Tech Giants criticized for Silencing Pro-Palestinian Narratives

( Globalvoices.org ) – The ongoing suppression of Palestinian voices on social media platforms has sparked significant concerns about freedom of expression and the integrity of democratic debate. Organizations like SMEX and 7amleh have been at the forefront of documenting these digital rights violations, revealing the extent to which platforms like Meta (the owner of Facebook and Instagram) are complicit in silencing Palestinian content.

In October 2023, a collective of human rights and civil society organizations, including Oxfam, Access Now, and others, urged “tech companies to immediately take strict measures to protect their users from harm in light of the escalating events in the region.” The collective accused platforms like Meta of consistently over-moderating Arabic content, misinterpreting it as violent, even when it merely critiques Israeli policies. Meanwhile, Hebrew content that incites violence against Palestinians frequently escapes scrutiny, exposing a glaring double standard in content moderation practices.

In a July campaign, 7amleh stated, “Meta and Facebook have not adequately protected Palestinians from hate speech in the last decade, which has manifested in millions of conversations inciting violence and genocidal rhetoric during the last nine months of the Israeli war on Gaza.”

In 2021, Human Rights Watch accused Facebook of suppressing Palestinian voices calling for more transparency in how content is evaluated and deleted. In 2022, SMEX described how social media companies, under pressure from governments, disproportionately target Palestinian narratives and how Israeli authorities often request the removal of content they find unfavorable, and platforms tend to comply without transparency or due process.

“Censoring Palestine,” Digital, Dream / Dreamworld v3, 2024.

Broader implications

This issue extends beyond digital spaces, with real-world consequences. In February 2024, a coalition of human and digital rights organizations warned that Meta’s policies prevent Palestinians from sharing their experiences, and hinder efforts to combat real antisemitism. The petition titled “Meta: We Need to Talk about Genocide,” and signed by over 52,000 people reads:

The powerful voices of Palestinians and allies on social media have been a lifeline during the Israeli government’s genocidal war on Gaza — and often the only way for Palestinians to tell their stories, document human rights abuses, and seek international solidarity during this time of utter horror.

As Palestinians in Gaza face plausible genocide (according to the International Court of Justice) it is disturbing that Meta is choosing this moment to consider a policy that would further silence criticism of the Israeli military, Israeli government, and Zionism by shutting down conversations involving the term “Zionist.” Meta is proposing to treat “Zionist” as a proxy for “Jew” or “Jewish” — but this won’t make any of us safer. Instead, it will undermine efforts to dismantle real antisemitism and all forms of racism and bigotry.

Palestinians should be able to name the political ideology that impacts their survival without fearing reprisals. Anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews should be able to criticize the ideology that claims to represent them. And human rights defenders should be able to hold the Israeli military and government accountable — now, more than ever.

This censorship has broader implications for democratic debate. As social media platforms have become modern public squares, they are essential for the exchange of ideas and the shaping of public opinion. When these platforms selectively silence certain viewpoints, they distort the democratic process and hinder the free exchange of ideas. Critics argue that this censorship not only affects Palestinians but also has a chilling effect on discussions about human rights and social justice, as activists and journalists fear repercussions and begin self-censoring.

In the case of Palestine it is also part of a larger crackdown, especially in Europe and the US, on protest and Palestine solidarity, one that has been documented by human rights organizations.

The role of tech companies

The censorship of pro-Palestinian voices on social media is more than just a localized issue; it is part of a broader problem concerning the role of digital platforms in regulating speech and shaping public discourse. As these platforms continue to grow in influence, the need for transparency and accountability in their content moderation processes becomes increasingly urgent.

The tech sector, in general, has been complicit in discriminatory policies against Palestinians for years, a trend that has intensified since the onset of the war on Gaza. Microsoft, for example, has faced criticism for its decision to block Palestinian accounts, cutting them off from crucial online services. In July 2023, the BBC reported that “Palestinians living abroad have accused Microsoft of closing their email accounts without warning — cutting them off from crucial online services.”

In response, 7amleh’s campaign highlighted the impact of these actions: “By blocking its services, Microsoft is effectively cutting Palestinians off from social, professional, and financial opportunities during a time of immense suffering and devastation.” Microsoft’s decision to restrict its services has further compounded digital rights violations, especially in the context of telecommunications blackouts in Gaza, which are often imposed by Israeli authorities.

The broader trend of censorship extends to other platforms as well including X (formerly Twitter) which has recently faced criticism for platforming far-right accounts and LinkedIn, typically seen as a platform for professional networking, which has been accused of censoring pro-Palestinian content, and restricting or removing accounts that advocate for Palestinian rights.

Indeed, one of the most troubling aspects of this censorship is the inconsistency in how social media platforms handle content moderation. While pro-Palestinian accounts are frequently targeted, far-right and racist content often remains visible and thrives on the same platforms.

Organizations like Access Now, 7amleh, and SMEX are leading the call for change, urging social media companies to adopt fair and transparent policies that do not disproportionately target marginalized communities, ensuring that digital spaces remain open and accessible.

The fight against censorship on social media is a fight for the future of democratic debate itself. Without a commitment to protecting free expression, the very foundations of democracy are at risk.