27/10/2020 vpalestine.org  16 min #180907

Social Media's Erasure of Palestinians is a Grim Warning for Our Future

Palestinian critics say Facebook has become 'another face of occupation'

There is a growing unease that the decisions taken by social media corporations can have a harmful impact on our lives. These platforms, despite enjoying an effective monopoly over the virtual public square, have long avoided serious scrutiny or accountability.

In a new Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, former Silicon Valley executives warn of a dystopian future. Google, Facebook and Twitter have gathered vast quantities of data on us to better predict and manipulate our desires. Their products are gradually rewiring our brains to addict us to our screens and make us more pliable to advertisers. The result, as we are consigned to discrete ideological echo chambers, is ever greater social and political polarisation and  turmoil.

Western publics are waking up very belatedly to the undemocratic power social media wields over them

As if to underline the ever-tightening grip these tech corporations exert on our lives, Facebook and Twitter decided this month to openly interfere in the most contentious US presidential election in living memory. They  censored a story that could harm the electoral prospects of Joe Biden, the Democratic challenger to incumbent President Donald Trump.

Given that nearly half of Americans receive their news chiefly  via Facebook, the ramifications of such a decision on our political life were not hard to interpret. In excising any debate about purported corruption and influence-peddling by Biden's son, Hunter, carried out in his father's name, these social media platforms stepped firmly into the role of authoritarian  arbiter of what we are allowed to say and know.

'Monopoly gatekeeper'

Western publics are waking up very belatedly to the undemocratic power social media wields over them. But if we wish to understand where this ultimately leads, there is no better case study than the very different ways Israelis and Palestinians have been treated by the tech giants.

The treatment of Palestinians online serves as a warning that it would be foolish indeed to regard these globe-spanning corporations as politically neutral platforms, and their decisions as straightforwardly commercial. This is to doubly misunderstand their role.

Social media firms are now effectively monopolistic communication grids - similar to the electricity and water grids, or the phone network of a quarter of a century ago. Their decisions are therefore no longer private matters, but instead have huge social, economic and political consequences. That is part of the reason why the US justice department launched a lawsuit last week against Google for  acting as a "monopoly gatekeeper for the internet".

Google, Facebook and Twitter have no more a right to arbitrarily decide who and what they host on their sites than telecoms companies once had a right to decide whether a customer should be allowed a phone line. But unlike the phone company, social media corporations control not just the means of communication, but the content too. They can decide, as the Hunter Biden story shows, whether their customers get to participate in vital public debates about who leads them.

The Hunter Biden decision is as if the phone company of old not only listened in to conversations, but was able to cut the line if it did not like the politics of any particular customer.

In fact, it is even worse than that. Social media now deliver the news to large sections of the population. Their censoring of a story is more akin to the electricity company turning off the power to everyone's homes for the duration of a TV broadcast to ensure no one can see it.

Censorship by stealth

The tech giants are the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in human history, their riches measured in hundreds of billions, and now trillions, of dollars. But the argument that they are apolitical - aiming simply to maximise profits - was never true.

They have every reason to promote politicians who side with them by committing not to break up their monopolies or regulate their activities, or, better still, by promising to weaken controls that might prevent them from growing even more fabulously rich and powerful.

Conversely, the tech giants also have every incentive to use the digital space to penalise and marginalise political activists who urge greater regulation either of their activities, or of the marketplace more generally.

Unlike their explicit deletion of the Hunter Biden story, which incensed the Trump administration, social media corporations more usually censor by stealth. That power is wielded through algorithms, the secret codes that decide whether something or someone appears in a search result or on a social media feed. If they desire, these tech titans can cancel any one of us overnight.

This is not just political paranoia. The disproportionate  impact of algorithm changes on "left-leaning" websites - those most critical of the neoliberal system that has enriched social media corporations - was  highlighted this month by the Wall Street Journal.

Wrong kinds of speech

Politicians increasingly understand the power of social media, which is why they want to harness it as best they can for their own ends. Since the shock of Trump's election victory in late 2016, Facebook, Google and Twitter executives have regularly found themselves dragged before legislative  oversight committees in the US and UK.

There, they are ritually rebuked by politicians for creating a  crisis of "fake news" - a crisis that, in fact, long predated social media, as the deceptions of US and UK officials in linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and claiming that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" testify to only too clearly.

The online fate of Palestinians points to a future in which the already-powerful will gain ever greater control over what we know and what we are allowed to think

Politicians have also begun holding internet corporations responsible for "foreign interference" in western elections - typically blamed on Russia - despite a dearth of serious evidence for most of their  allegations.

