More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

“Am Israel Chai” Violates Facebook Community Standards

Again, the brave moderators of Facebook have taken down yet another example of incitement of murdering Jews by anti-Israel users.

Actually no, those are still up. But look what DID violate Facebook’s precious “community standards”.

am israel chai fb

You are reading that correctly. Pages and pages of Jew-hate are still up (or simply hidden from Israelis), and they do not violate Facebook standards (as proven by Shurat Hadin).

But saying, “The Nation Of Israel Lives” is too much for Facebook’s shameful community “standards”.

Israel Law Center (Shurat HaDin) is currently taking this very issue to court. Facebook has claimed in their defense that “social media services, like themselves, are simply neutral bulletin boards and cannot be held liable under American law for the content of their user’s Facebook pages.”

When something like “Am Israel Chai” gets removed and endless pages glorifying Jew murder get the “we found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards” treatment, there’s clearly nothing neutral about it.

Hashtag #AmIsraelChai on Facebook and Twitter because they need to know we’re still here.

21 thoughts on ““Am Israel Chai” Violates Facebook Community Standards”

  1. i noted before, i got a 30 posting ban because i asked a muslim, who was posting harassing and misogynist messages to someone i follow, if the koran says “thou shalt be a pig”

    when i subsequently reported those posts, was told they did not violate fb standards

    1. gallowaygrumblefield

      Welcome to the club I have been subjected to many 30 day bans. I re-posted a meme with pictures of dead Syrian children, where the Muslim who posted the picture originally said that they were killed by the IDF. When I posted it, I said they were dead children from the Syrian war, killed by other Syrians. Well, guess what? Facebook removed the picture I posted, and banned me for 30 days. Even though the Muslim posted pictures of dead babies with their guts hanging out, and even though Facebook has a “no gory or violent pictures” policy, for some reason they allowed the Palestinian’s picture to remain: “We found that they do not violate community standards”. I has been proven time and time again that Facebook’s community standards flip flop, depending upon if you are pro-Israel or anti-Israel.

  2. Follow the money – the Saudis are heavily invested in social media such as Twitter which makes me believe there are deep throated Saudi connections at FB. If there were a FB alternative I’d dump Zuckerdick in a heartbeat.

      1. Justice Not Propaganda

        There really is no alternative. Which is why I think the lawsuits should try to push the argument that Facebook is effectively a monopoly and should be regulated as such. The law changes all the time, especially in response to technological advances. Somehow if they could get some traction to the notion of them being treated as a monopoly I think FB would wake up and make changes.

    1. Sergio סרחיו

      Just deactivate or delete your account! You don’t need Facebook to keep in touch with your friends. There is e-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram or a simple phone call.

      I deactivated my Facebook account a few months ago and I’m very happy I did.

  3. US law gives complete immunity to internet hosts both for what others post on their site or for what they remove off their own site, whether anyone likes it or not. Just google “CDA Section 230”. That is the law. I think Facebook is being unfair, and probably these decisions are made by twenty-something left wing anti-zionists who sit in Facebook customer support in the Bay Area. But that does not matter. The law is clear. Lawsuits like this are foolish, frivolous and a complete waste of time. It would not surprise me if the plaintiffs are sanctioned for bringing this action.

    1. the suit is not about content hosted, but how they choose what content they will host

      either have no code of conduct, or use it correctly

      think its interesting that the rule seems to protect websites from anything their users post

      1. They can choose to keep or remove for whatever reason they like. The rule protects a website for whatever is posted, or whatever they remove. FB has the discretion to interpret its code as it likes. The law does not allow end runs in this way. All of this has already been litigated with the plaintiffs losing every time. This is a frivolous suit.

        1. may be. but there is case law where individuals have been held responsible for the content uploaded to their websites. for example, silk road, which was a drug clearinghouse. the administrator got life.

          so if it can be proven that fb allows terror incitement to be kept on its servers, it is possible that it can be sued and maybe prosecuted

    1. I would, too, if it wasn’t the most efficient way to keep in contact with so many of my friends. A quick post for several dozen people keeps me in contact the way trying to e-mail everyone would make it impossible.

  4. gallowaygrumblefield

    I have been documenting Facebook’s double standards on “community standards”. I have been banned numerous times on Facebook for posting the exact same things that anti-Jew, anti-Israel members post. Only their posts don’t get taken down. You can post pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, pro-Holocaust, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial content on Facebook, and you won’t be penalized for it. I’m attaching an example.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top