LONDON: Facebook owner Meta released its first annual human rights report on Thursday, following years of accusations that it turned a blind eye to online abuses that fueled real-world violence in places like India and Myanmar.
The report, which covers due diligence performed in 2020 and 2021, includes a summary of a controversial human rights impact assessment of India that Meta commissioned law firm Foley Hoag to conduct.
Human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have demanded the release of the India assessment in full, accusing Meta of stalling in a joint letter sent in January.
In its summary, Meta said the law firm had noted the potential for “salient human rights risks” involving Meta’s platforms, including “advocacy of hatred that incites hostility, discrimination, or violence.”
The assessment, it added, did not probe “accusations of bias in content moderation.”
Ratik Asokan, a representative from India Civil Watch International who participated in the assessment and later organized the joint letter, told Reuters the summary struck him as an attempt by Meta to “whitewash” the firm’s findings.
“It’s as clear evidence as you can get that they’re very uncomfortable with the information that’s in that report,” he said. “At least show the courage to release the executive summary so we can see what the independent law firm has said.”
Human Rights Watch researcher Deborah Brown likewise called the summary “selective” and said it “brings us no closer” to understanding the company’s role in the spread of hate speech in India or commitments it will make to address the issue.
Rights groups for years have raised alarms about anti-Muslim hate speech stoking tensions in India, Meta’s largest market globally by number of users.
Meta’s top public policy executive in India stepped down in 2020 following a Wall Street Journal report that she opposed applying the company’s rules to Hindu nationalist figures flagged internally for promoting violence.
In its report, Meta said it was studying the India recommendations, but did not commit to implementing them as it did with other rights assessments.
Asked about the difference, Meta Human Rights Director Miranda Sissons pointed to United Nations guidelines cautioning against risks to “affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality.”
“The format of the reporting can be influenced by a variety of factors, including security reasons,” Sissons told Reuters.
Sissons, who joined Meta in 2019, said her team is now comprised of eight people, while about 100 others work on human rights with related teams.
In addition to country-level assessments, the report outlined her team’s work on Meta’s COVID-19 response and Ray-Ban Stories smart glasses, which involved flagging possible privacy risks and effects on vulnerable groups.
Sissons said analysis of augmented and virtual reality technologies, which Meta has prioritized with its bet on the “metaverse,” is largely taking place this year and would be discussed in subsequent reports.
Facebook-owner Meta releases first human rights report
https://arab.news/crs9f
Facebook-owner Meta releases first human rights report
- Meta releases its first annual human rights report following accusations of turning a blind eye to online abuse
- The report includes a summary of a controversial human rights impact assessment of India that Meta commissioned law firm Foley Hoag to conduct
Saudi Media Forum opens registration for annual media awards
- Process open to media professionals, organizations until Dec. 10
RIYADH: The Saudi Media Forum has launched the registration process for its prestigious annual media awards, an event which aims to inspire creativity and recognize excellence across the media sector.
The awards are held in conjunction with the forum’s activities and the Future of Media Exhibition, which is to be held in Riyadh from Feb. 19-21 next year.
Mohammed Fahad Al-Harthi, the president of the Saudi Media Forum, stressed the awards’ growing importance in highlighting the role of the media in shaping societal values and fostering innovation, and added the event sought to recognize exceptional efforts in the fields of media and communication.
Last year’s edition saw more than 3,000 submissions locally and regionally, and the SMF said it expected participation to double this year amid growing interest in the sector.
The awards span a wide range of categories, including journalism, television programs, podcasts, academic research, and public relations campaigns. Individual achievements will also be recognized through accolades such as Media Personality of the Year, Best Digital Content, and the Columnist Award.
Al-Harthi also highlighted the introduction of the Tolerance Award, an international track focused on coexistence and dialogue and developed in partnership with the King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue.
Registration is open to media professionals and organizations until Dec. 10, with submissions being accepted through the forum’s official platform.
Detailed criteria and submission guidelines can be accessed on the forum’s website at saudimf.sa/ar/awards.
Media watchdogs condemn ‘concerning’ Haaretz boycott by Israeli government
- Committee to Protect Journalists says tactic is ‘disturbing evidence’ of efforts to prevent coverage of Gaza war
- Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken critical of Israeli policies, prompting government call for restrictions on left-leaning paper
LONDON: Media watchdogs have strongly criticized the Israeli government’s decision to boycott Haaretz, one of the country’s oldest and most critical newspapers, calling it a troubling blow to media freedom and pluralism.
“We are extremely concerned over Israel’s authoritarian drift that undermines media pluralism and the public’s right to know,” said IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger, who called on “the government to review its decision and stop damaging press freedom in the country by boycotting a newspaper.”
