52 ms·

Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok and 8 to 1 on other online platforms. https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/17215

• mqp 3y ago
  It's not about muslims vs Jews. It's about being pro genocide and being anti genocide. Don't make this about religion. Human beings do not want to see genocide carried out on concentration camp of 2.3 million people.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• master_crab 3y ago
  Anti-semitism in and of itself is unequivocally wrong. But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.
  • jjgreen 3y ago
    Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this.
    • devmor 3y ago
      No one is immune to all propaganda, even the most clever people.
      • oh_sigh 3y ago
        I am though.
    • aga98mtl 3y ago
      I would be surprised if clever people were actually confused about that. Only a rich person like PG can afford to say the emperor has no clothes.
      • mytailorisrich 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • amanaplanacanal 3y ago
          I dunno. I’m pretty sure I’m innocent of the horrors of the Iraq war even though I have been a US citizen over 60 years. Blaming civilians for the actions of their government is kind of what terrorists do.
          • mytailorisrich 3y ago
            [flagged]
            • KittenInABox 3y ago
              I mean, can't this also be explained by the fact that the environment is effectively a dictatorship? Do we also poll north koreans who will obviously say that Kim Jong Un is the greatest thing since kimchi and seriously take it at face value?
          • zlg_codes 3y ago
  • pesfandiar 3y ago
    Couldn't agree more. It's a common misunderstanding, perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • squarefoot 3y ago
      > perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism. That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply ignorant, or they simply have an agenda. To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.
      • pydry 3y ago
        The agenda is an overtly racist one, it is to support: * Bibi's racist amalek "genocide the palestinians" trope. * Ben gvir when he hangs a portrait of Israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein up on his wall. * Isaac Herzog when he calls race mixing a tragedy. (To give an example of 3 people who obviously represent Israel, all of whom are proudly racist).
      • DonHopkins 3y ago
        >To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant. Then you have not been paying attention. Add this fact to your knowledge: US Republicans really ARE that ignorant. They certainly have an agenda, but they are most certainly ignorant to have such an idiotic agenda, too. House Declares Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism, Dividing Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-anti-zionism-antisemitism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-an... >More than half of House Democrats declined to back the Republican-written resolution, as some argued that equating criticism of the state of Israel with hatred of the Jewish people went too far. >House Democrats splintered on Tuesday over a resolution condemning the rise of antisemitism in the United States and around the world, with more than half of them declining to support a measure declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” >The resolution denouncing antisemitism, drafted by Republicans, passed by a vote of 311 to 14, drawing the support of all but one Republican. Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” — not taking a position for or against the measure — while 95 supported it. >That reflected deep and growing divisions among Democrats between those who have offered unequivocal support for the Jewish state and its actions, and others — especially in the party’s progressive wing — who have been critical of Israel’s policies and its conduct in the war with Hamas. >“Under this resolution, those who love Israel deeply but criticize some of its policy approaches could be considered anti-Zionist,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said in a floor speech before he voted “present.” “That could make every Democratic Jewish member of this body, because they all criticized the recent Israeli judicial reform package, de facto antisemites. Might that be the author’s intention?”
  • rushingcreek 3y ago
    It’s obviously true that criticism of Israel isn’t inherently antisemitic. But that’s also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually antisemitic. Both of these things can be true at once.
    • kingkawn 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • nerdponx 3y ago
        This. I have always been very very skeptical of the motives and intentions of various BDS groups over the years. Lots of issues with hypocrisy, propaganda, and double standards. But that doesn't excuse the murder of thousands of civilians in collective retribution for the murder of a few dozen. It's possible for both things to be true: Hamas is bad and committed a heinous act of terrorism, and Israel is committing a horrifying atrocity against Palestinian civilians in retaliation.
        • zczc 3y ago
          As far as i understand, the main goal of the Israel operation is to remove Hamas capability to launch another Oct.7-style attack in the future: prevention, not retaliation (though one can argue if there is a way to achieve this goal with less cost on civilians).
