Case Description
Due to a technical glitch, our public comments portal for cases related to the "From the River to the Sea" phrase closed earlier than planned. To ensure everyone has a chance to share their input, we've reopened it for 24 hours. The portal will now close at 12pm BST on May 23rd.
These three cases concern content decisions made by Meta, all on Facebook, which the Oversight Board intends to address together.
The three posts were shared by different users in November 2023, following the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7 and the start of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Each post contains the phrase “From the river to the sea.” All three were reported by users for violating Meta’s Community Standards. The company decided to leave all three posts on Facebook. For each case, the Board will decide whether the content should be removed under Meta’s policies and according to its human rights responsibilities. Numbers of views and reports are correct as of the end of February 2024.
The first case concerns a comment from a Facebook user on another user’s video. The video has a caption encouraging others to “speak up” with numerous hashtags including “#ceasefire” and “#freepalestine.” The comment on the post contains the phrase “FromTheRiverToTheSea” in hashtag form, as well as several additional hashtags including “#DefundIsrael.” The comment had about 3,000 views and was reported seven times by four users. The reports were closed after Meta’s automated systems did not send them for human review within 48 hours.
In the second case, a Facebook user posted what appears to be a generated image of fruit floating on the sea that form the words from the phrase, along with “Palestine will be free.” The post had about 8 million views and was reported 951 times by 937 users. The first report on the post was closed, again because Meta’s automated systems did not send it for human review within 48 hours. Subsequent reports by users were reviewed and assessed as non-violating by human moderators.
In the third case, a Facebook page reshared a post from the page of a community organization in Canada in which a statement from the “founding members” of the organization declared support for “the Palestinian people,” condemning their “senseless slaughter” by the “Zionist State of Israel” and “Zionist Israeli occupiers.” The post ends with the phrase “From The River To The Sea.” This post had less than 1,000 views and was reported by one user. The report was automatically closed.
The Facebook users who reported the content, and subsequently appealed Meta’s decisions to leave up the content to the Board, claimed the phrase was breaking Meta’s rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. The user who reported the content in the first case stated that the phrase violates Meta’s policies prohibiting content that promotes violence or supports terrorism. The users who reported the content in the second and third cases stated that the phrase constitutes hate speech, is antisemitic and is a call to abolish the state of Israel.
After the Board selected these cases for review, Meta confirmed its original decisions were correct. Meta informed the Board that it analyzed the content under three policies – Violence and Incitement, Hate Speech and Dangerous Organizations and Individuals – and found the posts did not violate any of these policies. Meta explained the company is aware that “From the river to the sea” has a long history and that it had reviewed use of the phrase on its platform after October 7, 2023. After that review, Meta determined that, without additional context, it cannot conclude that “From the river to the sea” constitutes a call to violence or a call for exclusion of any particular group, nor that it is linked exclusively to support for Hamas.
The Board selected these cases to consider how Meta should moderate the use of the phrase given the resurgence in its use after October 7, 2023, and controversies around the phrase’s meaning. On the one hand, the phrase has been used to advocate for the dignity and human rights of Palestinians. On the other hand, it could have antisemitic implications, as claimed by the users who submitted the cases to the Board. This case falls within the Board’s strategic priority of Crisis and Conflict Situations.
The Board would appreciate public comments that address:
- The origin and current uses of the phrase: “From the river to the sea.”
- Research into online trends in content using the phrase.
- Research into any associated online and offline harms from the use of the phrase.
- Meta’s human rights responsibilities in relation to content using the phrase including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and equality and non-discrimination.
- State and institutional (e.g., university) responses to the use of the phrase (e.g., during protests) and the human rights impacts of those responses.
As part of its decisions, the Board can issue policy recommendations to Meta. While recommendations are not binding, Meta must respond to them within 60 days. As such, the Board welcomes public comments proposing recommendations that are relevant to these cases.
Comments
“From the River to the Sea” is not anti-Semitic. Recent studies show that Palestines actually hold Semite ancestry and therefore promoting justice and freedom in Palestine during a time of genocide is not anti-Semitic.
