@RezaHoss @trumpet May I request for clarification on the exact basis of this post removal?
Is it forbiden to talk about Israel? Is it forbidden to call it an occupier? Is talking about Isreal considered as talking against jews in general? What is the exact basis of considering this removed post as a discriminatory post?
@ahangarha Also worth noting @RezaHoss that we have an appeal facility. If you feel your post has been removed wrongly, you can use that and it will be reviewed by other moderators.
@trumpet
Thanks for your reply and I totally understand why you shouldn't address such issues case by case.
With respect, I disagree with your interpretation. There is nothing like antisemitic in it for sure. It is like talking about US hegemony but not US citizens.
I think the moderation was a bit harsh and I appreciate to review it.
@ahangarha I understand your disagreement, however I don't believe the comparison with the US stands, because the US isn't directly associated with a religious minority that has been persecuted throughout history and has consistently been falsely accused of controlling the world.
Furthermore, the US hegemony is well established, while this post was a pot-shot at Israel that can reasonably be interpreted at antisemitic because of the ongoing conspiracy theories about Jewish people.
It may very well not have been intended as antisemitic, but we aren't loosing a thoughtful analysis by this post being removed either.
@RezaHoss@ahangarha I understand it doesn't feel great to be moderated like this, but even if you didn't intend it like this, you post was ambiguous because of the larger context.
Maybe there's a better way to express what you want with less ambiguity. This was a private moderation decision (until you made it public, of course), so you had a chance to redraft your post without anyone knowing about the post that was removed.
@hypolite@RezaHoss
I would say it was good to make it public otherwise (as per my experience) there will be no reponse.
I would discourage Reza from redrafting his post. His post has nothing to do with Jews. The only excuse I can except is that the moderators say they cannot bear the cost of being taken to court. And that is , again, and approval for what Reza has written.
Reza hasn't done anything wrong. It is his decision but if it was me, I wouldn't edit my post.
@ahangarha I don't think Reza did anything wrong either, but even then you can end up toeing safety lines which can lead to moderation in social media contexts. You can't always foresee where these lines are, so the best that can be done is to try not to take it personally.
Out of curiosity, did the response from the mas.to moderator satisfy you after the moderation decision was made public by Reza?
@hypolite
I understand your point.
And I prefer to not be too conservative in a way that oppressors get the most benefit. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I prefer it over being passive and just accept whatever happens.
And in general, I am happy with getting response and having interaction. It is always good to build bridge and have conversation.
@hypolite@ahangarha
If the moderator is not sure, he shouldn't remove a post, but OK! Consider it done! From now, when I want to post something I will send it to @trumpet and ask his opinion about it :)
@RezaHoss No, when you're trying to foster safety, when you aren't sure, it's better to assume the worst. Again, it isn't so much a judgment of you as a person rather than of a sensitive situation where decisions need to be made.
@hypolite
I didn't make a comparison. I just gave an example of the difference between talking about state and people. Israel doesn't represent jews since there are many jews distancing themselves from it.
Nobody here is talking about Jewish people. Such arguments are good examples for what Reza was talking about.
You may argue that Reza was too rethorical but shouldn't label it as antisematic. We (Iranian) lived with jews for centuries. We didn't mass murder them. We shouldn't be blamed.
@ahangarha I agree, and I do not believe Reza's nationality played any role in this moderation decision. Sadly, this statement is ambiguous no matter who says it. The Israel state itself definitely plays with this ambiguity in order to avoid some of the justified criticism coming its way, but they can play with it because it exists and antisemitic people will use "Israel" as a euphemism for all Jews.
So this post and the associated moderation decision doesn't say much about Reza themselves, and more about the general state of discourse around Israel.
@ahangarha@RezaHoss I don't discuss individual moderation cases, however it is not forbidden to talk about Israel, and it is not forbidden to call it an occupier. It is not forbidden to criticise the Israeli state.
Looking at the image that was posted, it states that 'the whole world is occupied by Israel'. I'd suggest that could be interpreted as antisemitic. What's the meaning of that sentence if not?
Add comment