          • mandmandam 3y ago
            > one can argue if there is a way to achieve this goal with less cost on civilians) Not really, no. There's no argument. The entire world is calling for a ceasefire because so many civilians are being murdered.
          • sudosysgen 3y ago
  • _3u10 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • _3u10 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • niemandhier 3y ago
      This is a very interesting point of view, I was not aware of this. Is there any reliable data on how Muslim Israeli citizens view their own situation e.g. freedom of speech and political participation?
      • _3u10 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel Muslim citizens within Israel have equal rights and many become parliamentarians, judges, diplomats, public health officials, and IDF generals.[23]
      • _3u10 3y ago
        It counters the apartheid state narrative pretty hard so of course it’s swept under the rug.
  • mytailorisrich 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • jeromegv 3y ago
      That is your interpretation. Doesn’t mean it is true. Jewish organizations have joined the large pro-Palestinian marches in Toronto for example. It was a protest against the war and occupation, not about the religion. It’s like saying that Israel marches are islamophobic. Saying it doesn’t make it true. And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded, we shouldn’t dismiss the whole movement. Some of us do not agree with the scale of the operations against civilians in Gaza, that is a valid view point.
      • mytailorisrich 3y ago
        You are not providing any counter-argument to my point. Also, be careful what is meant by "occupation". You'll find that for some people it means that Israel is occupying and should be destroyed, as I mentioned previously. @dang: I apologise, I tried to constructively contribute and, if you do read my comments carefully, not to take side too much or to be inflammatory. I note that you allowed the thread to remain, which I have interpreted as we being allowed to comment...
      • matrix87 3y ago
        > And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded I don't think you can easily say "this person is not an antisemite" When you have entire groups organizing and deploying hostile rhetoric, referring to Jewish people themselves as "colonizers", that's drifting towards antisemitism When you have universities selectively employing double standards where they will fire faculty over e.g. praising Brett Kavanaugh (I can find several other examples if you like) but suddenly "care" about free speech when the topic is related to Jewish people, it's hard to rule out the question of antisemitism there. Especially considering some of these universities had antisemitic policies historically
    • 3y ago
  • beltsazar 3y ago
    It depends on "Israeli what". Anti Israeli government: It's not antisemitic. Anti Israeli people: It's antisemitic.
    • rushingcreek 3y ago
      It’s more complicated than that. Criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not antisemitic. But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing. Both are arguably criticisms of the Israeli government.
      • chimeracoder 3y ago
        > But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing. You've got it backwards. The only way for Israel to exist as an ethnostate is through an ethnic cleansing. That's not specific to Israel; that's inherent to the concept of an ethnostate. The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism.
        • fnimick 3y ago
          > The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism. I had a discussion at length on this with some very historically learned people (far more than me) shortly after the attack, with the context of Biden's response. The underlying cultural memory is that of the Holocaust, and of thousands of years of oppression and pogroms before, where nobody would ever help the Jewish people if they were in danger. Thus the belief that the second the Jewish people became a political minority in Israel, they would be immediately and inevitably subject to ethnic cleansing and persecution by the government. Jewish supremacy is viewed as the only way for Jews to be safe in a world full of people who either hate them or don't care enough to help. This explains Biden's "bear hug" diplomatic approach as well, which as much as it was directed to Netanyahu, was actually directed at the Israeli population (and he is now much more popular than Netanyahu is, from approval polling). The only way to defuse the situation long-term is to convince the Jewish people that if they accept peaceful co-existence without enforced ethnic supremacy and apartheid; and the only way to do that is to convince them that if they are threatened, that they will not be left to die alone as they feel they have been so many times before.
  • mrguyorama 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • khazhoux 3y ago
      This is the problem with a nation that is so closely tied with a religion. I don't believe the people out there who are angry at Israelis and non-Israeli Jews have a problem with the Torah, or keeping Shabbat, or menorahs, etc. They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them.
