How social media failed to avoid censorship and curb hate speech and disinformation during the Gaza war
LONDON: Tech giant Meta recently announced that it would begin removing social media posts that use the term “Zionist” in contexts where it refers to Jews and Israelis rather than depicting supporters of the political movement, in an effort to curb anti-Semitism on its platforms.
The parent company of Facebook and Instagram had previously said it would lift its blanket ban on the most moderated term across all meta platforms – “shaheed,” or “martyr” in English – after a year-long review by its Oversight Committee found the approach was “too broad.”
TikTok, X and Telegram have also long promised to step up their efforts to curb hate speech and the spread of disinformation on their platforms in light of the ongoing war in Gaza.
Activists accuse social media giants of censoring posts, including those that provide evidence of human rights abuses in Gaza. (Getty Images)
These initiatives are intended to create a safer and less toxic online environment. But as experts point out, these efforts often fall short, resulting in empty promises and a worrying trend toward censorship.
“In short, social media platforms have not been very good at avoiding censorship or curbing hate speech and misinformation about the war in Gaza,” Nadim Nashif, founder and director of 7amleh, a Palestinian digital rights and human rights activist group, told Arab News.
“Throughout the conflict, censorship and account suspensions have also jeopardized efforts to document human rights abuses on the ground.”
According to Nashif, hate speech and calls for violence remain “widespread,” particularly on the Meta and X platforms, where anti-Semitic and Islamophobic content continues to “spread widely.”
Since the October 7 Hamas-led attack that sparked the conflict in Gaza, social media has been flooded with war-related content, in many cases serving as a crucial window into the dramatic events unfolding in the region and becoming a key source of real-time news and accountability for Israeli actions.
Profiles supporting the actions of both Hamas and the Israeli government have been accused of spreading misleading and hateful content.
FASTFACT
1,050
Removals and other suppressions of content posted by Palestinians and their supporters on Instagram and Facebook, documented by Human Rights Watch during October-November 2023.
Yet none of the social media platforms – including Meta, YouTube, X, TikTok or messaging apps like Telegram – have publicly articulated policies to curb hate speech and incitement to violence related to the conflict.
Instead, these platforms continue to be flooded with war propaganda, dehumanizing statements, genocidal remarks, explicit calls for violence, and racist hate speech. In some cases, platforms remove pro-Palestinian content, suspend accounts, and sometimes ban users who express support for the people of Gaza.
On Friday, Turkey's Communications Authority blocked access to Meta's own social media platform Instagram. Local media reported that the access blocking was in response to Instagram deleting posts by Turkish users expressing condolences for the recent assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
The day before, Malaysia's Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had accused Meta of cowardice after his Facebook post about Haniyeh's killing was deleted. “This is a clear and unambiguous message to Meta: Stop this cowardice,” Anwar, who has repeatedly condemned Israel's war on Gaza and its actions in the occupied West Bank, wrote on his Facebook page.
Screenshot of Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's post denouncing Meta's censorship of his post about Israel's killing policy.
Meanwhile, images of alleged Israeli soldiers blowing up mosques and homes, burning copies of the Koran, blindfolding and humiliating Palestinian prisoners, driving them around on the hoods of military vehicles, and celebrating war crimes continue to be freely available on mobile phone screens.
“In the past, platforms have done a very poor job of moderating content about Israel and Palestine,” Nashif said. “This has only gotten worse during the war in Gaza and the ongoing plausible genocide.”
A Human Rights Watch report published in December, titled “Meta’s Broken Promises,” accused the company of “systematic online censorship” and “inconsistent and opaque application of its policies,” as well as practices that silence voices in support of Palestine and Palestinian human rights on Instagram and Facebook.
The report goes on to say that Meta's conduct “fails to meet its human rights due diligence obligations” because it has failed to keep promises for years to take action against its “excessive raids.”
Jacob Mukherjee, head of the Masters in Political Communication at Goldsmiths College, University of London, told Arab News: “I am not sure to what extent this can even be called an effort to stop censorship.
“Meta has promised to conduct various reviews before October 7 last year – something the company has been promising since the last escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict in 2021.
“But as far as I can see, not much has changed in terms of content. Of course, they had to respond to suggestions that they had engaged in censorship, but in my view this was primarily a PR move.”
Between October and November 2023, Human Rights Watch documented more than 1,050 removals and other suppressions of content on Instagram and Facebook posted by Palestinians and their supporters, including content about human rights abuses.
Of these cases, 1,049 involved peaceful content in support of Palestine being censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved content in support of Israel being removed.
However, censorship seems to be only part of the problem.
7amleh's Violence Indicator, which monitors real-time data on violent content in Hebrew and Arabic on social media platforms, has recorded more than 8.6 million such pieces of content since the conflict began.
According to Nashif, the proliferation of violent and harmful content, predominantly in Hebrew, is largely due to insufficient investment in moderation.
This content, which was primarily aimed at Palestinians on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, was used by South Africa as evidence in its case against Israel before the International Court of Justice.
Meta is probably not the only one responsible for what South Africa's lawyers have called the first genocide to be livestreamed on mobile phones, computers and television screens.
X has also been accused by supporters of Palestine and Israel of using names known for spreading misinformation and manipulated images often used by prominent political and media figures.
“One of the biggest problems with current content moderation systems is the lack of transparency,” Nashif said.
“When it comes to AI, platforms do not provide clear and transparent information about when and how AI systems are used in the content moderation process. Policies are often opaque and give platforms a lot of leeway to act at their own discretion.”
For Mukherjee, moderation, which takes place behind the fog of opaque policies, is a highly political issue, with companies expected to take a “balanced” approach between political pressure and “managing the expectations and desires of the user base.”
He said: “These AI tools can be used to insulate the real power holders, the people who run the platforms, from criticism and accountability, which is a real problem.
“These platforms are private monopolies that are essentially responsible for regulating an important part of the political public.
“In other words, they help shape and regulate the space in which conversations take place, in which people form their opinions, in which politicians are exposed to the pressure of public opinion, and yet they are not subject to any accountability.”
While there are examples of pro-Palestinian content being censored or removed, as Arab News revealed in October, these platforms made it clear long before the Gaza conflict that it is ultimately not in their interest to remove content from their platforms.
“These platforms are not for public interest reasons or to ensure that we have an informed and educated population that is exposed to a range of perspectives and is able to make decisions and form opinions,” Mukherjee said.
“The fact is that the business models actually want a lot of content, and if that's pro-Palestinian content, then so be it. Ultimately, it's still about getting attention and engagement on the platform, and content that evokes strong feelings, to use industry terms, gets engagement, and that means data and that means money.”
