted of incitement.
Israel is an apartheid state that doesn’t deserve U.S. aid. The apartheid employed there may not be as extreme as in the old South Africa (that Israel was closely allied with), as it is based on land ownership rules and immigration laws, but it is still apartheid. As such, Israel has not right to call itself a democratic state; without equal rights for all citizens, you can’t be a democracy.
In particular, the rise of Jewish-only far-right Israeli settlements within the West Bank, accompanied by the destruction of Palestinian homes by the Israeli military, is proof of the racist apartheid nature of the Netanyahu government. Such actions deserve widespread international condemnation and should result in the suspension of American aid to the state of Israel until rectified.
Ultimately, the Zionist project must end; a two-state solution is implausible. The only really rational solution is for Gaza and the West Bank to be incorporated into the state of Israel and the land ownership and immigration laws amended to allow Palestinians the right to return to their ancestral homelands. As in Lebanon, the various groups within Israel – including Jews, Palestinians, Bedouin and Christians – will all have to be given the same rights, including participation in local and national elections. It’s the only solution that makes any kind of long-term sense – and then, Israel would be able to call itself a democracy.
If any Israeli Jews are so opposed to this notion that they can’t handle it, well, migration back to Europe or America is certainly an option. In fact, I have far more respect for those Jews who’ve reopened synagogues in what was once East Germany (with zero Israeli support, imagine that) than for those who fled Europe; they are the ones with courage and staying power.
Notice also that many Jewish groups, both on the moderate-secular end as well as the orthodox end, are opposed to the Zionist notion of a “Jewish State”. I particularly like this Neturei Karta group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKplabTRuak
I already know what you think about the Jewish state in general, but that doesn’t address the article. What do you think about Israeli actions to have some Facebook posts removed – or even to arrest some Palestinians for (potentially) inciting terrorist attacks using social media?
“In a state practicing apartheid, would Arab Muslim legislators wield veto power over anything? At only 20 percent of the population, would Arabs even be eligible for election if they squirmed under the thumb of apartheid? Would an apartheid state extend voting rights to women and the poor in local elections, which Israel did for the first time in the history of Palestinian Arabs? Would the vast majority of Arab Israeli citizens turn out to vote in national elections, as they’ve usually done? Would an apartheid state have several Arab political parties, as Israel does? Would the judiciary be free of political interference? In the 2003 Israeli elections, two Arab parties found themselves disqualified for expressly supporting terrorism against the Jewish state. Israel’s Supreme Court overturned both disqualifications.”
Irshad Manji
“……Such actions deserve widespread international condemnation and should result in the suspension of American aid to the state of Israel until rectified…….”
Just for your information Photo (Guardian today):
“…..The United States will provide Israel’s military with $38bn during the next 10 years………..Following months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, the state department said on Tuesday that the two countries had reached a 10-year agreement, with a signing ceremony planned for Wednesday. The US and Israel have not disclosed the exact sum, but officials familiar with the deal said it totals $3.8bn a year – up from the $3.1bn the US gave Israel annually under the previous 10-year deal……..”
Spoken like a true bigot who has never been to Israel. If you ever do go, you’ll see that there is no such apartheid and you would have trouble figuring put who is Arab and who is Jewish in some cities.
Using your demented worldview, it would have been cool for China (say) to drone-strike Ovadia Yosef while that scumbag was still alive.
I disagree, although that prick was one of the most detestable human beings (using the term loosely) since the first male genitals were mutilated in the name of a demented Sky Maniac.
There is plenty of ‘incitement’ that happens in synagogues and yeshivas: Baruch Goldstein did not emerge from a vacuum. The fact that you try to ignore it is not lost on anybody who reads your drivel.
Occupied people have the right to resist the scum who have stolen their land: the fact that a decent proportion of the inhabitants of the stolen land are ‘anchor babies’ (i.e., were born after the invasion to parents who participated in the invasion, or who immigrated to the stolen land with the blessing of the invaders) doesn’t cloud the waters. If someone moves into your house and locks you and your kids in the basement for two generations, any occupant of the house is fair game.
A 3000-year old tribal cult is not a valid basis for a claim to land ownership.
“…….Occupied people have the right to resist the scum who have stolen their land……”
So what are you saying? The Israeli government should back off from working with Facebook to remove posts which incite Palestinians to murder Jews? The Palestinians do have a right to violently resist (with some restrictions ignored by attackers). No one can deny that. But what has it gotten them to date? Nothing but a dysfunctional welfare state while Israel continues to thrive and grow. Additionally, far more Palestinians than Jews are dying – or didn’t you notice that in Operation Cast Lead? But don’t worry my friend, Hamas will certainly exercise their “right to resist” in the not too distant future.
“…….A 3000-year old tribal cult is not a valid basis for a claim to land ownership……..”
You are living in the wrong century. That is already a done deal. The problem now is for Israel to realize that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination just like the Jewish people.
Thanks.
The flip side of Facebook suppressing content that it finds politically undesirable is even more interesting. Back when that guy decided to shoot a bunch of Dallas cops, he had accessed a page that Facebook users had been protesting for a year previous – see here: http://www.illwriteit.com/african-american-defense-league-calls-for-death-of-white-cops/ In that case, the company clearly violated its own procedures to keep something up its users hated … why? My guess is they are giving deference to government provocateurs and agents. So the funny thing is that, as here when the Norwegian complained, they are in a tough spot between being told they need to ban something altogether (like child nudity or calls for shooting cops) and having to defer to anyone with a government (like prime ministers or provocateurs).
What we need to know most right now though is: who are the good guys? Who are the journalists who are real journalists who Zuckerberg and the other big media companies never poisoned? Where do you look for the best true reporting?
In the USA, land of the free, Facebook censored a photo of a nude “statue” that appeared on an official ACLU website. If memory serves me correctly, Facebook actually deleted the image on the web page itself.
The irony is that there is a nude statue inside the U.S. Department of Justice (that Bush Attorney General Ashcroft spent $7,000 in taxpayer dollars on a curtain to cover up) and there is a nude statue in front of the Library of Congress.
Facebook would probably be wise to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the definition of obscenity, opinions which are very thoroughly thought out and debated.
It is high time for “Intercept” to start their own social media for mass people.
Owners of private enterprises like Facebook while rightly entitled to enjoy the material benefits of their success, are not equipped to be the global arbiters on freedom of expression and human rights. A formula must eventually be designed for an international body like UNESCO for example, or NGOs like Human Rights Watch to take charge of that responsibility. This should close the gaping hole through which parties with their own political agendas abuse the free flow of information that the Internet has afforded the world.
Naive may be, but worth fighting for.
What were the odds?
If we could only figure out how facebook obtained such a position of power.
How oblivious did you have to be to not see this coming?
Live by the facebook. Die by the facebook.
One of the best things about selling out is the paltry paycheck. For some strange reason people think the devil pays well. They are always ghost face shocked that the pyramid [scheme] they helped build would end up their tomb.
Don’t worry, nothing a little social media marketing won’t fix.
There was a time a while back when journalists reached a fork in the road, they could either educate people or exploit people on the issue of corporate spying, tracking, and the persuasive power of large data sets–the so called Upskirt Economy–and its connection to “social media” and other large internet “advertising” companies.