      • mrguyorama 3y ago
        > They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them. How is that not antisemitism? Why do they claim displaying a star of David for Hanukah is anti-Palestine? The star of David is a jewish symbol, and they are protesting that jewish symbol by saying it is pro-Palestine to display a jewish symbol during a jewish holiday. The star of david is not the property of a Jewish state any more than displaying a Cross during christmas is Pro-Roman. What about that is anti-Israel instead of Anti-Jewish? I believed the "we are just anti-israel, anti-colonization, not anti-jewish" right up until this shit literally hit my backyard. How come a concert of people that was explicitly about Palestinian freedom from Israel was targeted? Why did Palestinian supporters get slaughtered and gang-raped if this was about freeing Palestine? How does my jewish girlfriend feel safe about this situation if Pro-Palestine jewish people are being slaughtered anyway, and any symbol of jewishness is targeted as "Pro-Israel"? Temples are being tagged with swastikas, businesses with jewish employees are being attacked, jewish college students are being harassed and their college leadership struggled to find a way to denounce calls to genocide jews. "Pro-Palestine" rallys are singing "From the river to the sea", which is explicitly a rallying cry about Israel being an illegitimate state. Where's the evidence that this ISN'T about people being jewish? At the very least, completely unaffiliated people, including people who have never set foot in Israel, are being targeted simply because they are jewish.
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
  • EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years). But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about. And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.
    • wolverine876 3y ago
      > chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good. > saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks Who has said that?
      • EvgeniyZh 3y ago
        For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6: The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967. Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people. As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2]. [1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-israel-self-defense-hamas-3f530205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...
  • valianteffort 3y ago
    The term "anti-semetic" is in and of itself "anti-semetic". It obfuscates the fact that palestinians are true semites by conflating itself with any anti-jewish sentiment or criticism. The modern israeli's are not semites. Those that settled after WW2 were eastern european converts, khazars, with no genetic ties to the middle east. Those that are not ashkenazi are migrants from the surrounding countries, who largely did not move to the area until after the occupation of palestine. The term "anti-semite" was invented to reinforce the lie that the ruling class of israel have some ancestral claim to the land. Using it is playing into that propaganda.
    • rendall 3y ago
      Nah. The term Semitic was coined to refer to a class of languages, not people. The term anti-Semite was used by anti-Semites such as Heinrich von Treitschke and the Antisemetic League to describe their anti-Jew stance. This is the word as it means today. The modern attempt to make it refer to Arabs and other Semitic-language speakers is itself an anti-Semitic attempt to rob the term of meaning. Nice try, though.
      • valianteffort 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
  • wolverine876 3y ago
    It's dangerous, tricky terrain. Regardless of your beliefs, anti-Semites benefit. * The anti-Semites are not idiots, mostly; they don't spew anti-Semitism publicly but say what is acceptable, which is to criticize Israel, and obviously anything anti-Israeli helps their cause. * There's an implication whether people like it or not: Israel defines itself as The Jewish State. Also, many people are unware that Judaism is non-hierarchical overall; there's no pope-equivalent in Israel to which Jewish people have some allegiance (remember the old Papist accusation against Roman Catholics for dual loyalty); though Israel has some special things and history, it has no other role in non-Israeli Jewish people's religion, but people make that association regardless. Also, many are unaware that most Jewish people in the US oppose Netanyahu and the Israeli right, and afaik are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Anti-Semites will benefit from that implication, even though you don't want them to. * Not everyone will respect that essential division between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech, and there's a significant risk that large-scale anti-Semitism could spill over. It was already at the highest levels in recent history (like other prejudices). It's easy to dismiss as as unlikely when you aren't at risk; a small risk of catastrophe is a big issue when it's your life. People absolutely need to be able to criticize Israel, but I hope they are careful (not silent) and aware that there is no easy answer. You are anti-Israel (in this case, at least) and not anti-Semitic, but you will help the latter to some degree - hopefully a minimized one. I think the major problem is that we've abandoned and actively attack the former social prohibition against prejudice, stereotypes, intolerance, race/sex/gender/religious discrimination, etc. It used to be verboten, but then we are all familiar with the contemporary reactionary attack on it (however you perceive it, whatever words you use), which seems to have been very successful. A very major loss is that without that high wall between us and the bad guys and bad behavior, without that bright line, there is much more spillover in what we do, and much more risk of them walking right in.
