Meta is restricting the use of the upside-down red triangle emoji, a reference to Hamas combat operations that has become a broader symbol of Palestinian resistance, on its Facebook and Instagram, and WhatsApp platforms, according to internal content moderation materials reviewed by The Intercept.
Since the beginning of the Israeli assault on Gaza, Hamas has regularly released footage of its successful strikes on Israeli military positions with red triangles superimposed above targeted soldiers and armor. Since last fall, use of the red triangle emoji has expanded online, becoming a widely used icon for people expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli sentiment. Social media users have included the shape in their posts, usernames, and profiles as a badge of solidarity and protest.
The symbol has become common enough that the Israeli military has used it as shorthand in its own propaganda: In November, Al Jazeera reported on an Israeli military video that warned “Our triangle is stronger than yours, Abu Obeida,” addressing Hamas’s spokesperson.
“user is clearly posting about the conflict and it is reasonable to read the red triangle as a proxy for Hamas and it is being used to glorify, support or represent Hamas’s violence.”
It sounds less bad than the title, not an outright ban on the emoji just a ban on using it as a proxy for otherwise banned ideas. Still not a fan of Meta’s longstanding belief they’re the arbitors of morality and what may be discussioned.
So will they also ban israeli flags?
Sorry, not sure if you intended to reply to my post or if it was intended for another comment. If you were intending to reply to me, I doubt they’ll ban the Israeli flag, although they also haven’t banned the Palestinian flag either. They started removing one emoji when used as a representation of something that violated their rules and wanted to clarify the slightly misleading headline on The Intercept’s part.
Again, though, as I said above I’m still not a fan of the rule. Meta has made a lot decisions (moderation and otherwise) that I’m not a fan of.
I’m comparing israel with Hamas. not with Palestine.
Oh no a symbol is offensive. Better try and wipe it from the internet.
…removes millions of road signs and people drive off cliffs.
The thumbnail is terrible. The restricted emoji is “🔻” not the road sign in the image
Also called micromanaging.
🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
I don’t agree with this, but I do find it idiotic and tone-deaf for pro-Palestinians to co-opt Hamas imagery and a symbol of violence as a show of support. It suggests they either explicitly support Hamas, or are too stupid to understand what they are displaying.
Now I might just be too stupid to understand what I’m displaying, but last I checked, the red triangle has been a symbol of pro-Palestinian support since the Palestinian Revolt in uhhhh… 1938. It’s possible Hamas might have co-opted it, but then you might as well ban the Palestinian flag as well since that’s the source of the triangle, and it has also existed since 1917, I’m failing to follow how this is a symbol of Hamas
Because that’s all most people remember so hasbara can call it that with decent effect
Did they use it as a targeting reticle in 1938?
Are we going to ban using 🍆 if they start using it?
I mean, context is important…
What is this even in reference to? Do you care to elaborate on the propaganda you’re trying to spew, or are you just expecting me to know the same talking points as you?
What is this even in reference to?
Seriously? Did you just see the word “Israel” and start arguing without knowing the topic at hand?
Asking you what you mean by calling the triangle a “targeting reticle” absolutely does not mean I don’t know the topic at hand, its me asking you to clarify your argumentation.
It’s not only in the article, but in the excerpt posted by OP.
The article also mentions that Israel has started using it in their own propaganda videos. showing the triangle over targets as they’re hit, and when you flip it like that there’s a very clear implication of destroying the symbol of freedom… Which is to say, I still fail to see your ultimate point. You’re just pointing at the news article and saying “SEE! THEY SAY ITS BAD!”
Could you provide some actual argumentation to go with that?
And just so it doesnt seem like I’m running, “Targeting reticle” would imply a weapon optic or similar, hence my confusion. “using it to mark targets” would have been clearer.
Removed by mod