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, labeled the boycott “deplorable” and accused Israel of intensifying its restrictions on critical media. “Israel’s increasing deployment of restrictions on critical media is further disturbing evidence of its efforts to prevent coverage of its actions in Gaza,” she said.
The Israeli government unanimously approved a proposal on Nov. 24 by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi to halt all government advertising in and communication with Haaretz.
The decision effectively boycotts the left-leaning outlet, citing comments by publisher Amos Schocken, who had earlier called for sanctions against Israel and referred to Palestinian resistance groups as “freedom fighters.”
Schocken, who has led the paper for over three decades, later clarified that he did not include groups like Hamas in his reference to freedom fighters, emphasizing his support for nonviolent resistance.
Despite this, Haaretz faced significant backlash, publishing an editorial distancing itself from his remarks.
Karhi defended the government’s move, saying Israel “cannot fund a newspaper whose publisher calls for sanctions against the state and supports its enemies during wartime.”
He has previously accused Haaretz of propagating “anti-Israel propaganda” and called for financial penalties against the paper.
The boycott comes amid wider concerns over media freedom in Israel.
Critics point to the introduction of laws like the so-called “Al Jazeera law,” which allows temporary bans on foreign media deemed a national security risk, and ongoing attempts to privatize the public broadcaster Kan.
“Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who follows the hardline stances of the Likud party, is leveraging the ongoing war — the longest in the country’s history — to silence voices that criticise the far-right coalition in power,” said Paris-based media watchdog Reporter Without Borders.
The Paris-based watchdog added that such measures will have “lasting, detrimental effects on Israel’s media landscape.”
In response, Haaretz described the government’s actions as an attempt to “silence a critical, independent newspaper,” vowing to continue its reporting despite the restrictions.
Israeli ministers advance bill to privatize Kan, shutting down country’s last public broadcaster
- Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi says public broadcast is ‘obsolete,’ no longer serves its original purpose of addressing Israel’s multiculturalism
- Critics argue bill ‘fundamentally alters Israeli media,’ could lead to punitive measures against media
LONDON: Israeli ministers have approved a controversial bill to privatize the country’s public broadcaster, the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (Kan) within two years, effectively eliminating Israel’s last remaining public media outlet.
The proposal, backed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Likud MK Tally Gotliv, received support from the Ministerial Committee on Legislation on Sunday.
If passed, the bill will require the government to issue a tender to sell the broadcaster’s television and radio networks. Should no private operator come forward, Kan will be shuttered and its archives and intellectual property rights transferred to the state.
The Attorney General’s Office has raised significant legal and practical concerns about the legislation, describing it as a direct threat to press freedom.
In a position paper sent to Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Deputy Attorney General Avital Sompolinsky and Adv. Meir Levin warned the proposal sent a “clear and serious” signal that critical reporting or content unfavorable to the government could lead to punitive measures against media outlets.
“The bill’s immediate significance is the full and total elimination of public broadcasting in Israel, fundamentally altering Israeli media,” they wrote. “Such a drastic decision cannot be made hastily through a private bill, without a solid expert foundation, and in contradiction to the government’s prior approach to this matter”.
Proponents of the bill argue that public broadcasting is outdated and has become “obsolete,” citing Kan’s “exceptionally large budget” and alleged low viewing figures.
They further argue that the move is necessary to “increase competition” in the media market, saying that the widespread availability of internet platforms and multi-channel television means public service media no longer serve their original purpose of addressing Israel’s multiculturalism.
Addressing the company’s employees, Kan CEO Golan Yochpaz rejected these claims, accusing the government of undermining press independence and manipulating statistics.
“They’re trying to confuse us with linear television viewing data, an outdated statistic that is irrelevant to public television, which does not need to sell advertising,” Yochpaz said, warning privatization would deprive millions of viewers of free access to events like the Eurovision Song Contest and World Cup.
The Journalists Union and Media Employees Union also condemned the proposal, calling it a “serious blow to press freedom” and a threat to the job security of Kan’s employees.
The unions warned that the bill undermined democracy by silencing critical voices and eroding journalistic independence.
The move comes amid heightened tensions over media freedom in Israel. Just hours earlier, the Knesset severed ties with Haaretz following comments by publisher Amos Schocken referring to Palestinian militants as “freedom fighters.”
The newspaper decried the decision, describing it as “another step in Netanyahu’s journey to dismantle Israeli democracy.”
UN says Taliban detained journalists over 250 times in Afghanistan since takeover
The United Nations’ mission to Afghanistan said on Tuesday the ruling Taliban had arbitrarily detained journalists 256 times since their takeover three years ago, and urged authorities there to protect the media.
