Facebook censorship of Israeli nudity lays bare (pun intended) unfortunate double standard

standing with idf men sample
Standard

Shortly after publishing my previous post, Draconian Facebook censorship may have saved Israelis from themselves, I made two important discoveries.

One, that the creators of “Standing with the IDF” (a misleading name, if I’ve ever heard one, given the various states of repose exhibited within) are optimistic their page will be restored soon (במהרה בימינו): Continue reading

Draconian Facebook censorship may have saved Israelis from themselves

Stand with IDF sample image
Standard

[Update: Part II can be found here.*]

Israel’s “Facebook generation” is at war in Gaza, or so we are told. And indeed, Israeli soldiers have landed in hot water in the past based on what they chose to upload to the social media site from their bases.

But this time around, it’s not just members of the IDF who are under scrutiny. That much became apparent after the infamous “Sderot cinema” controversy portrayed the residents of the embattled border town like the residents of Washington, D.C. at the Battle of Bull Run. This time, the entire country is fair game not just to Hamas rockets but to the forces of political correctness and the accompanying battle for international hearts and minds.

So I am happy to report Facebook might have just saved the entire country from some embarrassment.

Last week at work, I came across an article on The Times of Israel titled “Israeli women do Gaza strip for IDF”. The headline doesn’t leave much to the imagination, but I was interested enough to learn more that I saved the link for later (remember, I was at work and had no intention of actually investigating while there).

This evening, I attempted to revisit the page and was surprised to discover that while its text remains available, the source material is not:

Continue reading

Jon Stewart still doesn’t understand why his take on Israel and Gaza earned so much criticism

jon stewart gaza
Standard

Jon Stewart walked into a minefield.

Last week, the Daily Show aired a brief segment on the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the show’s position drew an inordinate amount of friendly fire, including from this site.​ Stewart clearly wasn’t happy with the way his original segment was received.

So what did he learn from the experience? On Monday night, he let us know.

Stewart returned to the conflict, in a widely-disseminated segment titled We Need to Talk About Israel. Every time he tried to bring it up, Daily Show correspondents popped up from behind his desk and drowned him out with shouted slogans and epithets.

The takeaway was clear: it’s literally impossible to sit down and have a calm, rational discussion about politics in the Middle East. You simply can’t have a constructive conversation about what’s going on in Gaza. Any attempt to do so will surely end in quagmire.

Here’s the problem: Jon Stewart is wrong. And I know that thanks to Jon Stewart.

Continue reading

Another significant Facebook translation fail

meh
Standard

I’ve given Facebook and Bing a hard time in the past for their inability to translate anything — indeed, as recently as just this past week — or, at least, translate anything from Hebrew. I can’t speak to their translations into English from all the languages I don’t speak, but I imagine they do a similarly terrible job.

So I’ll consider that ground already covered like Kenji Yoshino — this post exists only to document another instance where their combined futility makes for epic failure. Never trust translations you read on Facebook.

The status in question was posted on the Facebook profile of Tomer Persico, a lecturer at the department for Comparative Religion in Tel-Aviv University (here’s his blog). I’ve never heard of him, but he has nearly 6,000 followers on Facebook, so he’s clearly kind of a big deal in certain circles — and one of them brought the following to my attention:

Continue reading

My mom told me to study so I wrote a short Mother’s Day post instead. Happy Mother’s Day!

the plural of moose is meese
Standard

Google gets all the buzz (pun intended) for its creative and whimsical doodles that often celebrate special occasions and people. For instance, here’s how the search engine decided to mark Mother’s Day:

Google Mother's Day

But Google isn’t the only website that updates its otherwise-static home page on the daily. Ostensible rival search engine Bing hosts a rotating cast of photographs each day, which I happen to see because it is featured on the search screen of my Windows Phone.

Like Google doodles, these images are sometimes chosen to celebrate special occasions. Here’s what Bing has on display this Mother’s Day:

Continue reading

Your obligatory post-atrocity reminder post, Part II

High School Stabbings
Standard

Newtown made headlines again recently when it was revealed that the most recent shooter who killed three people and injured sixteen more at Fort Hood was known to have vented about Adam Lanza, the individual who — as you well know — brought an assault rifle to Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot 26 people and then himself. Some people blame easy access to guns for enabling these tragedies. Other people blame this country’s treatment of mental illnesses. I think they’re both right — but I also don’t think that the existence of one problem excuses dealing with the other.

