‘This makes people angry’
Marc Giling is chairman of the Saint & Peter Guild. He is not at all pleased with the intervention of Facebook: “I really see this as censorship. An American company that indicates what is or is not possible. It feels very authoritarian, something that is imposed, an infringement of the freedom of expression. ” With the possible effect of more racism being posted, Giling fears: “The fact that more and more people feel that they are allowed less and less makes people angry.”
“Racism is not freedom of speech. It is a good thing that such a large party is intervening now,” argues Jerry Afriyie. He is surprised that Facebook is now playing a pioneering role: “It is strange that a company should take the lead here, while some local authorities are still financing entries with Black Petes.”
Classic anti-Semitic stereotype
“80 percent of Jews say they are dealing with anti-Semitism on the Internet,” says researcher Aron Vrieler of the CIDI, which monitors anti-Semitism. That’s why he thinks it’s commendable that Facebook is now doing more to address it. Vrieler: “It’s a good first step, but Facebook does use a very concise definition of anti-Semitism.”
Vrieler refers to an example that Facebook cites of anti-Semitism. Images containing “claims that Jews rule the world or are in charge of major institutions worldwide” are now prohibited.
“Jews ruling the world is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype, which keeps coming back in different forms,” says Vrieler. “But anti-Semitism is broader than that and occurs from the extreme right to the extreme left. In the Netherlands, for example, you see a lot of Holocaust denial. Or that Jews are compared to Nazis.” However, these kinds of statements do not fall under the stricter guidelines.
Some examples of anti-Semitic images that the CIDI comes across on Facebook:
–