This is ridiculous. These posts are to save the people of Palestine. Don’t block them.
River to the sea is not about hate or division but recognising a people long oppressed where power is being abused in an occupation and plausible genocide. It is also a phrase used in academia as well as by other oppressed people historical.
It is a hope for equal rights and freedom for all. For peace. For justice. It is free speech that is not aggressive or a threat. The silencing of it is about tone policing and there has been a particular effort to reinterpret and demonise language that is not violent or threatening to silence conversation, dissent. It is language that is meaningful and it is a small number misinterpreting because of bad faith efforts to smear and silence. It has never been hateful and people are engaged in targeted harassment of such speech It is most worrying.
To police it thus is problematic. There is actual hate speech on fb inc racial slurs and meta routinely fail to act on such. Here, in the current context river to the sea is a call to stop a genocide and have human rights, equal rights for all and deliberate misinterpretation to silence people acting in humanitarian fashion makes meta less and less relevant.
There has already been considerable poor treatment of Palestinian accounts by meta which is very worrying. This should not be happening and this language should not be demonised and accounts doing such are engaged in targeted harassment
This statement, which is asking for ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from a Part of the world
This statement which is originated by terrorists asking for Genocide of a people
Has no place in a healthy and Moral society.
It only has place in a society that encourages murder and Ethnic cleansing.
Is that the society you want to create and be a part off??
This statement calls for the end of Israel's state. (Israel borders)
The phrase was taken from Arabic, in Arabic, it's from the river to the sea all will be Arab.
“From the river to the sea” is an aspirational phrase that calls for the end of the apartheid and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that has been occurring for the past 76 years, as well as an end to the Palestinian genocide. It calls for the freedom and liberation of the Palestinians, in which they are given equal rights.
These three cases ask whether the phrase "From the River to the Sea" (hereafter "the Phrase") inherently violates Meta's rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement, or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals. The answer is that it does not violate any of these three rules, and the Oversight Board should uphold Meta's decisions in all three cases.
The Phrase has been most frequently associated with the cause of Palestinian liberation, especially since Israel's occupation of Palestine that began in 1967. It is often followed by the words "Palestine will be free". A decade later, Israel's Likud party in the lead-up to the 1977 Knesset election issued a manifesto which used a similar phrase to indicate a pledge that Israeli sovereignty will continue over the occupied Palestinian territories. Since that time, despite the continued military occupation, Palestine has been recognized by over 140 United Nations member states and a majority of G20 member countries. (Similarly, Israel is recognized by most but not all UN member states and G20 countries.)
Due to the presence of another country's military and government structures, Palestine is unable to perform basic tasks that are the responsibility of a national government, including but not limited to: maintain a national defense, establish trade with other countries, and utilize its natural resources. On its face, the Phrase simply expresses a desire for Israel's occupation to end for Palestine's sovereignty and territorial integrity to be restored.
For these reasons, although there have likely been cases of dangerous organizations or individuals using the Phrase for their own reasons, the Phrase itself is not monopolized by any individual or group and does not inherently constitute a violation of the Dangerous Organizations or Individuals policy. Similarly, although some people - including users of Meta products - may have used the Phrase in order to advance a goal of inciting violence or hate speech, neither of these rules applies in these cases as they are presented.
The Oversight Board should therefore find that Meta correctly did not remove the content at issue in these cases. If the Oversight Board intends to issue a broader decision regarding use of the Phrase, that decision should make clear that the Phrase itself is not in violation of Meta's Terms, and that content containing the Phrase cannot be removed solely due to containing the Phrase. As the world gradually continues to recognize that Palestine is a country under military occupation by another country, there is no reason why calls for its liberation, including those that use the Phrase, should be blocked by platforms such as Meta.
This phrase has historically been used by extremist organizations and their sympathizers to advocate for the abolishment of the state of Israel, and implied to be through violent ends. Do NOT be misled and fooled by online and real-world agitators who will state the phrase “just means equal rights for everyone in the region.” Historically, this is NOT what this phrase connotes, nor is what it is understood to imply on the part of Jews living in Israel and the diaspora.
