Meta has said it will expand its hate speech policy to cover more uses of the word “Zionist” when applied to Jews or Israelis on its platform.

We will now remove messages targeting ‘Zionists’ in several areas where our investigation has shown that the term tends to be used to refer to Jews and Israelis, with dehumanising comparisons, calls to harm, or denials of existence," the company said in a press release on Tuesday.

In December, Human Rights Watch said that Meta was guilty of “systemic censorship of Palestine content” during Israel’s war on Gaza.

  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • tjsauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        We do not allow content that attacks people on the basis of protected characteristics such as nationality, race, or religion, among others. We do allow people to criticize adherents of political affiliations and ideologies.

        • tjsauce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.