What follows is a selection of statuses that appeared in my Facebook newsfeed following the events of that fateful December event. I’m citing them as a representative sample, since I’m way too lazy to search the internet for others. But I’m sure you’ve seen this sort of thinking before, so I’m not going to lose too much sleep over being somewhat less than scientific:

Continue reading

Facebook gifts the world a brand new religion

facebook-rabbi-logo
Standard

When last I wrote about Facebook and religion, it was to note that the website seemed to be consciously restricting its users’ expressions of faith to a small number of preset choices. What you’re about to read takes this practice one step further.

I wanted to document it before it inevitably gets fixed — and also, perhaps, provide some free advice to those of my friends interested in maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the information shared on their Facebook profiles.

I was on a friend’s Facebook page — I’m supposed to be writing a memo so I was procrastinating, plus I had a good reason (I probably should have led with that last thing) — and specifically on his About page, when I noticed said weird thing. See if you can spot it:

Continue reading

Does Facebook intentionally limit who you can love?

Facebook Sex
Standard

I have better things to be doing, and I’m really behind on a lot of serious topics I want to write about, but Facebook doesn’t give its users fifty six different ways to describe their gender identity every day. My first pass, titled Are Facebook’s relationship status options a little bit sexist?, garnered the following comment on — appropriately enough — Facebook:

Let’s be real here: what the author’s upset about is the third gender, and is using the widow thing as a pretense B)

I wasn’t sure if this was a fair characterization, so I took the opportunity to interview the author and evaluate his true intentions for myself. As it turns out, the widow thing was, indeed, a pretense – however, the commenter got the rest of his/her/variant assertion wrong. The author is not upset that Facebook added a “third” gender — assuming he is “upset” at all — but simply miffed that the service deigned to limit its options to a mere fifty six.

Since when does Mark Zuckerberg get off on being the arbiter of what qualifies as a legitimate gender identity? The author’s point, he told me, is that if Facebook can give fifty six options for gender, why not do the same for relationship statuses? Better, why straightjacket us into those preselected categories? Why not just let everyone choose whatever the hell gender they want?

In the course of our interview, the author admit that he felt a shred of remorse about the article — not because he felt it belittled or diminished the tremendous achievement of the gender-interested community, but because his focus on relationship statuses as a foil to gender was a strategic and rhetorical blunder. A better option would have been to highlight the strict binary Facebook foists upon its users when it comes to their sexual preferences:

Continue reading

Are Facebook’s relationship status options a little bit sexist?

Facebook small
Standard

[Editor's note: Granted, everyone's a little bit sexist. But because the headline might imply otherwise, I should really tell you upfront I'm only talking about one of them.]

Facebook made a lot of headlines today with the announcement that it will now allow its users to choose from among fifty different descriptors of gender:

In a nod to the “it’s complicated” sexual identities of many of its users, the social network on Thursday added a third “custom” gender option for people’s profiles. In addition to Male or Female, Facebook now lets U.S. users choose among some 50 additional options such as “transgender,” “cisgender,” “gender fluid,” “intersex” and “neither.”

[Editor's note: Gender fluid certainly does sound like it would go nicely with a seafood dinner and a box of chocolate.]

The new options appear to be quite progressive, but is Facebook really just trying to cover up some of the other ways in which it is insensitive to gender differences? Just take a look at the various relationship statuses from which the service asks its users to choose:

Continue reading

The worst article about Seattle sports ever written

seattle-rainy
Standard

It’s nice to have your team land in the Superbowl. For two wonderful weeks, your city attracts media attention from every corner of the internet. Especially in Seattle, we don’t get a lot of it — which is why it’s important the national media get the facts right: They might not check in again for a while,

Many failed. Unfairly or not, I’m going to single out one egregious example, just to make Richard Sherman proud of me. In my own preemptive defense, this article has been up for five days now, and FOX still hasn’t managed to correct even the most basic egregious errors I noticed in my initial read-through. A few examples.

1. The headline: “Seattle hoping Seahawks bring home elusive championship.”

Continue reading