Journalists chose to exploit people instead of educating them, and what you are seeing playing out here is one of the many ramifications of that fateful fork in the road and the terrible path that was taken.
Journalists slapped that facebook logo on every page faster than a flag lapel pin at a political fundraiser.
Journalism died once again at that fork in the road.
Only ghosts walk this path.
…slapped that Facebook logo… faster than a flag lapel pin…
You couldn’t be righter – what a great line.
Ditto with Twitter, but I admit that I don’t spend much time at either site.
A few people objected to the free advertising but I do not remember who.
censored
Anybody who set up Assbook profile must have his/her head examined for this is a mother of all scams.
Silicon Valley loaded with gender undefined human bots as Zuker and army of cute over the hill megalomaniacs mostly funded by Surveillance state and by Hindu and Chinese capital who bring with them tech-clueless LGBT managers to enjoy “sexual” freedom in the US they are often denied at home, and they employ so disgusting LGBT identity politics played shamelessly in corporate offices that resemble match making service making SV a cesspool of neo-feudal serfdom, a cult-like following and intellectual submission to clueless corporate bitches, including sexual submission, exploiting low-paid fertile minds of young, brilliant but clueless millennials.
The SV corporate management for over a decade is giving up on true technological revolution and is focused solely on Wall Street profit, buying up and killing most revolutionary ideas while pushing “shared economy scam” and idiotic social apps developed for NSA to control brain-dead teenagers.
All those lies and fabrications are just to desperately boost their stock P/E ratio by tax evasion, killing CapEx, concocting shameless dividends on the so-called growth stocks and unconscionable stock buybacks that amount of admission of colossal failure of their own management in their future vision for the product itself.
All of it induced by oligarchic greed in the FED induced “ZIRP” no yield investment world race to the bottom. But even firing the very people who built the products and invested they talents and careers in it and leaving them at the age of forty to rot in hands of young and clueless phony managers it is not enough for Wall Street greedy bastards. They want more.
And hence it’s a mad house up there in SV fueled by hallucinating unicorns. Exponential ponzi schemes spread across all technological fields and replaced solid R&D with feeding frenzy off the great plastic faces, fashionable pretenders who know nothing.
I’ve always hated not only Facebook, but all of the Borg-like technology that further removes modern humans from the real world from which they’re already very removed. But when I learned that founder Mark Zuckerberg was an anti-environmental jerk, my hatred of Facebook increased. None of these companies — Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. — are cool in any way. But modern humans are so foolishly gaga over technology that they worship and easily get addicted to this stuff. When I ride the train to & from work, it’s filled with human-like androids who are playing with their stupid phones and wouldn’t even notice if a mountain lion entered the train.
I guess all we can hope for is that these people are evolutionarily inferior and just die out someday.
People who have accounts with FACEBOOK, should think twice about your info being compromised with the Spy agencies, should and must close their accounts definitely. BDS.
I could have sworn when Facebook went public it set up the same Ireland business structure used by Apple to avoid bringing taxable profits back to the US.
And though I’ve never had one, knowing who’s also watching and still updating personal information online continually is a lot like too frequently checking-in with a parole officer. Particularly if for whatever reason one actually instead seeks a low profile. So, no Facebook.
Can I also just say, if the NSA had wanted themselves a commercial front for Big Brother…
I dislike facebook with a passion. What a rotten to the core company…
Gracias, por mantenernos informados. Una esperanza para aquellos que buscamos un mundo más justo y solidario.
Saludos , maria
meh. idk…tough to get too worked up about this. As Glenn notes,
…so just find a different platform.
Besides, if Facebook is going to cater to the whims of the Israeli gov’t and facilitate pro-Israeli propaganda while stymieing those who would post pro-Palestinian propaganda, why would the Palestinian readers want to consume content via a platform obviously biased against them.
After all, it’s not like a majority of the world cares what happens in Israel vs. Palestine. They (Israeli and Palestinian propagandists) are basically propagandizing for their own domestic audiences (although I’ll grant you their is an elite (ie, non-commoner) audience of (pro-Israel) foreign patrons who are being spoken to, too, but I think that’s more about reinforcing vanity).
You said, “After all, it’s not like a majority of the world cares what happens in Israel vs. Palestine”. And that gave you away.
Your whole argument that why would Palestinian supporters use that media which would be biased against them is designed to stifle new people hearing the truth and pushing even the truth coming out to see the day of the light so that the oppressed citizens an not only be continued to be oppressed with impunity but that no one new would might be morally interested in voicing their support wouldn’t get the chance to even hear about it unless they were already interested in the subject and went specifically looking for what the Palestinians might be saying on the internet.
So now the TV and MSM is not only controlled but free speech is even forbidden on the Internet.
Good “logic” if you sell that shit.
I wobder how many people are buying your BS.
Your comment is wrong on several important levels. Israel cares very much about Palestinian material reaching outside audiences in the larger world, and urgently wants the truth to stop from getting out. I discuss that below here.
@Hasus
Israeli David Sheen translated from Hebrew all these Israeli teens’ genocidal, racist, anti-Arab tweets. Do read them, if your stomach can take it.
As Sheen noted:
Their more important role is as arbiters of what we can and cannot say. According to Euripides, “This is slavery, not to speak your thought”. On social media platforms, people will watch helplessly as the thoughts they express are transmuted before their eyes into thoughts which are officially approved. Eventually, they will learn to internalize these approved thoughts and adopt them as their own. At that point, they will be declared cyber adults and their freedom, since they have learned to make the right choices, will be returned to them.
Freedom is slavery.
Exactly. Even today, Google tailors its search results based on advertising and prior search history, and in so doing gently nudges the naive user toward preferred links and narrowed perspectives. Lazy people – the overwhelming majority – are satisfied to have their preconceptions reinforced, and don’t even notice that they are not getting all the views, or perhaps none of the facts.
Combine that with the brevity of the material – Twitter being the obvious example – and superficiality is reinforced. So we become practiced in the sound bite, an intellectually empty parody of discourse.
Fahrenheit 451: our destiny.
BDS Facebook. If a million people just shut down their accounts…oops.
Oh that would be awesome. I quit facebook some time ago. It takes too much time. Also I’m afraid they have the power to kill me over this reply.
Lol
Get over yourself
Perhaps you haven’t noticed that people only BDS things they would never use anyway
Once BDS starts to demand people impact their lives, it will drop like the sack of ____ that it is
Perhaps you should ask P. W. Botha how effective BDS can be. (A rhetorical response)
It’s so cute that you believe that the boycott campaign had any materiel impact on SA politics.
Hint: historians don’t believe it had any
But people like you like to believe that the are impactful.
Again, how come people don’t BDS anything that they would ordinarily use?
BDS about looking avente guarde to your peers, not actually giving up anything
But keep trying, is adorable.
For folks who still think that the government would do a lousier job than private industry of ensuring free speech, Facebook is an example of how naive that idea is. And twitter is not one schmick better: https://twitter.com/RodgerDodger18/status/775391396291284993
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
-Carl Sagan
Do you have any reason to suggest that government *would* be better?
