I'll continue to read from it. It says that it reviewed over a thousand cases that involved what they consider to be peaceful content in support of Palestine that was censored or otherwise unduly suppressed, while one case involved the removal of content that was in support of Israel, so essentially there were 1,049 cases of Palestinian suppression and one case in support of Israel.
Human Rights Watch found that censorship of content related to Palestine on Instagram and Facebook was systemic and global and that Meta's inconsistent enforcement of its own policies led to erroneous removal of content about Palestine.
In fact, I believe Meta publicly apologized. They had received some recommendations on patterns of undue censorship; removal of posts, stories and comments; suspension or permanent disabling of accounts; restriction on the ability to engage with content—so shadow banning—and restrictions on the ability to follow or tag.
In response to that, it appears that Meta took responsibility, publicly apologized, and then engaged in business social responsibility by commissioning an independent entity to investigate this. They came back with findings that there appeared to be adverse human rights impacts on the rights of Palestinian users.
Then what has Meta done since to ensure that Meta's practices don't unduly harm the basic freedom of expression for people posting about the question of Palestine?