    • Thiez 3y ago
      These "dangers" exist because Israel intentionally blurs the difference between the Jewish people and Israel so that it can cry antisemitism when there is opposition. Maybe they could just stop playing the antisemitism card, or alternatively stop comitting a horrific genocide, occupation, apartheid, and other crimes. If Israel commits acts that deserve criticism then maybe instead of the rest of the world worrying about whether criticism encourages antisemitism Israel can just improve their behavior.
  • zlg_codes 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • dotancohen 3y ago
    > But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike. Anti-Israeli views are anti-Semitic views when criticizing Israel and Israel only, for actions that are done by dozens of states over the course of decades. If the people spouting anti-Israel sentiment spouted the same sentiment for the same actions done a dozen times over by other nations, then they would not be anti-Semitic. In fact, I would agree with the vast majority of them. But when they ignore the 300,000 killed in Syria, or the 600,000 killed in Ethiopia, or the situations in Yemen, Mail, Turkey, or even Gaza when Hamas murders hundreds of Palestinians, or in Syria where the regime kills thousands of Palestinians, then it is clear that they are not stewards of "human rights" or "civilians" or even "values". Rather, they are abusing these ideas to promote an anti-Semitic agenda. These people actually need dead Palestinians to further their agenda.
  • bitcharmer 3y ago
    Yup, that's exactly the reason why I don't treat the term seriously any more. Same with "racist" or "nazi". If it means anything these days it's that those using the words disagree with someone.
• holmesworcester 3y ago
  Another possible explanation for this skew is that TikTok and IG are primarily video platforms. The videos of destruction and death in Gaza are far more horrific than corresponding videos in Israel, because the scale of what Israel is doing to Gaza is so much greater than what Gaza has done to Israel. Another way of saying it is, it makes sense that someone who spends hours on apps optimized for empathy-based addiction would be more sympathetic to Gazans than someone who reads the newspaper or watches talking heads on TV news, since the latter portray the occupation as a two-sided tit for tat.
  • wk_end 3y ago
    It's also the nature of the violence. It's generally acceptable to show shots of bombed-out buildings and the like, or even display injured or dead bodies. The footage we and Israel have from Hamas depicts first-hand murder, rape and torture - all things which are going to violate TOS.
    • KittenInABox 3y ago
      I'm confused when you say that its acceptable to display injured or dead bodies, and yet its violating TOS to display murder or torture. The photo of a murder vs a photo of a bombed body is not something I understand to be distinctly different nor something that would be able to be detected by the algorithm. [Small addition: I've actually seen videos of (alleged) hamas torture, particularly the torture and killing of a specific woman, from Oct 7, not taken down from TOS. I just was under the impression, because there are literally more Palestinian dead people, there will be more photos of dead Palestinians.] [Edited to add, since I'm apparently posting too fast: no, I really do mean there were censored videos of that naked woman in the back of a hamas truck from Oct 7! And that one video of an Israeli woman who lives close enough to the bombing that she can hear it in the context that it gives her peace to know the bombing is happening!]
      • wk_end 3y ago
        Why are you talking about photos? The word "footage" refers to video, and I was replying to a post which said specifically (emphasis mine): > Another possible explanation for this skew is that TikTok and IG are primarily *video* platforms [...] The *videos* of destruction and death in Gaza are far more horrific than corresponding *videos* in Israel TikTok's "Community Guidelines" [0] read: > We do not allow gory, gruesome, disturbing, or extremely violent content. If a video depicting torture and killing wasn't taken down, either the poor moderators stuck viewing all this stuff just hadn't gotten to it yet or it was a failure in some way to enforce the TOS; not an indication that the TOS allows it. [0] https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines/en/sensitive-mature-themes/#4 https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines/en/sensitive-mat...
