> In a statement, spokesperson Dani Lever wrote “who flags a particular piece of content for review is irrelevant because our policies govern what is and isn’t allowed on platform. In fact, the expectation of many teams at Meta, including Public Policy, is to escalate content that might violate our policies when they become aware of it, and they do so across regions and issue areas. Whenever any piece of content is flagged, a separate team of experts then reviews whether it violates our policies.”
> Emerson Brooking, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, was reminded of the case of Ankhi Das, Facebook’s former policy head for India — another rare instance in which a single country had its own dedicated representative within the company. Das resigned from her position in 2020 after a Wall Street Journal report found she had lobbied for the uneven enforcement of hate speech rules that benefited India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party, which she supported personally. “Meta is the communications platform for much for the world, but of course not every voice is heard equally,” Brooking said in an interview.
> As recently as February 2023, Cutler’s name was floated as a possible next head of the Israeli Strategic Affairs Ministry, a government propaganda office tasked with surveilling and undermining protesters and activists abroad. The ministry has reportedly made extensive use of Meta’s platforms to infiltrate student groups and conduct propaganda campaigns. In June, Haaretz reported a project originally founded by the ministry had targeted Black lawmakers in the U.S. with “hundreds” of phony Facebook and Instagram accounts “to aggressively promote purported articles that served the Israeli narrative.” Meta later shut these accounts down.
Which no doubt sounded very impressive to Meta when it sought to bring her on board. Some more detail on what that Ministry has been up to:
A network analysis found four other websites that used the same IP and promoted content designed for certain audiences. One was the United Citizens for Canada site, which had multiple social media accounts and disseminated heavily Islamophobic material, including claims that Muslim immigrants were a threat to Canada and demanding a sharia state. Another was the Arab Slave Trade site, which was copied almost entirely from Wikipedia and was aimed at Black Americans, trying to repeat the message that the Arabs had been slave traders in Africa. Yet another site was called Serenity Now, which branded itself as anarchist and anti-establishment, sought to convince young Americans to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state because "states are manmade structures" and a Palestinian state "would hurt the goals of the progressive movement."
All social media is blatantly censored and Pro-Palestine media suppressed. The truth will come out but by then the primary objective is complete.
When you've created a platform that presents itself as a legitimate media platform and convince people this is where you should get your news, then you'll continually have this problem. We've already seen the immense power Facebook has and how easy it is for them to manipulate narratives and suppress information they now deem as "misinformation".
Its ironic the same people who championed the idea that ALL information should be free and available are now the same ones saying that if we don't police speech and suppress whatever it is they dislike today? Well then we're all just fascists to them.