Yes, because the government, in whatever capacity, is limited in its powers by the laws of the land, and constitutional limitations. These limitations do not apply to private corporations.
An example would be how the US government has decided to halt construction of that pipeline in North Dakota, because of protests. In some ways they’re accountable to the people and public sentiment, even though they won the court battle.
On the other hand, North Dakota has decided that it wants to support the private corporation fully. The private corporation doesn’t give a shit about the Public Interest, or anything other than it’s financial bottom line.
That’s an example of some evidence, that applies to the federal government, but not to the government of North Dakota.
I agree about the pipeline, but what about the precedence of the government (federal and local) having already reinforced censorship?
A few examples being:
The recent Facebook Live user whose account was disabled at the request(order?) of the police, while she was being killed by those police.
The federal government’s long history of withholding/misstating relevant/important information from/to the public while leaning on/lying to the press.
The Guardian reported U.S. censorship of U.S. media regarding a CIA employee implicated in murder in that “A number of US media outlets learned about Davis’s CIA role but have kept it under wraps at the request of the Obama administration.” Colorado station KUSA censored an online report indicating Davis worked for the CIA when the station “removed the CIA reference from its website at the request of the US government.”
National Public Radio reported on April 10, 2000:
The U.S. Army’s Psychological Operations unit placed interns at CNN and NPR in 1998 and 1999. The placements at CNN were reported in the European press in February of this year and the program was terminated. The NPR placements will be reported this week in TV Guide.
All the examples you state are those of private corporations joining the government, to censor. In the US, the government, by itself has no power to censor. The government can make a request, and the corporation can comply or not. The government can tell Glenn Greenwald, “don’t publish the Snowden material.” Glenn could have complied. The NY Times (which I generally have zero or negative respect for) could have complied and not published anything. But the government doesn’t have the authority to make them comply. A Free Press is a right Americans have. Unlike in Britain, where the government could have shut down The Guardian, if it wanted to. The Guardian actually acted without protection from the law.
In any event, the problem is not the government. The problem is when private corporations AND the government join forces (fascism). The US has a built in legal framework that puts checks on government power. But when it comes to corporations, unlike Europeans or Canadians, Americans seem to think everything is fair. And it’s not.
The US used to have robust Anti-Trust laws that broke up companies like Facebook, if they became too big or powerful. Those laws still exist, but are not enforced anymore. There is a myth that was somehow created in the US, that the government is worse for the people, than the corporation. It most surely can be, and is, in many countries. But in the US, it’s the public corporations (not small businesses or mom and pops), the multinationals, that are pure, unadulterated evil.
My opinion only. Based on my work experience on Wall St.
“In the US, the government, by itself has no power to censor.”
Surely you mean “legal right” rather than “power”???
Yes, that’s what I mean. I’m sure, federal and state agencies can and do abuse their powers on a regular basis.
If a private company does something wrong, the government can stop it.
What if the government does something wrong?
You can vote the government out?? This is a brand new concept? Or are you such a libertarian (except for flag and anthem purposes) that you can’t think out of your box?
Also in the perfect libertarian world with no regulations, how will the government “stop it?” I thought the only way to stop the corporation in a libertarian world was through the “free market.”
It rarely happens.
Although over 80% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing,
almost everyone gets reelected.
Municipal, state or federal? Which branch in any? And what is the nature of the “something” done that is wrong?
You are aware, I hope, that government does not (well, not generally) behave like a rogue state in America and is, in fact, subject to law?
Domestically you’re somewhat right when there is enough organized pressure by the public. The government is responsive to political pressure. But internationally that doesn’t hold true.
the cia does, and has done, much wrong in america and to americans. the cia is a rogue government organization. the fbi, has done and still does, do awful, even deadly ops, in america. the nsa is constrained by no law.
police in the south were a lawless bunch.
the groups i cited can’t be voted out.
the implication that other governments are worse than united states, damns it with faint praise.
@Wasi & Lawrencer Fitton
Yes, I’m aware of your CIA and FBI exceptions, which is why I put in the parenthetical (not generally) to my observation that the American government is subject to laws. My reply was to the hasbara troll who would question that legal standards the government uses for determining protected speech could be more “wrong” than a private corporation’s, and oh my goodness — thinks the troll — what do we do then!? (Go to court.)
The hasbara troll likes Facebook’s willingness to adopt the censorship standards asked for by Israel and would not prefer to see American law on protected speech adopted at Facebook.
There’s corruption.
Subject to, but not bound by.
Like Israel?
?
You asked “What if the government does something wrong?”
Nete Peedham replied: “Like Israel?”
What exactly is your source of confusion??
He’s a hasbara troll. His sole purpose is to make it “necesssary” for Israel to have Facebook be pressured into censoring as Israel wants it to. He’s spewing about “corruption” in a feeble attempt to argue that free speech as the government protects it is not reliable becasue of government “corruption.” It’s just stpoopid, but that’s his hasbara approach to this narrow issue. (The hasbara manuals don’t addres this topic, so he’s winging it.)
Zionism.
What is Nete Peedham saying that Israel did wrong?
Social media. . . what a joke. “Give us all your personal data so we can sell it to advertisers who bombard you with sales offers, and in exchange, we’ll give you this heavily monitored and censored platform so you can enjoy an interactive online experience with lots of ‘friends.'”
My favorite quote ever on Facebook is from this Intercept article:
/2016/06/09/facebook-outreach-tool-ignores-black-lives-matter/
That still makes me laugh out loud. Roll over! Sit! Give us all your personal data and buy this product!
You know, once upon a time we had these things called “messageboards. . .”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/remembrance-of-message-boards-past/
So sad, all the people who’ve been Facebooked and Twitterized – like being locked in a little cell and forced to communicate with fellow prisoners in 140 characters or less, under constant surveillance, while being force-fed advertising through a straw. The Orwellian-Gitmo model of the Internet.
If your personal data is given to advertisers, they will bombard you with sales offers that you are actually interested in. Without the personal data, they waste your time with products you have no interest in.
It’s called NoScript, and Adblock, and Ghostery. Run them on Mozilla Firefox, and you’ll never see another ad (but you will learn a lot about web page functionality and the astonishing number of sites various web pages try to link you to).
Breaking the monetized model of the Internet with some nifty software, I highly recommend it.
Many people do want to buy things & they welcome ads relevant to what they want to buy. Thanks for the info about ad blockers for people who don’t want to see ads.
Backing you up with a link – https://adblockplus.org/
Adblock Plus – I’ve had ten years of advertising-free browsers and email providers.
Some people may be fooled by the other with a similar name.
Just a parenthetical to thank you (and the encyclopedic photosymbiosis) for the app tips. I broke away from the thread to download the link you posted: Woof! What a difference.
@Jack Green
You get 20 points for being a nice person, because people like me (not nice) will use your personal data, not to bring you relevant and entertaining advertising, but to bring you the holy grail of capitalism.
Customized pricing for every person.
Which will of course be a huge benefit to the poor and marginalized.
Now expand the idea of customized pricing to political propaganda and let your mind run with the implications.
Lucky for us large companies, government and media outlets are staffed by people like you instead of people like me.