• sertbdfgbnfgsd 3y ago
  > Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok and 8 to 1 on other online platforms. > If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views. That platforms prioritize one over the other is just one possible explanation. An alternative explanation is that more people already have those views. And it's dishonest to present one explanation and omit the other. Nothing inflames people like injustice.
  • mastazi 3y ago
    I don't think that parent is suggesting that platforms are actively prioritising one over the other. I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances, and the fact that the apps are not available in some markets. As a result, certain views are prioritised as a byproduct of the fact that all modern social media apps have an algorithm that shows you more of what you already agree with, in order to maximise ad profits.
    • KittenInABox 3y ago
      > I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances I think the notion that the vast chunk of Twitter or TikTok had a pre existing stance on Israel/Palestine before Oct 7 is kind of silly, imo? Before this I could scroll Twitter without seeing anything about Israel or Palestine for... idk. Weeks, months at a time. I'll maybe see one thing on Palestine being oppressed, usually about West Bank settlements, from the one or two people who happen to be Palestinian. Now I literally cannot avoid it whenever I open either app. I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7.
      • michaelsbradley 3y ago
        > I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7. I grew up in the 1980s and recall intense flareups on this subject matter for as long as I can remember. The arrival of the Web and social media simply amplified them.
• joekrill 3y ago
  I'm skeptical that hashtags are really a good way to measure these things. They seem rather arbitrary in some cases (particularly that second link). It seems like it would be pretty easy to selectively choose specific hashtags to give any impression you want.
• gtroja 3y ago
  >so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel What if that 1 (in 36 to 1, or 8 to 1) is specifically the pro Israel effort? (As in if there weren't, the pro Palestine would be consensus)
• shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  [flagged]
• jakelazaroff 3y ago
  > US views skew pro-israel, and GenZ is closer to 50/50, so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel. That’s one interpretation. Another is that the skew would be even more pronounced if not for platforms prioritizing pro-Israel content.
  • catlover76 3y ago
    Which would those be? Facebook and normal American media outlets?
• Leary 3y ago
  >Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok That's because TikTok is a global platform where the voices of 1.9 billion Muslims outweigh those of the 19 million Jews.
• bluefishinit 3y ago
  Cherry picking a few hashtags is not a credible analysis. That being said, it’s well known that millennials and gen z support Palestine so it’s not surprising a platform with those demographics would have more pro Palestine content.
  • rcpt 3y ago
    I am surprised that tiktok makes that data public
• slibhb 3y ago
  There's all kinds of propaganda from both sides all over the internet. But the linked article is about organized pressure campaigns. It's been interesting to observe that various official Israeli accounts have taken to posting tik-tok-like videos that quickly show images, footage, text commentary, all with very little context. Of course pro-Palestinian people/groups are doing the same thing, but it feels odd to see a first-world government engaged so directly in pushing that sort of propaganda. I can't imagine the US army directly tweeting this kind of stuff. The US, I feel, would do it through proxy groups. I don't have much to add about any of this, only that you clearly cannot trust the sort of videos, images, and statements all over the internet. As they say, in war, truth is the first casualty.
• stavros 3y ago
  If, generally, 99% of people are in favor of X, and 1% of people are in favor of Y, but on some platform 70% of posts are in favor of X, and 30% in favor of Y, which way does that platform skew?
• matteoraso 3y ago
  >US views skew pro-israel, and GenZ is closer to 50/50, so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel. That could also mean that Israeli online propaganda is ineffective, not that it doesn't exist. Even if they haven't made ground online, pro-Israeli views are universal in the mainstream media, with pro-Palestine reporters being fired.
  • xenospn 3y ago
    [flagged]
• wolverine876 3y ago
  What is your specific assertion here? Are you saying something about the article? Does it demonstrate that this group has not suppressed pro-Palestine speech in places in the US? > there are 1 billion Muslims to 16 million Jews The vasty majority of Muslims are not in the US, the area relevant to the article. Also, to complicate things, afaik most Jewish Americans oppose Israel's right wing, especially the current government, and are sympathetic to Palestinians. And afaik most Israeli support in the US is right-wing evangelical Christians (if I am defining the subgroup accurately), a much larger group than Jewish Americans.