The congress of the US itself censured representative Tlaib for using this slogan. The phrase is hate speech and should be forbidden on your platform.
May 2, 2024
Via Online Submission
META Oversight Board
Washington, D.C. | London, GB
Re: From the River to the Sea
Dear Members of the Oversight Board
I am writing to you on behalf of The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). As the premier civil rights and issue advocacy organization serving the Arab American community, ADC is a national organization with volunteer chapters across the nation, and members from every state in America.
We call on the Oversight Board to reject calls to remove posts containing the phrase, From the River to the Sea. Any phrase can be said with the intent to cause harm, but blanket rules aimed at censorship sweep too broadly and prevent users’ freedom of expression.
Protecting Free Speech During Times of Conflict
The Charter and the Delaware Trust establishing this Board refer to the purpose to “protect free expression” and these and subsequent policies and guidance reference the consideration that international human rights standards have great weight and that international human rights law will be the primary authority when there is a conflict with Meta policies or regulations. Internationally, there is a movement towards the “right to truth” – the right “to know the truth about past events concerning the perpetration of heinous crimes and about the circumstances and reasons that led ... to the perpetration of those crimes.”
The right and freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds is also included in Article 19(2) of the ICCPR. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance states in its preamble the right of any victim to know the truth. Multiple other international, regional, and domestic covenants contain protections for free speech and expression.
Determining that the phrase From the River to the Sea is against Community Standards will restrict the speech and expression of millions of users, during the time of an ongoing genocide, conflict. Censoring the phrase will go against the founding principles of the Oversight Board and its purpose.
From the River to the Sea
Requests for Meta to remove posts containing the phrase From the River to the Sea are not based on any reasonable argument that those words, on their own, should be understood to constitute hate speech, antisemitic harassment, or support for dangerous persons or organizations. Rather, they are attempts to goad Meta into using its considerable power to put the thumb on the scale of a raging public debate about Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza and what freedom for the Palestinian people requires. Many who use the phrase use it merely a convenient slogan to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. Others use it to advocate for an end to the political ideology of Zionism and the apartheid regime it has created.
One may disagree with these ideas, but that does not make them rooted in hate or support for any particular organization. From the River to the Sea is a call for the liberation of the people who live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Meta was correct to decide that to interpret it any differently requires context which a simple ban on the phrase does not take into account.
Ocalan’s Isolation – Time of Conflict
Separate from the simple fact that the phrase alone does not communicate the intent of the speaker without reference to context in which it is said, the posts that contain this phrase have been among the most effective tools for advocacy for the end of the genocide in Gaza. The State of Israel has leveled most of the Gaza Strip and has, at best, not permitted entrance to and, at worst, murdered journalists who would cover its campaign.
Ordinary people have become historians to document these atrocities and to advocate for their immediate end. Not only would censorship of such documentation be a misuse of Meta’s policies designed to protect its users from hate, but it would also fly in the face of Meta’s loftier mission to be a place for the free exchange of ideas and for people to advocate for causes they believe in. The Ocalan’s Isolation case highlighted that Meta’s due diligence obligations, including those under the UNGPs, are higher during situations of conflict, increased risk of harm, or restrictions on freedom of expression or government retaliation or reprisals.
In the present conflict, this is of increased concern given the importance of preserving evidence during violent conflict, the allegations of extensive interference and requests from the Israeli government and thousands of users whose accounts have been impacted, and most concerning, the number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel or held in infinite administrative detention based on social media posts.
Restricting the speech of Palestinians and supporters of Palestine will contradict the ruling this Board made in the Ocalan’s Isolation case. Therefore, based on the foregoing, this Board should understand that it has the authority, and in fact international human rights law obligation, that it does what it can to protect the human rights of users, including the right of free expression.
From The River to the Sea, Black Lives Matter, other chants
Meta did not ban the use of the phrase Black Lives Matter even though many who disagreed with its use found it to be personally offensive. From the River to the Sea is no different. Any phrase can be said with the intent to cause harm, but blanket rules aimed at censorship sweep too broadly and prevent users’ freedom of expression.