Political pressure is being exerted not to make the corporations more transparent and accountable, but to steer them towards enforcing even more assiduously restrictions on the wrong kinds of speech - whether it be violent racists on the right or critics of capitalism and western government policy on the left.

For that reason, social media's original image as a neutral arena of information sharing, or as a tool for widening public debate and increasing civic engagement, or as a discourse leveller between the rich and powerful and weak and marginalised, grows ever more hollow.

Separate digital rights

Nowhere are ties between tech and state officials more evident than in their dealings with Israel. This has led to starkly different treatment of digital rights for Israelis and Palestinians. The online fate of Palestinians points to a future in which the already-powerful will gain ever greater control over what we know and what we are allowed to think, and over who is visible and who is erased from public life.

Israel was well-positioned to exploit social media before most other states had recognised its importance in manipulating popular attitudes and perceptions. For decades, Israel had, in part, outsourced an official programme of hasbara - or state propaganda - to its own citizens and supporters abroad. As new digital platforms emerged, these partisans were only too willing to  expand their role.

Israel had another advantage. After the 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, Israel began crafting a narrative of state victimhood by redefining antisemitism to suggest it was now a particular affliction of the left, not the right. So-called "new antisemitism" did not target Jews, but related instead to  criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights.

This highly dubious narrative proved easy to condense into social media-friendly soundbites.

Israel still routinely describes any Palestinian resistance to its belligerent occupation or its illegal settlements as "terrorism", and any support from other Palestinians as "incitement". International solidarity with Palestinians is characterised as "delegitimisation" and equated with antisemitism.

'Flood the internet'

As far back as 2008, it emerged that a pro-Israel media lobby group, Camera, had been orchestrating covert efforts by Israel loyalists to infiltrate the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to  edit entries and "rewrite history" in ways favourable to Israel. Soon afterwards, politician Naftali Bennett helped  organise courses teaching "Zionist editing" of Wikipedia.

In 2011, the Israeli army declared social media a new "battleground" and assigned "cyber warriors" to  wage combat online. In 2015, Israel's foreign ministry set up an additional command centre to recruit young, tech-savvy former soldiers from 8200, the army's cyber intelligence unit, to  lead the battle online. Many have gone on to  establish hi-tech firms whose spying software became integral to the functioning of social media.

An app launched in 2017, Act.IL, mobilised Israel partisans to "swarm" sites hosting either criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. The  initiative, supported by Israel's ministry of strategic affairs, was headed by veterans of Israeli intelligence services.

According to the Forward, a US Jewish weekly, Israel's intelligence services liaise closely with Act.IL and request help in getting content, including videos, removed by social media platforms. The Forward observed shortly after the app was rolled out: "Its work so far offers a startling glimpse of how it could shape the online conversations about Israel without ever showing its hand."

Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military censor who was then assigned to Israel's strategic affairs ministry, said the goal was to "create a community of fighters" whose job was to "flood the internet" with Israeli  propaganda.

Willing allies

With advantages measured in personnel numbers and ideological zeal, in tech and propaganda experience, and in high-level influence in Washington and Silicon Valley, Israel was soon able to turn social media platforms into willing allies in its struggle to marginalise Palestinians online.

In 2016, Israel's justice ministry was boasting that Facebook, Google and YouTube were "complying with up to 95 percent of Israeli  requests to delete content", almost all of it Palestinian. The social media companies did not confirm this figure.

The Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Israel lobby group with a history of smearing Palestinian organisations and Jewish groups critical of Israel, established a "command centre" in Silicon Valley in 2017 to  monitor what it termed "online hate speech". That same year, it was appointed a "trusted flagger" organisation for YouTube,  meaning its reporting of content for removal was prioritised.

Tech corporations are now the undeclared, profit-driven arbiters of our speech rights. But their commitment is not to open and vigorous public debate

At a 2018 conference in Ramallah hosted by 7amleh, a Palestinian online advocacy group, local Google and Facebook representatives barely hid their priorities. It was important to their bottom line to avoid upsetting governments with the power to constrain their commercial activities - even if those governments were systematically  violating international law and human rights. In this battle, the Palestinian Authority carries no weight at all. Israel  presides over Palestinians'communications and internet infrastructure. It controls the Palestinian economy and its key resources.

Since 2016, Israel's justice ministry has reportedly suppressed  tens of thousands of Palestinian posts. In a completely opaque process, Israel's own algorithms  detect content it deems "extremist" and then requests its removal. Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested by Israel over social media posts,  chilling online activity.