You are one amazing guy, Jack Green (if that is who you really are, which I doubt)! How many posts? And every single one of them WRONG! You are an excellent barometer for drawing conclusions: whenever in doubt, find Jack’s position on it, and you’ll know the opposite is true.
If I were really interested I’d already be buying the product without the ad. What the personal data does is make it easier for the advertisers to manipulate people into buying crap they wouldn’t have otherwise.
People often have a need, but they don’t know what product is available or what brand to buy. Personalized advertising can provide the info.
We need this over on TIB too as well as a deep & continual conversation about social media, especially in Brazil!
While I applaud FB’s ‘live feed’ as a way of opening up new channels for fresh voices, I began to seriously worry after I read about FB Censorship on a post by an ex-TeleSUR employee. He was locked out for 3 days after posting a message (see link) which I consider completely clean & spot-on….and not even an ounce of a threat to any group.
Also, the fact that this post was going viral means that FB stopped a potential wave. While I use FB, some days I wonder how much longer I’ll stay connected via them. Is it possible for us to create a system that allows us all to control our own feed yet connect to the world? Maybe a user fee for memory for those who want to exceed a memory limit, as some will want to post mountains of videos that take up gobs of space, but at least we’re giving the ownership over to the public. It’d be like we’d each have our own page that’d web to whomever yet keep out those we don’t want. I’d like to ask Snowden & the tech geeks out there what’s possible on privacy + connectivity. Anyways, that nitty gritty tech stuff is over my head.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Facebook-Censors-Ex-TeleSUR-Employee-over-Orlando-Shooting-Post-20160619-0016.html
Storage could obviously be onsite via one’s own setup, but what happens when we die – like what happens to our info? Will future governments &/or generations want to preserve those mostly ‘silly & pointless’ memories of past lives – like will our great-great-great grandsons & daughters want to pry open a few centuries of laughs & cries, or will it all just be deleted with an accidental switch off.
As of now, FB has the power to delete/hold those memories. Of course one could download all their FB info on a backup, which is likely what we should all think about doing anyways, but I want a new system that could ‘live on for the ages.’ That’s what’s on call for millennials – some type of storage system to leave memories for generations to come.
Public Digital Graveyard
Some sort of ‘public digital graveyard’ that’d keep a certain & specific amount of info on hand pre-determined by the human before their death. I’m far more worried about the storage of info than bodies. Humans already invest in a rotting corpse sealed up in a box, which takes up way more space than a few giggles of memories.
random thoughts:
1. back when a spate of “bitch make me a sandwich” types were making misogyny/rape pages all over facebook, many people paying attention to such things noticed they were rarely taken down whereas any remotely anti-jewish pages were taken down within minutes of a complaint. i’m sure zuckerberg has absolutely NO dog in that race.
2. if israelis have an issue with it then use that “superior” tech knowledge we keep hearing about and block it from within “israel”. when china or the saudis don’t want a site looked at they block it and bob’s yer uncle. telling a site within the US to quit hosting something on its own US servers because someone in another country might access it is the height of arrogance – even for lunatics with a pathological fear of the truth.
3. if facebook has a disproportionate share of the news arena that’s the fault of the users. not sure why there can “be only one” when it comes to social networking sites, but that highlander shit didn’t do friendster or myspace any good. i personally find the thought of using facebook for anything but oversharing ugly baby pictures and stupid “memes” bizarre but that’s just me i guess. can’t be that much worse than cnn.
4. “defending” israelis is the easiest and most cowardly stand anyone can take. it would be more brave to say “you know what i hate? rape!” and wait for the applause. defending palestinians and muslims in general is quite the opposite. selena gomez simply said “pray for the kids being torn to shreds by cluster bombs” and people acted as if she shit on mother teresa’s grave dressed as himmler. to ask them to act any differently would be asking them to give up their socially acceptable bigotry.
“many people paying attention to such things noticed they were rarely taken down whereas any remotely anti-jewish pages were taken down within minutes of a complaint.”
Complete BS. You should be ashamed for lying.
Should social media, malls, be treated as public spaces for free speech purposes?
Increasing numbers of activists think so. As was written at this site last January about Black Lives Matter having their protests crushed at the Mall of America:
When social media such as Facebook and Twitter become the new Town (Global, really) Hall, is it acceptable that moneyed interests and/or powerful factions and governments can pressure them to limit certain speech?
The United States Supreme Court held in 1946 that citizens enjoy a right to free speech on the sidewalk even where these sidewalks are in a private, company-owned town. Marsh v. Alabama:
Many today argue that similar reasoning should extend to social media.
Blah blah blah
Palistinians post hate speech and incitement to murder
You lose ans should be ashamed for wasting our time
They can’t hold a candle to the depravity comting from Israeli teens, rabbis and govnerement officials about Palestinians. I could flood this board with examples of vile, vitiated and depraved words from Israelis about Arabs and non-Jews.
To start, here are a bunch of Israeli Jewish teens two summers ago tweeting repugnant, genocdial tweets about Palestinains. There really is no end to the grotesque words one could post coming from Zionist Jews about Arabs.
If “governments can pressure [Facebook/Twitter] to limit certain speech,” then would making these venues ‘public’ increase or decrease the government’s ability to apply that pressure?
What the government could — and probably should — do, as in the case of the company town, is treat the private entities of FB/Twitter as public ones for purposes of the First Amendment. That would mean the government would be required to uphold a citizen’s free speech rights in those venues just as it would on a public sidewalk, in a park or at a town hall.
As digital monopolies are here, digital communication proliferates, and when dependence upon it is ubiquitous – I don’t disagree with that in theory. Though due to the nature of the companies and the whole backing of the US government, I doubt the efficacy of the practice.
There’s already a wealth of documentation showing the far reaches of the government’s arms into all sectors of the media; and the censorship they’ve practiced.
“treat the private entities of FB/Twitter as public ones for purposes of the First Amendment.”
Then, you would lose your privilege to have Greenwald ban people at your request. There is no way you would survive without that privilege you consider a “right”. Or you would want the government to apply those rules to other private entities but not to The Intercept.
What a bunch of comedians! This is coming from exactly the same commenter who a few days ago bragged (or threatened) to another one about her ability to get her ban from TI. You don’t even have to promote violence or X rated language for her to seek your removal from here.
She probably spent years bragging about how Freedom of Speech does not apply to the Intercept.
You are a vicious troll and I usually ignore you. You are lying about me, about what you claim I say, and you lie about others all the time. Anyone wishing to see your MO can read this old sub-thread here. And now I shall ignore you for the remainder of this thread except to repeat this message. (Tho I observe that others have said you should be banned and I do not disagree.)
A perfectly timed article which for anyone who reads between the lines and who will know that Facebook is an expanding Israeli media tool. But one shouldn’t fuss. So is the Government of the USA.
The number of opportunities that cannot be commented upon is growing as it seems to be Facebook or nothing. We have tolerated the “holocaust showcase” for decades, the anti-Semitic rants and the industries that are thriving as a result , (Foxman and Co), museums ad nauseum, academic grants for favour, political bribery and corruption, the neocon brigade, all of which play right into the hands of and are managed by the parasitic Israelis. Organisation is their forte.