Meta has mechanisms to remove posts that violate its terms that rely on context. The instances before the Board now were found, in their context, to not have violated any policies. Controversial political speech can only be managed in this way. Overbroad rules will satisfy those who want Meta to censor those they disagree with, but they will render Meta unable to do the things it’s best at.
Based on the explanations provided in this submission, we respectfully request that the Oversight Board not remove posts mentioning From the River to the Sea. Determining otherwise will lead to censorship and limit the freedom of speech and expression of millions of users and have far-reaching implications. Meta has a duty and obligation to ensure speech is protected during a time of an ongoing genocide.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of May, 2024 on behalf of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).
/s/ Abed A. Ayoub, Esq.
National Executive Director
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
This slogan is a call for freedom for Palestinians and an end of apartheid in historic Palestine. It is neither a call for genocide nor anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it represents the hope of creating a single secular, democratic state where all people are equal and free from discrimination.
Anti-Semitism is not to be confused with anti-Zionism. Judaism is a religion and anti-Semitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. Zionism is an ideology founded in the expansionist concept of a Greater Israel to be built from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, Zionism was the movement that first coined the phrase “from the river to the sea.” Anti-Zionism is a movement responding to the plan to create a Greater Israel on the ashes of historic Palestine from the river to the sea, without Palestinians in it.
For example here:
"“in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation of the speech from Israeli news channel i24News.
According to another translation, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River” — which effectively means the same thing."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/
And again here, a “river to sea” map:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a map that shows Israel stretching “from the river to the sea.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
Famous historian, William Dalrymple (@DalrympleWill) October 30, 2023
The same formulation "from the River to the Sea" was first used in the 1977 party platform of the Likud party and was recently used by the Israeli ambassador to the UK. Does that mean they are calling for the eradication of the Palestinians?
https://t.co/bemkL5Egir pic.twitter.com/EPWQYl4rUu
And Israeli diplomat using the same language:
"Tzipi Hotovely, Israel's new deputy foreign minister, has cast fresh doubt on the country's commitment a two-state solution with the Palestinians by demanding that the world recognise the Jewish historic claim to biblical lands between the Jordan River to the Mediterranean."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11624355/World-should-recognise-Israels-historic-claim-to-land-from-river-to-sea-minister-says.html
The only genocide that has been committed on the territories between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea has been carried out by the State of Israel. There are also ample examples of ethnic cleansing committed by Zionists since 1948 in the same territory (i.e. from the river to the sea).
To suggest that freedom for Palestinians can only come at the expense of Israelis is to suggest that the existence of Israel can only come at the expense of Palestinians’ freedom. This is an absurd contention, as there is room for coexistence of all people in the land of historic Palestine, in freedom and equality.
Misrepresenting and weaponizing the slogan as a call for a genocide has led to a McCarthyist response to the call to end a ruthless occupation and for the freedom of the Palestinians living under this occupation. The right to protest, the freedom to have an opinion and livelihoods have been curtailed, threatened, or destroyed because this slogan has been hijacked by a political agenda to continue supporting Israel and its war in Gaza.
It’s wild that we’re being sucked into massive, deflective arguments over the “nuances” of protest slogans while Israeli officials are straight up, without metaphor or obscurity, stating that the intention of the 2023-2024 onslaught in Gaza is to erase all signs of Palestinian existence, including the Palestinians.
Is this a better slogan? From parts of area A to parts of area B Palestine will be a non-contiguous, non sovereign unviable non-state with no control of borders or access to the sea, all pending final status negotiations which will never take place and Gaza remains an isolated ghetto.
“From the river to the sea” is also interpreted as a death knell to the unviable two-state solution, and a call for one state for all peoples between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Zionists fear this not because it will result in the displacement of Jews, but rather it would mark the demise of the Jewish ethno-state and would require the equal treatment of Palestinians. That’s what they are truly afraid of.
We must differentiate Judaism from Zionism. Judaism is a religion, while Zionism is a nationalist, supremacist movement with racist ideologies. Until the 1990s, the UN classified Zionism as a racist movement, a designation that shifted primarily due to political pressure from the U.S.
