In the wake of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, social media giant Facebook has become embroiled in controversy, specifically regarding its treatment of Palestinian news outlets. Research conducted by the BBC reveals that these outlets have faced significant restrictions on audience engagement since the intensification of the conflict in October 2023. Despite their crucial role in disseminating real-time information, particularly when access for outside reporters into Gaza remains heavily regulated, Palestinian media have seen a sharp decline in engagement, raising critical questions about platform bias and content moderation practices.
The deteriorating reach of Palestinian news organizations contrasts starkly with the engagement metrics observed for Israeli news outlets. In the aftermath of the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, audience engagement for Palestinian news channels declined by 77%, with Palestine TV reporting troubling statistics indicating that the visibility of their posts dropped by 60%. Tariq Ziad, a journalist from Palestine TV, expressed grave concerns over the issue, stating, “Interaction was completely restricted, and our posts stopped reaching people.” This experience has led many Palestinian journalists to suspect that their content is being “shadow-banned,” meaning it isn’t being shown to as wide an audience as it should.
Incredibly, the trend for Israeli news organizations has been quite different. While Palestinian outlets struggled, Israeli media pages experienced an almost 37% increase in audience engagement. Prominent Israeli news sources, such as Yediot Ahronot and Channel 13, have effectively maintained or even grown their influence during these critical times. This stark contrast has fueled allegations of systemic bias against Palestinian content on the platform, drawing substantial scrutiny from human rights groups and the Palestinian community itself.
In response to these allegations, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has denied any deliberate suppression of Palestinian voices. A spokesperson characterized these claims as “unequivocally false” while acknowledging that the company has implemented temporary measures intended to address the rapidly evolving conflict. According to Meta, the moderation adjustments were necessitated by the realities on the ground, which included the ongoing threat from Hamas, a group designated as dangerous by both the U.S. government and Facebook’s own internal policies.
Moreover, the BBC has gleaned insights from leaked documents that exhibit Meta’s approach to moderating content on its Instagram platform. Following the onset of the conflict, the moderation algorithm for Palestinian users was reportedly made stricter, purportedly in response to a perceived increase in hate speech emanating from that region. Insiders have revealed that internal discussions raised concerns about potential bias against Palestinian users, highlighting the lack of Arabic-speaking moderation expertise that has historically plagued the platform’s ability to accurately assess the context of comments.
In this complicated landscape, Palestinian journalists have found ways to navigate the censorship and content bans imposed by Meta’s algorithms. Veteran photojournalist Omar el Qataa, who continues to work in northern Gaza, emphasizes the necessity of sharing Palestinian narratives despite the risks involved. He remarked on the challenge of broadcasting graphic content, particularly in instances of violence against civilians, but remained committed to providing a platform for Palestinian voices.
The discourse surrounding social media’s role in conflict reporting is complex and multifaceted. Meta has claimed to reverse some of its controversial moderation changes, albeit without transparency regarding the timeline of these reversals. As the number of Palestinian journalist casualties since the start of the conflict climbs, it’s vital for news platforms to reconsider their policies and practices to ensure equitable treatment of diverse narratives. The ongoing struggle for visibility reflects broader issues surrounding freedom of expression, the rights of marginalized voices, and the influence of technology in shaping public discourse during crises.