As an example…try being an occupying army anywhere else but in Palestine. The Zionazis have been in that role for 60 years. Hitlerlike? He was a novice.
One thing you have to give them, they read character well being so devoid of it themselves.
As a person who refuses use any form of social media, knowing that it is gearing up to be the only source for news one day, print having been forced to move on by then to more profitable activities, I am pleased with the degree of success I have seen in responding to the reduction in the use of this insidious form of propaganda, alive and well in the minds of the masses. Get a life people.
The future news organ for the New World Order.
A good article, Glenn but I doubt if you (or I) will influence the activities of the mindless apathetics.
Apathetic example. Why does a Zionist sycophant / Neocon like McCain keep being re-elected?
The last Primary voter turnout in his state of Arizona was 27%
Federal election roll call raised 47% of interested voters.
How easy it is for the likes of Facebook to become influential. A pox on social media.
Will probably want to block any mention of the alleged murder weapon at Auschwitz and Treblinka: It’s not practical to exterminate thousands with louse disinfestant, dropping it through holes in the ceiling (they would have used the same dispersal method as in the louse disinfestant chambers for clothes) or Diesel exhaust, which contains inert amounts of carbon monoxide. Or mention of the logistics of cremating in an open pit (no oxygen) or thousands/day in crematoria designed to cremate one body/hour with a significant amount of fuel, which doesn’t show up in the aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz. Holocaust denial is illegal in most European nations (Google: “Laws against Holocaust denial).
If Facebook has such reach and stature that governments negotiate with it, then perhaps the extent of its information dominance makes it a public service that needs to be nationalized.
How intelligent! Solve the problem with more of the problem.
That of course will never happen, and personally I think that’s a good thing: The last thing I want is to have the government deciding what can be posted on Facebook or Twitter. It’s bad enough that they collect it all. But based on the factors you mention it along with other market dominant social media could be treated as utilities, and thus subject to regulation.
“Jack Green” is a hasbara troll
He is a lying and deceitful hasbara troll — who spews the same debunked crap here in thread after thread — one who has been shown vast amounts of historical evidence that Israel is the oppressor and aggressor, while Palestinians are the oppressed victims of Zionist ethnic cleansing, land theft and apartheid. He ignores all of the copious facts that many have set before him and simply recycles the same debunked talking points, over and over.
There are always a number of accounts who make it their mission to post vacuous, misleading and disruptive Zionist bullshit. Often, they are following talking points issued by both formal and informal “hasbara” projects. (Hasbara means “explaining” in Hebrew; in practice it means “propaganda.”)
Max Blumenthal has described these annoying pests and their programs thus:
They are also assigned to comments sections, such as at the Guardian, and also here. Jack Green is one of this site’s shrill and relentless hasbara troll nuisances.
Why don’t you just compile a list of all the trolls that you update regularly in the comments section of each relevant Intercept article? That would be helpful.
Also, the software confines us to one link per post. I usually include a link to a troll’s behavior when I cite him/her as one so that readers may see for themselves.
I’m not sure TI comments are really salvageable at this point, but if I had the energy I’d ask management about maybe letting me have a sticky at the top of each thread identifying the known trolls. It would also be great if there was an ignore feature one could in-put such names into.
Trolls often threaten to destroy the quality of discussion here. Some of us long-time regulars are looking at options.
oh right…you can’t do that b/c one can’t edit comments. d’oh.
So, get them banned! Freedom of Speech does not apply to TI (or FB neither). You don’t even have to prove they are “Zionist” trolls. You can just decide who they are.
You lost me at Max Blumenthal
Yes, hard-core Zionists, and hasbara trolls, really cannot abide the truths Max documents about Israel. Your type detests Max — and for good reason. He’s done an enromous amount of research and writing that deprograms many — including me — from the Zionist narrative. Too bad for you he’s moving into the mainstream.
Please. Don’t make me laugh
Max is reviled by all sorts of people regardless of their opinions on the I/P conflict.
He does nothing positive for those who want positive outcomes for the poor Palestinian people
Censorship and slandering of all opposition as “Jihadi Terrorists”… yeah that sounds oddly familiar to anyone speaking out against Bashar al-Assad too…
Those are excellent questions. I’m going to patiently wait until Facebook answers them (NOT).
I do not use “social media”, never have. How is it any different than any bar in America where people get into loud political discussions? Patrons have their say, and get to hear the other political side. Is there ever a censor? Perhaps the owner will tell them to tone down the language, but never censor an opinion.
Zionists are at the root of all evil in this world.
Facebook is a private service and can ostensibly censor whatever it wants whenever it wants, just like bar owners can kick out patrons for saying stuff the owners don’t like.
Why was there evil before Zionism?
It was germinating in your petri dish.
Israel is not trying to eliminate loud discussions
Only incitement to murder
There, I made you smarter
Please reconsider your decision to submit impertinent questions to Facebook. They are liable to tweak their share widget to block The Intercept as a security risk.
I hope there will always be a place for The Intercept on the darknet, but be a little more circumspect in how you criticize those with power.
Nah. They will simply ‘unfriend’ The Intercept.
I heard they are creating a little skull & crossbones icon so you can tag pages as toxic. I really hate Facebook. I’m surrounded by those jerks everyday and they are such a nuisance with their little blue bikes. It’s like an infestation.
Well, this is a good time to start creating the next wave of social media, to cut Facebook’s throat.
And this time, it should be de-centralized, and not capable of being controlled, or stopped by any one entity.
The government does not allow complete freedom of speech.
Why should Facebook be held to a higher standard?
Which government??
Also nobody is saying facebook should be held to some high standard. People are saying, that if they decide not to hold themselves to a high standard, then fuck facebook. That’s what people are saying, you thick settler.
You called him a settler?
Are you a child?
This is why team Palistine goes nowhere. Idiots like you
Long live the Nakba
When criticism of any country and its policies/abuses is acceptable, why does Israel bully countries and companies into submitting to its will to remove posts that do not cast it in a positive light?
FB has appointed Jordana Culter, Netanyahu’s ex staff to police this open forum and stifle free doe H. Not only does Israel muzzle freedom within the confines of its own borders, it is using its power and the antisemitism card to stifle dissent.
Nobody can rightly call this budding theocracy a shining beacon of democracy.
Facebook will die soon. Just like Myspace. I’d like to think that people are finding out about its shady practices and loss of privacy and are tired of it. Its billion dollar acquisitions of any competition (Instagram, Whatsapp etc) make it a monopoly but yet it doesn’t actually produce anything but inane status updates, selfies, pictures of food and advertisements. It’s a house of cards that will soon collapse.
You are as angry, insightful, relevant, and pathetic as an old man yelling at kinds to get off his lawn.
And your ability to read thr tea leaves is non-existent
If you don’t understand a product, you are not thr audience. Get over it
How many lies and misleading “fact” in one article.
1. People were murdered based on muslim hate propaganda published in Facebook. This resulted in innocent Israelis, families and children were murdered by Palestinians. This also applies to the Palestinians who found their death while trying to conduct these attacks.