When we say "From the river to the sea," all we're advocating for are human and equal rights for Palestinians. We are sick of the bloodshed. We are sick of the innocent being bombed, shot, and starved. Emotional reactions are high on both sides right now and that's understandable. This is a horrific situation for both Israelis waiting for their loved ones to return and Palestinians waiting for an end to the bombardment and for thousands of their loved ones to return. Palestinians don't hate their neighbors. They just want peace and their livelihoods back. This has gone so far beyond Israel's self-defense. In the last 7 months Gaza has been obliterated and desecrated. Even if there were a permanent ceasefire today the damage that has already been done to these human beings, (INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!) and their land is beyond devastating. It will take many years and millions of dollars to rebuild. This is truly heartbreaking. I pray for peace in Gaza and the rest of the world before there's nothing left. I hope you will allow freedom of speech on your platform. Advocating for basic human and equal rights does not equal hate speech. I don't know if anyone at Meta will even read my comment but if you are reading this, thank you for your time.
God willing - from the river to the sea Palestine will be free ❤️🌊
This phrase is a call for the people of Palestine to be free from violence, people of Palestine do not deserve to be killed just because of their nationality. Right now Israel is using military forces to actively block food, water, medicine from entering Palestine. They're barricaded until they starve. Blocking phrases asking for the torture of Palestinians to end would be a breach of human rights, which is the opposite of what the goal here seems to be
From the River to the Sea means that Palestinians will no longer face apartheid, no longer face threats of violence no matter where they decide to go. From the River to the Sea suggests that freedom of movement throughout the land will be possible for the Palestinian people and that a Palestinian life will be upheld as equal to an Israeli life.
number one? free speech
number two? Israel is a terrorist state
number three? are you even serious with this s*** ?
number four? Free Palestine
--- Note: This file is attached as a PDF, which includes our hyperlinks and better formatting; please use that file instead --
##########
Oversight Board Public Comment: From the River to the Sea
Input from the Integrity Institute
Overall summary:
We, members of the Integrity Institute, agree with Meta’s original decision that these phrases do not violate Meta’s policies prohibiting content that promotes violence or supports terrorism, and that the identified phrase does not constitute hate speech, nor is it antisemitic, nor is it a call to abolish the state of Israel.
We recommend removing the term “from the river to the sea” as a content moderation signal entirely. As with the Oversight Board’s evaluation of the term “shaheed,” our concern is that a policy around this phrase specifically is likely to facilitate significant over-enforcement of content across Meta’s diverse platforms.
From the technical side:
- The current content moderation systems are not equipped to manage an addition to the policy that can properly contextualize the use of this phrase.
- Any automated systems will learn to over-enforce, either based on the term “from the river to the sea” or other non-unique terms on the dangerous individuals list.
- Content moderators are also likely to over-enforce systematically, especially if they cannot confidently identify any names in posts with individuals.
- Over time, any lists of dangerous individuals would get polluted by benign content, as platforms err on the side of recall.
When cultural specificity meets the day-to-day operations of content moderation:
- A policy that still uses “from the river to the sea” as a content moderation signal would lead to scenarios where content critical of violent individuals is over-flagged.
- There remain systemic issues around how we designate “dangerous” individuals and organizations and incitement of violence, and this systematic bias is reflected in the interpretation of “from the river to the sea.”
- There are clear mistakes in removing content that is incorrectly conflated with dangerous organizations and individuals. For example, in May 2021, Al-Aqsa was blocked as a hashtag and was mistakenly linked to the Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
Moderating this content impacts freedom of expression on Instagram and Facebook, especially for civil society, journalists, and human rights defenders in regions where the word is commonly used:
Moderating the content would result in false positive removals of content from news providers, spiritual guidance, or individuals marking moments of cultural, personal or religious importance. This inhibits critical discourse and could be perceived as unfair bias.
Additionally, removing this phrase from Meta’s platforms would further exacerbate the global conflict and undermine the global conversation on this critical issue, which could delegitimize Meta’s role in this space as a neutral arbiter.
