The digital age has elevated social media to essential tools for disseminating information and opinions. However, a recent report from Human Rights Watch reveals a worrying aspect of Meta's content moderation. The organization has documented numerous examples of censorship of pro-Palestinian content on Facebook and Instagram, highlighting a pattern of suppression of legitimate, peaceful speech in support of Palestine.
These revelations raise serious concerns about the responsibility of big tech platforms to ensure a fair public debate, free from undue external influence.
Content moderation and freedom of expression
The issue at the heart of the HRW report is the delicate balance between the need to moderate online content and respect for freedom of expression. Meta, through its Instagram and Facebook platforms, faces the challenge of managing a huge amount of user-generated content, balancing between online safety and respect for human rights.
However, the document highlights how Meta's censorship was not a neutral action, but a deliberate intervention, which only specifically silenced pro-Palestinian voices.
The Human Rights Watch report
The report is called “Meta's Broken Promises: Systemic Censorship of Palestinian Content on Instagram and Facebook,” e I link it here. It is based on a detailed analysis of over a thousand cases.
These include removing posts, stories and comments; disabling accounts; restrictions on interacting with others' posts; and so-called “shadow banning,” which significantly reduces the visibility and reach of a person's materials without notification.
The report also highlights how Meta has inconsistently enforced its policies on violent and graphic content, incitement to violence, hate speech, and nudity or sexual activity.
The implications for Human Rights
HRW's investigation finds a negative impact on the human rights of Palestinian users themselves, affecting their ability to share information and experiences.
Despite the recommendations received following the investigation and the guidance of its Supervisory Board, Meta has failed to implement its commitments and continues to fail to meet its human rights responsibilities. This behavior raises questions about the role of technology platforms in shaping the public narrative and their ability to act fairly and impartially.
But it's true? If you speak in favor of Palestinians on social media, do you get shadowbanned and silenced? Meta's response
Meta reacted to the report, reiterating its commitment to human rights. The company claims to follow clear principles to deal with difficult situations like this.
However, the Human Rights Watch report criticizes Meta's approach, stressing that the measures taken were not sufficient to address the negative impact on human rights. In particular those of Palestinian users, especially after 7 October, following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli territory.
Today the Palestinians, tomorrow who?
Human Rights Watch advises Meta to open its platforms more to free expression, especially on important topics such as human rights and political movements. The organization suggests that Meta review some of its policies to ensure they are in line with international human rights standards.
In particular, it recommends better checking the policy that allows you to remove content based on its relevance, to avoid the deletion of important information. These steps are critical to maintaining social media as open and fair spaces, where everyone can express themselves freely.
Differently, more or less technological, more or less obvious, more or less subtle, more or less harsh, it is always a form of dictatorship that supplants democracy.