2. What’s more important? freedom of speech or people right to live? This is no game here
3. What is censored is calling to murder other people and hate text like stuff being published by ISIS likes. This content is also blocked when published in other western countries.
4. Glen hates Israel. If you look at his reports, all of them criticize Israel while the Palestinians are innocent angels.
But you are OK with far worse hate speech from Israelis. Of course you are; you are exceptional.
True, Mike, but you must realize that Hasus is a hasbara-ist, and a junior one at that. Just look at their poor command of English. Perhaps that’s a good sign: they are running out of effective resources to counter the increasing mountain of truth about the current Israeli regime. Or perhaps the lousy English stems from Hasus’ being a bot. (And a lousy bot at that!)
The Only Democracy in the Middle East(tm) strikes again!
If FB want to do the right thing, they wouldn’t make their social media available to any terrorist and apartheid regime occupying any country or portion of a country with, internationally recognized, illegal settlements….
Apartheid? Where are the separate water fountains & bathrooms?
Why are there Arabs in the Israeli parliament & on the Israeli Supreme Court?
Jack Green
As any reasonably well informed person understands full well, apartheid is rampant in Israel proper, i.e., west of the green line.
To wit:
“Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. ‘Joint Israel-West Bank’ reality is an apartheid state”
EXCERPT: “Similarities between the ‘original apartheid’ as it was practiced in South Africa and the situation in ISRAEL [my emphasis] and the West Bank today ‘scream to the heavens,’ added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted.” (Times of Israel, February 21, 2013)
Shlomo Gazit, retired IDF Major General: “[Israel’s] legal system that enforces the law in a discriminatory way on the basis of national identity, is actually maintaining an apartheid regime.” (Haaretz, July 19, 2011)
One example of apartheid within Israel:
Ha’aretz, Dec. 14/09: “Jewish town won’t let Arab build home on his own land ”
Excerpt: “Aadel Suad first came to the planning and construction committee of the Misgav Local Council in 1997. Suad, an educator, was seeking a construction permit to build a home on a plot of land he owns in the community of Mitzpeh Kamon. The reply he got, from a senior official on the committee, was a memorable one. ‘Don’t waste your time,’ he reportedly told Suad. ‘We’ll keep you waiting for 30 years.’”
“…EU broadside over plight of Israel’s Arabs”
EXCERPT: “The confidential 27-page draft prepared by European diplomats… [shows] that Israeli Arabs suffer ‘economic disparities… unequal access to land and housing… discriminatory draft legislation and a political climate in which discriminatory rhetoric and practice go unsanctioned.'” (The Independent, Dec. 27/2011)
In its 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor acknowledges the “institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel.” (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015 Israel and The Occupied Territories,
Discrimination is not apartheid.
Apartheid is separation by race.
But not only that, as you’ve been told many, many times already. And anyway, Israel separates Jews from Palestinians, both in Israel proper and even more strictly in Gaza and the West Bank — as you’ve also repeatedly been informed. As you know, many international legal scholars and other apartheid experts — including the African National Congress — have declared that Israel is an apartheid state.
But as I’ve written here, you are a hasbara troll, so all you do is recycle the same debunked shit. You also frequently and brazenly lie and peddle lies, as I can document.
Is the USA apartheid?
How does Israel separate Jews & Arabs inside Israel proper?
Jack Green
Pathetic response. At least you’re consistent.
Discrimination and apartheid are joined at the hip.
Also, I and anyone else with an IQ over room temperature will take the word of Alon Liel, Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994 who has no doubt that Israel is an apartheid state as does Shlomo Gazit, a retired IDF Major General. Furthermore, what happened to Aadel Suad was/is pure unadulterated apartheid.
Of course, by definition, Zionism, a racist 19th century ideology based on dispossessing and expelling Palestine’s native Arab population to make way for an exclusionary/expansionary “Jewish state,” could only lead to apartheid.
Theodore Herzl said that Arabs should be offered money to leave. If an Arab didn’t want to leave, ask another Arab. That’s not expulsion.
Israel is not exclusionary. It’s one of the world’s most diverse countries.
It’s the Arabs who expelled EVERY Jew from Gaza, the West Bank & East Jerusalem. Israel is 20% non-Jew.
You are a lying hasbara troll. Arabs have not expelled all the Jews from the West Bank, and no Jews want to live in Gaza. As for Herzl — and you know this because you’ve seen it documented many, many times — Valdimir Jabotinsky thought Herzl was all pie in the sky and explictly demanded expelling the Arabs, and Jabotinsky’s disciples proceeded to do just that.
Jews lived in Gaza for centuries until 1929 when Arabs attacked.
Jews lived in the West Bank for centuries. By 1967, there were no Jews in the West Bank.
Jews lived for centuries in East Jerusalem until 1948 when they were thrown out.
You are a mendacious and dishonest hasbara troll. All of that has been debunked many, many itmes. If anyone whom I deem to be asking in good faith requests a rebuttal of your inanaity, I shall provide it. But I won’t rebut everything you spew endlessly everytime you recycle it. Only for good fatih inquisitors.
States don’t have to be just like South Africa in the 80s to be properly referred to as apartheid states. Any system of oppression along ethnic lines is an apartheid system. To deny that, say, Arab inhabitants of the West Bank are systematically oppressed by Israel would be preposterous.
“Jack” is recting from a script. He’s spewed that all before, verbatim. Including: “Where are the separate water fountains & bathrooms?”
I and many have rebutted it myriad times. He doesn’t care. His purpose is simply to flood the place with the same hasbara, quite endlessly.
It’s not along ethnic lines. Notice that Israel doesn’t treat Israeli Arabs the same as it treats Palestinians. It’s because Palestinians are foreigners who attacked Israel. Was it apartheid that when the US occupied Germany after world war 2, Germans in occupied Germany were treated differently from Americans?
Um, no. Palestinians are ethnically cleansed victims, about 20% of whom were allowed to remain in what is now named Israel; of the other 80%, many of these ended up as refugees in Gaza and the West Bank, where they are oppressed by Israel.
Moshe Dayan understood very well why they are so angry. In 1956 he gave a eulogy for an Israeli soldier who had been killed by a Gazan:
The clear-eyed (and monstrous) Dayan understood that no people would passively accept what Zionists did and do to the Palestinians.
In 1947, Palestinians started a war against Jews.
Wars create refugees.
Palestinians hated Jews before they were displaced, before Zionists arrived, before Zionism was invented.
The British consul, William Young, writing in the 1840’s (before Zionism) said that the Jews of Jerusalem were living in fear for their lives. He attributed the plight of the Jews to “the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatical populace…”
And precisely where was this “war against Jews” of yours fought?
Yea, and Zionism creates abhorrent brain dead window lickers.
William Young was a Christian Zionist restorationist, you atrocious Jew-baiting, Palestinian-hating zio anti-Semite.
William Young was a Christian Zionist. He really wanted Jews to move to Palestine.
Therefore, he would never have given Jews any reason not to move to Palestine unless the conditions for Jews in Palestine were so bad that his conscience forced him to speak out.
That means that the conditions for Jews in Palestine were probably even worse.