It is not feasible to prohibit this content, given the complicated historical context and diverse usages. There are Palestinian Israelis and also Israelis who live and work in the West Bank, with strong differences in use depending on the person’s context, and global communities using the terms in diverse, and sometimes competing, ways.
The origin and current uses of the phrase: “From the river to the sea.”
The phrase, “From the river to the sea” has multiple origins, from both Palestinian and Jewish Israeli sources. This includes, listed chronologically:
- In the 1960s, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) used the phrase to call for an Arab state encompassing the entirety of Mandatory Palestine. Then, by 1969, after several revisions, the PLO used the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews, that would replace Israel.
- More recently, the dominant Israeli political party Likud has consistently used the framing in their political jargon. Specifically, in 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Likud, which stated that “between the sea and the Jordan (River) there will be only Israeli sovereignty” (more here).
- Hamas also used the phrase in its 2017 charter.
- In recent years, many protestors and activists have referenced the phrase as a call for peace and equality after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians, while for some others view the phrase as a call for the destruction of Israel.
- This usage does not intend the phrase as a threat necessarily to all Jewish peoples or a statement of hate. It is a statement recognized in support of the right to belong and stay physically where Palestinian peoples are undergoing and have undergone mass- displacement from their homelands.
- For example, in a 2018 incident, scholar and activist Marc Hill used the phrase to “center Palestinians’ aspirations, not disparage Israelis.”
While the phrase was recently added to Hamas’ political charter, it has a much longer and diverse history. This phrase does not rhyme in the Arabic languages and was not widely adopted in those contexts. There are multiple, competing understandings of this phrase, as Vox, Jewish Currents and Al Jazeera research shows.
State and institutional (e.g., university) responses to the use of the phrase (e.g., during protests) and the human rights impacts of those responses:
We caution the privileging of state and institutional responses found in predominantly English written scholarship and news on this topic, as it a) applies to peoples where English is not their native language, and b) these institutions are geographically disparate from the context with their own institutional histories and biases that reinforce structural forms of violence:
Further, historically, institutional responses have consistently proscribed protest language as a threat or acts of terrorism.
We encourage the Oversight Board to move beyond human rights frameworks and consider how moderating this content will likely contribute to conflict and add to existing structural global inequity. Meta should avoid taking universal policy determinations that privilege a western-centric outlook shared only by a minority of the world’s population, and then applying these positions to the rest of the world.
Research into the connection between restricting language on social media and the effective prevention of violence.
Restricting praise of individuals associated with “dangerous organizations” on social media does not necessarily result in the prevention of violence.
Minority populations often bear the brunt of sweeping policy changes.
Research and empirical evidence suggest such solutions tend to negatively impact everyday users more than bad actors who adapt to bypass naive content-based filters through coded language; solutions like ‘ethical scaling’ provide better suggestions.
There are too few content moderators speaking underserved languages. For example, Meta had only one Burmese-speaking content moderator to monitor the posts by 1.2 million active Burmese users in 2014, and action was only taken against “2% of the hate speech on the platform” in 2019.
In this context, it is striking that this policy language, and the Oversight Board's page for soliciting public comment, are only available in English and Hebrew. By failing to provide important policy content in relevant languages, particularly those represented in the region - namely Arabic - Meta and the Oversight Board are excluding critical and relevant demographics from participating in this important process of “having your say today and helping [the Oversight Board] hold Meta accountable!”
On Zionism:
Zionism is a political movement that originated in Europe.
There are varying definitions of Zionism, related to the cause of Jewish self-determination and the security of a physical “homeland,” though interpretations of this ideology also vary within the Jewish community. For example, on average, young Jewish people hold different perspectives on Zionism than older Jewish people. One 2022-2023 study of the Jewish community in Greater Portland and Southwest Washington finds that “Twenty-six percent of Jewish adults in Greater Portland explicitly describe themselves as Zionists, 52% explicitly say they are not Zionists, and 22% either do not know or prefer not to say whether they are Zionists.”