In a reply accompanying the report, the Taliban-led foreign ministry denied having arrested that number of journalists and added that those arrested had committed a crime.
Journalists in Afghanistan worked under “challenging conditions,” the UN mission (UNAMA) and the UN Human Rights Office said in a statement.
“They often face unclear rules on what they can and cannot report, running the risk of intimidation and arbitrary detention for perceived criticism,” said Roza Otunbayeva, the special representative of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
“We urge the de facto authorities to ensure the safety and security of all journalists and media workers as they carry out their tasks, and to fully recognize the importance of women working in the media,” she added.
In its response, the ministry said women continued to work in the media, subject to certain conditions to meet religious morality rules, such as covering their faces and working separately from men.
It described the UN report as being “far from actual realities” and said security forces were working to protect journalists. The Afghan information ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The foreign ministry said the arrest figure was “exaggerated” and detentions took place subject to law.
“No one is arrested arbitrarily,” it said, listing the infringements of those detained.
These ranged from encouraging people to act against the system, defaming the government and providing false and baseless reports, to co-operation with the system’s enemies in the media, and providing material to media outlets against the system, it added.
The Taliban swept to power in 2021 as foreign forces withdrew, vowing to restore security and impose their strict interpretation of Islamic law.
Their administration has not been officially recognized by any foreign government and Western diplomats have said the path to recognition is being stalled by the Taliban’s curbs on women.
US-made weapon used by Israel in strike that killed journalists, investigation finds
- The Guardian probe reveals Boeing-made kit used to convert unguided bomb into precision-guided weapon, pointing to deliberate targeting
- Warning that targeting journalists based on assumed political affiliations is ‘dangerous trend,’ violation of international law
LONDON: A US-made weapon was used by Israel in an airstrike that killed three journalists and injured three others in southern Lebanon, according to an investigation by The Guardian published on Monday.
The British newspaper revealed that munitions manufactured in the US targeted cameraman Ghassan Najjar and technician Mohammad Reda from Iran-backed Hezbollah outlet Al-Mayadeen, as well as cameraman Wissam Qassem from the Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Manar channel. Experts have called the attack a potential war crime.
The strike, which was carried out on the night of Oct. 25, hit a chalet in Hasbaya that was being used as a press station by several media workers, including journalists from Al Jazeera, Sky News Arabia, and TRT.
The Israeli military claimed it targeted a “Hezbollah military structure” in which “terrorists were located,” but later said that the incident was under review after learning journalists were among the casualties.
Nadim Houry, a human rights lawyer and executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative, told The Guardian: “All the indications show that this would have been a deliberate targeting of journalists: a war crime.
“This was clearly delineated as a place where journalists were staying.”
The investigation found no evidence to support Israel’s claims. Cars marked with “Press” signs were parked outside the chalet, and no military activity was detected in the area before the strike.
Witnesses said Israeli drones constantly monitored the site during the 23 days it was used as a press hub.
Ahmed Baydoun, an Amsterdam-based open-source intelligence researcher who was among the first to geolocate the strike, told Arab News that while satellite imagery and eyewitness video analysis pinpointed the chalet’s exact coordinates, providing both “accuracy” and a “tangible grasp of the gravity of the situation” in Hasbaya, definitive conclusions about the incident “would require shrapnel or remnants of the ammunition from the site.”
Geolocated #Israel’s airstrike on the residence of Lebanese journalists in Hasbaya, Lebanon that happened at 4:21 AM. Coordinates: 33.407794, 35.673511. #Lebanon https://t.co/f9Pw8OkjSZ pic.twitter.com/CONQAbvr3P
— A. Baydoun (@weatherwar) October 25, 2024
Remnants of munitions at the scene indicated that at least one weapon used was a 500lb MK-80 series bomb equipped with a Boeing-made JDAM (joint direct attack munition) kit, which converts unguided bombs into precision-guided weapons. The use of such a bomb suggests the site was deliberately selected as a target.
Under US law, the use of American-made weapons in attacks that constitute crimes against humanity requires the suspension of arms supplies to the country in question. Both Israel and the US have denied such accusations.
The journalists killed in the strike were not members of Hezbollah, although one coffin was draped in a Hezbollah flag during burial.
Experts noted that such practices often signify political affiliation but do not indicate military or operational involvement.
Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict, said targeting journalists based on assumed political affiliations was “a dangerous trend already witnessed in Gaza” and “not compatible with international law.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that since the conflict began on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has killed six journalists in Lebanon and at least 129 in Gaza, marking the deadliest period for the profession in over four decades.
Irene Khan, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, accused Israeli authorities of “blatantly ignoring” their international legal obligations to safeguard journalists.