To be brief: It seems you are unaware of or choose to ignore the fact that in accordance with the racist nature of Zionism, the first step leading to the conflict was the dispossession and expulsion of 400,000 Palestinians by the Irgun, Haganah, et al, between passage of the recommendatory only UNGA Partition Plan (Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) and the proclamation of the state of lsrael effective 15 May, 1948 by Polish born David Ben-Gurion (real name, David Gruen) et. al, e.g., 60.000 from Haifa in late April, 75,000 from Jaffa in late April and early May and 30,000 from West Jerusalem in March.
By the end of 1948, the IDF drove a further 400,000 Palestinians out of their homeland for a total of 800,000 and destroyed nearly 500 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries. It was only the beginning.
You’re saying that the first step was in 1947.
However, Palestinians were shouting “The Jews are our dogs! Islam was spread by the sword” as they murdered innocent Jews in 1920, 1921 & 1929.
That’s entirely plausible, but there are some differences. The West Bank has Israeli settlers, who obviously do get treated differently to Arabs. Post-war Germany was occupied, but not exactly colonized.
The presence of Israeli settlers doesn’t change the relationship between Israelis & Palestinians. Palestinians are still a foreign people who attacked Israel.
Yep—the Palestinians are still the indigenous population who are defending themselves, their families and their homeland against Zionist invasion, occupation and colonization, and your precious zio criminals are still the foreign invaders terrorists, ethnic cleansers, colonizers, thieves and murderers they always were and always will be.
ROFL…Yea, you brain-damaged zio window licker, and the Nazis were Jews, and the Jew-Nazis Holocausated six million innocent Germans, and left is right, and up is down, and black is white.
How could the indigenous population be defending itself when Jews were not attacking them?
In 1920, 1921, 1929 Palestinians shouting “The Jews are our dogs! Islam was spread by the sword!” were attacking Jews – both indigenous Jews & Jews exercising their right of return. Palestinians were aggressors. Jews were defenders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
Glenn, you write, among other things, “Facebook is a private company, with a legal obligation to maximize profit…” I believe that you’re mistaken about this. What law obligates private companies to maximize profits?
Executives and members of the Board of Director have a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to do so. They can – and often have been – sued if they don’t, if, for instance, they purposely forgo profits in pursuit of some other goal that does not redound to the shareholders’ benefit.
It’s not so simple: they can, for instance, forego short-term profit for some long-term benefit, but it still has to be for the shareholders’ benefits. Read some on the law here.
Thank you for the informative link, Glenn. I note that Bainbridge provides no citation to the United States Code, but only to case law. It would seem that the obligation to maximize profits is a construction of the courts, not the legislature (and an ambiguous one at that).
The reason I raise the question is not to pick nits with your central thesis in this article, with which I agree, but rather because I’ve often heard this claim of a statutory corporate duty to maximize shareholder profits made without any citation to the relevant statute.
In the US corporations are governed by the regulations of the state in which they are incorporated, and these naturally vary. (For instance, we have Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming that promote the establishment of shell corporations, so US companies don’t have to send their money to Panama or the British Virgin Islands to launder it.) At one point most states included wording in their corporate charters obligating corporations to serve the community, but that wording, as vague as it was, was found objectionable by those who are concerned with the maximization of profits. As a result of a concerted lobbying campaign led by the US Chamber of Commerce, those words have been stripped from corporate charters in most if not all states. Now the sole duty of the US corporation is to maximize return.
Corporations Don’t Have to Maximize Profits
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
Corporations have to follow their charters, not maximize profits. Not following your charter is called fraud.
The idea that a corporation has to maximize profits is easily refuted by the existence of non profit corporations.
Does Glenn think that someone can sue the Intercept and force them to make money?
Israel “has to” censor Twitter and the Internet
I’ve been predicting this for two years, ever since the summer of 2014. At that time Israel slaughtered and/or injured thousands in Gaza, and obliterated entire neighborhoods. Medical personnel, journalists and regular people uploaded pictures and videos of the carnage online and the world responded in revulsion. The American Jewish magazine, Forward, noted this with alarm: Israel Has a New Worst Enemy — Twitter.
Israel cannot have that. Hence, censorship.
Funny!!!!
Coming from somebody who brags all day about how she can get Glenn Greenwald to ban commenters here.
“It’s true that these companies have the legal right as private actors to censor whatever they want.”
That’s correct. Like the Intercept they may censor whatever they want and may support openly or secretly any governments, groups, political parties… they want. And like the Intercept they have absolutely no obligation to be impartial. So they can be fully biased like the Intercept.
Now call me a “Zionist” and “troll” and ask Glenn Greenwald to exercise his right to ban me.
You are a vicious troll and I usually ignore you. You are lying about me, about what you claim I say, and you lie about others all the time. Anyone wishing to see your MO can read this old sub-thread here. And now I shall ignore you for the remainder of this thread except to repeat this message. (Tho I observe that others have said you should be banned and I do not disagree.)
What….really, you don’t want to point out the OBVIOUS hypocrisy in that Mani, The Eternal DumbAss!! is using Greenwald to advance his argument, despite all of his posting lambasting any user on TI comments sections as ‘lapdogs’……you are so forgiving, my dear. ;)
The only way to contain such as him is to deny him oxygen. New readers need to know what he is and why I don’t bother to deny his bullshit, but otherwise I shall ignore him.
At some point there will be a different way to discuss the material without this kind of nuisance that can pollute the discussion so badly the better thinkers just don’t participate. At least I hope so.
“oxygen”
Well, I’ll take any additional oxygen out there cuz I’m laughing my *ss off right now. ;)
Palestinians have fired 15,0000 rockets at Israelis.
Israel has the right to defend itself.
Colonel Kemp – IDF avoids civilian casualties
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1MkAGuVyY
Jack Green is a hasbara troll, who has had all of his talking points debunked many times. He knows, for example, that the IDF has used Palestinians, including children, as human shields over 1200 times. He has posted lies multiple times, and when the lies are proven to be so he abandons that thread and talking point.
He should be ignored.
Jack Green
Palestinians have “the right to defend” themselves from Israel’s illegal, belligerent and brutal occupation.
To wit:
Australian film ‘Stone Cold Justice’ on Israel’s torture of Palestinian children
https://vimeo.com/86575949
A film which has been produced by a group of Australian journalists has sparked an international outcry against Israel after it explicitly detailed Tel Aviv’s use of torture against Palestinian children.
The film, titled ‘Stone Cold Justice’ documents how Palestinian children, who have been arrested and detained by Israeli forces, are subjected to physical abuse, torture and forced into false confessions and pushed into gathering intelligence on Palestinian activists. Australia’s foreign minister Julie Bishop has spoken out against Israeli’s use of torture stating that “I am deeply concerned by allegations of the mistreatment of Palestinian children,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor has described the human rights abuses documented in the film as “intolerable”. But rights groups have slammed this statement, saying that the Israelis are doing nothing to change Tel Aviv’s policy to torture Palestinian children. Last year a report by the United Nations International Emergency Children’s Fund or UNICEF concluded that Palestinian children are often targeted in night arrests and raids of their homes, threatened with death and subjected to physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault. The film Stone Cold Justice has sparked an international outcry about Israel’s treatment of children in Israeli jails. However, rights groups have criticized Tel Aviv for not doing anything to create a policy that protects Palestinian children against arbitrary arrest and torture.