Human Rights Watch warned late last year that Israel and Facebook were often  blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and incitement. Conversely, as Israel has shifted ever further rightwards, the Netanyahu government and social media platforms have not stemmed a surge of posts in Hebrew promoting anti-Palestinian incitement and calling for violence. 7amleh has noted that Israelis post racist or inciteful material  against Palestinians roughly every minute.

News agencies shut down

As well as excising tens of thousands of Palestinian posts, Israel has persuaded Facebook to  take down the accounts of major Palestinian news agencies and leading journalists.

By 2018, the Palestinian public had grown so incensed that a campaign of online protests and calls to boycott Facebook were led under the hashtag "FBcensorsPalestine". In Gaza, demonstrators  accused the company of being "another face of occupation".

Activism in solidarity with Palestinians in the US and Europe has been similarly targeted. Ads for films, as well as the films themselves,  have been taken  down and websites removed.

Last month, Zoom, a video conferencing site that has boomed during the Covid-19 pandemic, joined YouTube and Facebook in  censoring a webinar organised by San Francisco State University because it included Leila Khaled, an icon of the Palestinian resistance movement now in her seventies.

On Friday, Zoom  blocked a second scheduled appearance by Khaled - this time in a University of Hawaii webinar on censorship - as well as a spate of other events across the US to protest against her cancellation by the site. A statement concerning the day of action said campuses were "joining in the campaign to resist corporate and university silencing of Palestinian narratives and Palestinian voices".

The decision, a flagrant attack on academic freedom, was reportedly taken after the social media groups were heavily  pressured by the Israeli government and anti-Palestinian lobby groups, which labelled the webinar "antisemitic".

Wiped off the map

The degree to which the tech giants'discrimination against Palestinians is structural and entrenched has been underscored by the years-long struggle of activists both to include Palestinian villages on online maps and GPS services, and to name the Palestinian territories as "Palestine", in accordance with Palestine's  recognition by the United Nations.

That campaign has largely floundered, even though more than a million people have signed a  petition in protest. Both Google and Apple have proved highly resistant to these appeals; hundreds of Palestinian villages are missing from their maps of the occupied West Bank, while Israel's illegal settlements are identified in detail, accorded the same status as the Palestinian communities that are shown.

New houses being built in the Nokdim settlement in the occupied West Bank on 13 October (AFP)

The occupied Palestinian territories are subordinated under the name "Israel", while Jerusalem is presented as Israel's unified and undisputed capital, just as Israel claims - making the occupation of the Palestinian section of the city invisible.

These are far from politically neutral decisions. Israeli governments have long pursued a Greater Israel ideology that requires driving Palestinians off their lands. This year, that dispossession programme was formalised with plans, backed by the Trump administration, to  annex swathes of the West Bank.

Google and Apple are effectively colluding in this policy by helping to erase Palestinians'visible presence in their homeland. As two Palestinian scholars, George Zeidan and Haya Haddad, recently  noted: "When Google and Apple erase Palestinian villages from their navigation, but proudly mark settlements, the effect is complicity in the Israeli nationalist narrative."

Out of the shadows

Israel's ever-tightening relationship with social media corporations has played out largely behind the scenes. But these ties moved decisively out of the shadows in May, when Facebook announced that its new oversight board would include Emi Palmor, one of the architects of Israel's online  repression policy towards Palestinians.

Palestinians know only too well how easy it is for technology to diminish and disappear the voices of the weak and oppressed, and to amplify the voices of the powerful

The board will issue precedent-setting rulings to help shape Facebook's and Instagram's censorship and free speech policies. But as the former director-general of the justice ministry, Palmor has shown no commitment to online free speech. Quite the reverse: she worked hand-in-hand with the tech giants to  censor Palestinian posts and shut down Palestinian news websites. She oversaw the transformation of her department into what the human rights organisation Adalah has  called the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth".

Tech corporations are now the undeclared, profit-driven arbiters of our speech rights. But their commitment is not to open and vigorous public debate, online transparency or greater civic engagement. Their only commitment is to the maintenance of a business environment in which they avoid any regulation by major governments infringing on their right to make money.

The appointment of Palmor perfectly illustrates the corrupting relationship between government and social media.  Palestinians know only too well how easy it is for technology to diminish and disappear the voices of the weak and oppressed, and to amplify the voices of the powerful.

Jonathan Cook

 Website

Jonathan Cook is a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001 and is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.

 vpalestine.org

 Commenter