abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

16 Sep 2021

Author:
TRT World

Palestine/Israel: Facebook's Oversight Board calls for an independent investigation into allegations of anti-Palestinian bias; incl. co. comment

See all tags Allegations

"Facebook Oversight Board: Israel-Palestine saga needs independent review" 16 September 2021

After FB reinstated a post it initially removed under its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, its Oversight Board reviewed the decision and commended it, while cautioning the social media giant against bias.

Facebook reinstated the content on an Egyptian user’s page after the user contested the removal...

“The Oversight Board agrees that Facebook was correct to reverse its original decision to remove content on Facebook that shared a news post about a threat of violence from the Izz al Din al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Palestinian group Hamas,” the board said in a written statement.

...Moreover, Facebook was “unable to explain” why two human reviewers originally judged the content to violate Dangerous Organizations and Individuals Community Standard. Facebook told the Oversight Board that “moderators are not required to record their reasoning for individual content decisions.”

The Board asked Facebook “whether the company had received official and unofficial requests from Israel to remove content related to the April-May conflict.” While Facebook said that it had not received “a valid legal request” from a government authority, it did not provide further information sought by the Board.

...On a final note, “The Board recommends an independent review of these important issues, as well as greater transparency with regard to its treatment of government requests.”