The occupation of the West Bank was the result of the Jordanian/Palestinian attack against Israel in 1967. (In 1948, instead of declaring independence, the Palestinians of the West Bank asked for union with Jordan.) The Jordanian/Palestinian attack against Israel was a land grab.
Because the Palestinians were the aggressors, they don’t have “the right to defend themselves.”
Jack Green
Reality:
THE 1967 WAR
At 7:45 AM on 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and thereby, Jordan and Syria who each shared a mutual defense pact with Egypt. The attack occurred just hours before Egypt’s VP was to fly to Washington for a prearranged June 7th meeting with the Johnson administration to defuse the crisis between Egypt and Israel based on an agreement worked out in Cairo between Nasser and Johnson’s envoy, Robert Anderson.
In a cable sent to Johnson on May 30, Israel’s PM Eshkol promised not to attack Egypt until June 11 to give diplomacy a chance. However, on June 4, upon hearing about the June 7th meeting and the possibility that it would rule out war, Israel’s cabinet ordered Egypt attacked the next day. In short, the war was another massive land grab by Israel.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Minister without portfolio in Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, 21 August 1982)
Prime Minister Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up south of Israel.” (Yediot Aharonot, l8 October 1967)
Meir Amit, Mossad chief: “Egypt was not ready for war and Nasser did not want a war.”
BTW, regarding Nasser’s “blockade” of the Straits of Tiran: As the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade: “[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.”
You’re a joke. You know nothing of the history of the conflict and are also ignorant of the current situation on the ground. In short, with supporters and Hasbarats like you, Israel needs no critics. Dealing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. No challenge. Bye, bye.
Yes, he’s a very clumsy, ignorant hasbara-ist. In order not to to get sucked into endless threads and dealing with his endlessly recycled inanities, I often simply point out I’ve already debunked his claim scores of times. But, I offer to do so again should that be requested by another, new reader whom I deem to be asking in good faith.
That prevents it appearing that he may be right and that neither I nor others can rebut him. Because I make clear it can and has been done, and will be again if someone else sincerely wishes to know the rebuttal. That takes away from the hasbara troll any power to keep me/us hopping to his endless recycling of hasbara bullshit without having to let it stand as if it might be true.
During the Falkland War, zero members of NATO sent troops to help the UK.
Israel did not respond to Jordan’s shelling of Israeli residential areas (a war crime) so Jordan could say that it fulfilled its obligation under the mutual defense pact. Israel only responded when Jordan began bombing Israeli residential areas (another war crime.) Also, Jordan could have said that it was respecting the direct personal appeal of the Secretary General of the UN. Instead, Jordan attacked Israel taking advantage of Israel’s war with Egypt in order to expand Jordan. Instead, Israel won leading to the occupation of the West Bank.
The NATO treaty only covers the North and Middle Atlantic and Mediterranean, as well as the territories of the member states. That’s why NATO did not go after Argentina. (Of course, they also did not go after Libya for their attack on the USCG station on Lampedusa, Turkey over their numerous clashes with Greece- or Israel after their attacks on the USS Liberty.)
And that just deals with the attacks on Egyptian forces, not the attacks on UN Peacekeepers or the USS Liberty!
Mr. Green, do you believe that Russia’s war against Georgia in 2008 was justified, as the Georgians were the aggressors?
Do Palestinians also have the right to respond to violence with violence, or is that a right you only recognize in some and not others?
Palestinians do have the rights to defend themselves. I have never seen any human rights reports complaining about Palestinians targeting Israeli soldiers. Have you?
I don’t know about “human rights reports” that deny Palestinian rights of self defense, but one should look at prevailing narratives. For example, the so-called “terror tunnels” were only ever used to target IDF soldiers.
Israel, its allies, or Israel supporters can call them however they want. I am not sure why you would expect Israel to call them love tunnels. Last time the UN referred to those tunnels it clearly stated they were used to attack legitimate military targets. Again, I have never seen any reports from human rights organizations, UN or any experts in international laws that blame Palestinians for attacking Israeli soldiers. Is that why you asked the question about Palestinians having the right to defend themselves? Because Israel called them terror tunnels?
Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e5E6M8OGsI
Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRcuy5jOplg
Thugs from the world’s most prevalent welfare democracy, supported by welfare bums like Jack Green.
“15,0000?” At least proof-read your lies, you simpleton.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/rocketrange.html
Excellent journalism. Boycott facebook. Everyone’s jumping ship now more than ever. I can see the facebook revenues diving precipitously.
jay,
You write, “Everyone’s jumping ship now more than ever.” To what ship are they jumping?
I very much doubt the concerns Glenn has raised here will lead to any widespread boycott of Facebook. As an example, I vehemently oppose the sort of censorship Glenn has documented in this article. But Facebook provides an unrivaled vehicle for staying in touch with numerous friends, relatives, and acquaintances. There is no ready substitute. For many (probably most) people, boycotting Facebook is not a viable option. What’s the alternative?
The internet is full of empty, unused pixels.
Facebook is RIPE for a killer app. It’s NOT ALL THAT clever of a setup, just very powerful and popular.
Whenever facebook is threatened in any way they steal from or buy off, or try to buy off with insane amounts of money, whomever it is that is pounding their usefulness into dust.
See this Casey Neistat six minute video for a example.
Snapchat murders facebook
Many newspapers allow comments, but won’t publish certain comments.
Should they be boycotted unless they agree to publish all comments?
What are you asking Jay for? Jay didn’t suggest that, only you did. So why not take it up with yourself, since it’s your idea?
Jay said: “Boycott Facebook.” so I was wondering if he was singling out Facebook.
The article is about facebook and what facebook is doing. Did you think the article was about “many newspapers,” and that “Jay” also thought that’s what it was about?
I think any honest assessment about your reply would lean heavily towards not taking your reply seriously, and any honest person making an assessment about your reply would see through your facile “whataboutery.”
Context matters.
You haven’t provided any “Context”, you braindead zio window licker.
Asking about censorship on other websites e.g. comments on news websites is putting Facebook censorship into context.
When a legal case goes to court, the attorneys & judge don’t look only at this particular case. They look at similar cases.
And when courts do all that, it in the context of singling out the company in the case before it. Or in this case, the company Glenn Greenwald is writing about.
Facebook and Twitter very probably should be treated at law as if they are public spaces for free speech purposes . I write about why here. Indeed, I set forth the “proper context” in which to evaluate speech rights of FB users.
Are you opposed to ANY censorship by Facebook even of incitement of illegal activity, fighting words, and obscenity?
I’m not Mona, but, yes, I am. Israelis should be able to spray their vitriol at Arabs and Arabs should be able to spray vitriol at Israelis. (And you and I can be free to condemn one, the other or both of those statements.)
And what qualifies as incitement to illegal activity? Encouraging speeding could be one. Favoring corporal punishment of children can be another. Calling for the shooting of police is one. Telling people ways to get useful stuff out of dumpsters is another.
Do you think that no comments on any websites should be censored?