1. a) Before reading this post, had you heard anything about this story?
b) What type of bias does the American media display by not widely reporting this story?

2. In an editorial by the NY Post editorial board on Jan. 6, "Facebook’s anti-Israel double standard on hate speech" the editors write:

Facebook insists it “does not tolerate hate speech” and is vigilant about taking down such content. But the social-media giant seems to apply a double standard.

An Israeli advocacy group sued Facebook in Manhattan Supreme Court last October, claiming it lets jihadists openly recruit on its pages. Now the group — Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center — says its experiment last week proves its point.

It created two nearly identical pages filled with hate-filled rants and blatant incitement to violence. One page was called “Stop Israelis”; the other, “Stop Palestinians.” Then it reported both pages to Facebook.

According to the group’s YouTube video, Facebook soon agreed that “Stop Palestinians” contained “credible threats of violence” that “violated our community standards” — and pulled the page. But Facebook said the mirror “Stop Israelis” page was “not in violation of Facebook’s rules.”

The video prompted several news media inquiries — and Facebook finally pulled the anti-Israel page and issued its no-hate-speech statement.

It may be tough to zap all hate content in a timely manner, but Facebook plainly needs to show more vigilance — without political preference. (From NYPost editorial board, Jan. 6, 2016)

3.  Should Facebook block users from writing posts opposing immigration to Europe?  (If Facebook does block these thoughts,  what effect do you think it has on others who believe the same?)

4.  According to a Pew poll, 30% of American adults get their news from Facebook. If Facebook does block these thoughts, or others it judges offensive, what effect do you think it has on a users' outlook on various news events?