On Watermelons:
In the second case, the depicted watermelon is reflecting a deep historic symbol of Palestinian symbol of resistance. “The watermelon has long been an emblem of Palestinian solidarity and resistance in the occupied territories where displays of the Palestinian flag are often restricted or banned by Israel,” states A Martínez on NPR.
The choice of the watermelon as a symbol of Palestinian resistance not just because the colors resemble the flag, but also because this fruit ties in the significance of agriculture and the land. It is grown throughout Palestine, from Jenin to Gaza.
Beyond the binary moderation:
As one broad reflection on the moderation toolkit, we recognize that there exists a more expansive set of moderation options than the binary “block” or “no block” decisions that Meta currently utilizes. There are other ways of moderating content, including deamplifying content or removing content from virality.
A note: This analysis was prepared by members of the Integrity Institute, a community of integrity professionals advancing the theory and practice of the social internet. It does not reflect the views of all members, nor does it reflect the official viewpoint of the Integrity Institute as an organization.
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, PALESTINE SHALL BE FREE.
what could possibly be a problem with the full phrase? What do you have against the freedom of Palestine?
From the river to the sea is an expression of a righteous cause, Palestinians want to be free from the river to the sea. Free to travel explore and live in harmony with the land and its people. They should live with equal rights as all people who inhabit this land. Apartheid should not exist in any place as we are all human beings regardless of our skin or beliefs. Saying that Israel is a place only for Jews is ethnocentric and it’s the opposite of everything the world is ‘trying’ to achieve with radical inclusion free from racism, segregation and based on human rights. From the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea Palestinians should be free and it’s beyond comprehension that this is even a question that society is grappling with. Palestinians are human beings, censorship of their calls for liberation and freedom can never be ok in the public and social discourse, social media is a vital part of our lives for better or worse, and censorship makes us all less free. When you leave this life as we all shall do, nothing but your humanity and deeds will be remembered. So be a human worth remembering.
From the River to the Sea is about Palestine becoming a place of freedom for everyone, with no occupation.
It is very important that the phrase “from the river to the sea” is protected under the right to free speech. This phrase is not a call to harm, but quite the opposite: it’s a call for freedom, for humanity, for human rights. It’s a call for protection of the Palestinian people and land. The true freedom and justice for one people will never indicate the harm of another people. There is an entire people that is currently being decimated; this phrase is a call for people around the world to unify and protect Palestinian people. Banning and censoring this phrase will only perpetuate the ongoing decimation. It is imperative this phrase is protected.
Honestly from the outset, the idea of censoring speech is diabolical arrogance. It is a de-evolutionary concept and especially dangerous now with the tech powers and AI at hand we must not ever go down this fascistic slippery path. Even if this expression was explicitly calling for the state of Israel to collapse and disappear of the map, I would not accept it should be cancelled. Plenty people voicing the same towards Russia and likewise I don't want them censored. And same with all voices from smaller nations feeling oppressed by USA or China or .. and wishing they cease be nations as they are, I say they too have a right express their wish and opinion.And ofcourse that also goes for the voices of peoples withing such nations be they Tibetians or Hopi or .... How dare anyone benefitting from the freedom of modernity, think in anyway 'they' should now have the right suppress censor banish voices of others. EVOLUTION itself requires growing freedom of expression and thought NOT LESS. Allowing this expression or any such like to be censored is not only stupid but probably technically an insane move. Lest we forget we all just got to experience a taste of that during COVID. #TheGreatBarringtonDeclaration (Jay Buttajarria) among many others. The arrogance of those who wish to censor/cancel/suppress others really is regressive and most dangerous. ONLY in the case of Eminent DIRECT threat of violence should anyone ever contemplate censoring and even then I highly doubt it does more good then harm eg is banning RT in USA helping to save lives in Ukraine. No it is not and in fact could well be sacrificing MANY MANY more simply because Americans don't get hear both sides and therefore lack the ability to support potential peace possibilities.(similar to covid censorship example)
I ask for #21cFOS #Evolution not de-evolution PLEASE.