  • givemeethekeys 3y ago
    Take a wild guess how support changes when confronted by a major attack.
    • wolverine876 3y ago
      If you are saying that American Jewish people now support the Israeli government, that is not what I've seen. But I lack a poll or other evidence - do you have one?
      • givemeethekeys 3y ago
        What I'm saying is, when attacked by a foreign aggressor, people come together. I don't think any party has majority support in Israel, but the only reason Likud will lose the government is because someone else who promises to improve / overhaul security will win.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• chirau 3y ago
  There is also the likelihood that even those ratios are like that after the pro-Israeli factor. They could very well be more than that but you can't shut them all up. So that 36 to 1 might be after the fact. Just from the populations you mention, which is obviously a super rough calculation, if we assume all Muslims to be pro Palestine and all Jews to be pro Israel, we would be expecting something like 60 to 1 ratio. So the existence of that 36 to 1 might even be the result of the bias. I am not saying this is the case, I'm just saying don't dismiss the claim simply based on the ratio you see.
• underlipton 3y ago
  Many black Americans hold pro-Palestinian views because of the perceived similarity to civil rights abuses in America and South Africa, as well as Palestinian support for Black Lives Matter. Brown Americans for similar reasons. American youth cohorts (under 40) are blacker and browner than its elderly, and the most likely to use the platforms in question. The oblique suggestion of shadowy puppeteers tricking minorities and youth and whipping them into a mob that's rallying against their own interests is an old racist and ageist canard, and disappointing, if unsurprising, to see conjured here. No one group has a monopoly on reason.
  • MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Not to mention the policing styles of American cops and the IDF are very similar and literally share training and tactics. The actual treatment of Palestinians on the ground mirrors the experience black Americans and others literally deal with in the US.
    • hedora 3y ago
      Also, in parts of the US, elections are rigged (via gerrymandering) so that minorities get to control legislatures. This is similar to how Israel prevents many muslims in the territories it governs from voting to make sure that it remains a jewish state.
• DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  My subjective experience is that since Elon Musk visited Israel and met with the government a week ago, Twitter has started heavily promoting pro-Israeli accounts. Of course, Elon Musk decided to visit Israel after he came under criticism for agreeing with a blatantly anti-Semitic Tweet,[0] so some may question how sincere Musk's sudden change of heart is. 0. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/27/tech/elon-musk-isaac-herzog-israel-meeting-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/27/tech/elon-musk-isaac-herz...
• __loam 3y ago
  > so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel. More people live outside the United States and Israel than in them, and they use these platforms. Many of those people have been out are descendants of subjects of colonialism and Imperialism, whether at the hands of Europe or America. Many of those people view Israel as a colonial project. And yeah, as you mentioned, a large portion of the world is Muslim.
• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok Judging this by the method used (counts of uses of top 5 hashtags associated with the conflict) is ludicrously bad as a methodology, because, aside from not looking at sentiment, its prone to being radically wrong if one side is more consistent in hashtag use than the other.
  • paulddraper 3y ago
    What's the more correct way?
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      I'm not sure the design of these platforms exposes one to researchers, but the absense of a better method doesn't reinforce conclusions based on a defective method.
    • fastasucan 3y ago
      Not expecting tik tok to be a representation of the Gen Z population and to expect the normal should be a 50/50 distribution in addition to think that the groups are mutual exclusive. i.e if you have posted content that "suppport" either side that means you do not support the opposite. Its perfectly fine to be horrified both of civilians killed in a terrorist attack and civilians being bombed.
