205
Meta to broaden hate speech policy to remove more posts targeting 'Zionists'
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
205 points (92.5% liked)
Technology
59987 readers
2785 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Conflating Jews and Zionists is obligatory for Mark "Donated $125.000 to Zaka" Zuckerberg.
Also denial of the existence of israel is now forbidden in Germany and on Meta platforms. Free speech btw.
This is not confusing the two - this is specifically targeting anti-semitism
No this is banning criticism of israel along with it. Using Judaism as a shield for Zionists.
If they wanted to ban antisemitism they would not have included non-antisemitism in there.
You think that dehumanising, calling for harm or denials of Jewish existence aren't anti-semitism?
Why are you bringing up Judaism?
The article separately mentions Zionism. This has nothing to do with Judaism.
You mentioned Judaism. You think Zionism had nothing to do with Judaism? You think dehumanising anyone - including Zionists is ok?
I'm not fully up to date on the details of these, but I was under the understanding that the whole zionism thing was just a racist conspiracy theory regarding a secret society of Jews controlling whatever.
In that case, isn't the term inherently antisemitic, or are there also non-Jewish zionist theories?
Where did you read something like that? Originally it was about the creation of a jewish state, nowadays it's just for israeli nationalism.
As you can tell - basically deduced from context. I've never really seen the term zionist outside of xenofobic rants, so that's all I had to go on.
Zionism is a nationalist movement for the support of a Jewish state. Throughout history different people have had different justifications for the need for a Jewish state, some of them antisemitic. It is worth noting that not all Jews are Zionists and non Jews can be considered Zionists since the desire for a Jewish ethno-state does not require one be a Jew.
As the stated goal is the creation of an ethno-state and thus the exclusion of other groups, racism tends to be implicit for many. Since the creation of an ethno-state likely requires the removal of of the current inhabitants, some pretty despicable actions get justified.
It is important to note that many of the most outspoken anti-Zionists have always been Jews. It's from these that I have often heard the argument that conflating all Jews with Zionism/the state of Israel puts Jews everywhere at risk of getting blamed/punished for the actions of the state of Israel.
Many extremist Christians support the Zionist movement out of either the desire to remove Jews from their country or because they want all of them to return to Israel so that the rapture/end of the word can be realized. Some extremist Christian groups are literally doomsday cults kinda explaining their lack of care for the future...I mean why worry when the end times are nigh.
The US, and much of the west, show unyielding support for the state of Israel and by extension Zionism for several reasons, chiefly geopolitical in nature (oil). Other reasons include racism towards the other peoples of the region, the antisemitism described above, shame over the Holocaust (the Allies all showed some compliancy with it at least in the beginning...antisemitism has deep roots in western culture), and the fact that confronting the wrong of the colonial project of Israel means confronting their own colonial pasts...and often presents.
Edit to add: Belief that all Jews deserve to be safe and not have to fear hatred in no way requires the establishment of a pure ethno-state, the displacement/killing of whole peoples, or the support of those who push for these. The book "On Palestine" by Chomsky and Ilan Pappe argues for a one state solution with freedom for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other groups all having the right to self determination. As well as pointing out evidence that much of the two state discourse is explicitly vavout preventing peace in the region. Both Chomsky and Ilan are Jews.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/
No Zionism is the religion of israel. It does not have anything to do with Judaism. It's a white surpremacy death cult akin to Nazism.
The best way to describe Zionists is a quote by Ilan Pape:
That is exactly it. Antisemites figured out a while back that they could say whatever they want about Jews as long as they swap out the word Zionist. This has been a feature of white supremacy for ages. It used to be "people with big noses" or "people who wear hats" or even "bankers," or "globalists." The latter two are more similar to the use of "Zionist" because they represent actual groups that people criticize. That gives more cover to the actual antisemites.
This is actually a good thing, because it removes that cover from bigots who want to hijack the movement and hide behind it.
Isn't it incredibly dangerous to ban "Zionist" only because it's misused? It can be used to legitimately describe people who have a vested interest in Isreal occupying Palestine. I understand it's used as a slur, but banning otherwise normal words will make the discourse much more difficult.
Who said anything about banning it? You can read the full statement here. As I said, this is about bigots co-opting the word to say bigoted shit, taking into account the nuance of how a word can be used or misused. Literally no one other than propagandists are talking about Meta "banning" the word.
My apologies, I did not read the article on the assumption Meta would choose the irresponsible option. The article was surprisingly nuanced, and I hope the enforcement of Meta's policies are equally nuanced.
Yes, let's hope so!