• instaeloq 3y ago
  [flagged]
• submeta 3y ago
  Well, that’s not a fair comparison. Palestinians may have a lot of muslims on their side, but the whole western world—-or more precisely: their media and people in power—-fully support anything Israel does. No consequences. Au contraire: Looking at Germany for instance, anyone remotely criticising Israel for even gross violations of international human rights or Geneva Conventions (for instance for withholding water, food, medicines, and electricity for 2.2mil civilians in Gaza) will be attacked, silenced, stigmatised, smeared by the majority of media, politician, police, attorneys, etc. Many artists, intellectuals, activists, thinkers, academics have been cancelled, smeared (for instance Greta Thunberg, Ai Wei Wei, Candice Brice, Ilan Pappe, and many many more). And even more people are afraid to speak about Israel critically, fearing to lose their job or called antisemite, when in fact Zionism is not Judaism and the state of Israel does not represent all jews around the world, and cannot be sacrosanct. In the US the support is even larger. Just today the US vetoed a Security Council decision for a ceasefire in Gaza. And this inspite of many people in the state department internally rebelling against this blind support for Israels retaliatory move in Gaza. Disclosure: I have family in Israel, some of them went to the streets in Tel Aviv every week for months to protest against the judicial overhaul. And who are in panic mode seeing the right wing coalition partners of Netanyahu getting stronger and stronger. And I have family members in the military who after 7/10 want to „kill arabs now“. I just do not think flattening Gaza and/or dehumanising Palestinians will make Israel any safer.
  • peter422 3y ago
    Many in the US government have been critical of Israel’s strategy in the last week or so (Lloyd Austin, etc).
  • Unfrozen0688 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • submeta 3y ago
      „ The phrase was also used by the Israeli ruling Likud party as part of their 1977 election manifesto which stated "Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." This slogan was repeated by Menachem Begin.“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
• bjourne 3y ago
  Clips of bodies being buried in mass graves, of corpses with maggot-infested wounds, of limbs scattered in shopping bags, of children screaming in terror as their city blocks gets bombed, or of soldiers stripping civilians naked are not "pro-Palestinian" per se. But they show the terrible brutality of this "war". That may cause people with some empathy and with hearts not cold as stone to demand an end to the terror. That is "pro-Human" not "pro-Palestinian".
  • lovelyviking 3y ago
    >That may cause people with some empathy and with hearts not cold as stone to demand an end to the terror. Well this should have caused those people to do something with Hammas controlling the area long before recent events. Isn’t it? This would have be much more Pro-human don’t you think?
    • 93po 3y ago
      Do you blame north koreans for starving because they didn't do something about the kim family?
• andrepd 3y ago
  Pro-Ukraine viewd also outnumber pro-Russia views on twitter or facebook. Are the conclusions you draw from this fact the same? Why/why not?
  • wiseowise 3y ago
    With Ukraine there’s a clear victim and clear aggressor. Textbook good vs evil.
    • Natsu 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • dang 3y ago
        No religious flamewar please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        • Natsu 3y ago
          I meant it for the historical aspect thereof, but it's fair to want to keep that out of the discussion.
    • d0mine 3y ago
      > aggressor You mean NATO with its orders of magnitude power encroaching East despite their empty promises in 90s?
      • wiseowise 3y ago
        How is this related to one sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation?
        • d0mine 3y ago
          Survival. What would you do when someone much stronger than you corners you? You hit back.
• lossolo 3y ago
  > It's probably relevant that there are 1 billion Muslims to 16 million Jews, Anecdotally, all of my friends here in the EU are pro-Palestinian, and none of us is Muslim. It's also relevant to consider the context of Israel's occupation of Palestine and illegal settlements in light of the UN General Assembly's pro-Palestinian votes. One of the examples from before current conflict[1]: Approve 128 nations. Against 9 nations: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo and United States. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-10/19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... Today, there was another vote in the UN Security Council regarding a ceasefire. Thirteen nations voted in favor of it, the UK abstained, and the US vetoed.
  • wslh 3y ago
    [flagged]
• A1kmm 3y ago
  I think the fundamental assumption of the analysis that there are two mutually exclusive groups, 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestine' is flawed. It is possible to simultaneously support the interests of Palestinian and Israeli civilians (and support a peaceful Israel within the 1967 boundaries), while condemning the massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties) and Hamas. I think it is currently about an order of magnitude more civilians deaths have resulted from the actions of Likud (Netanyahu etc..., who control the government and hence the IDF) than from the actions of Hamas. IDF is apparently disrupting civilian aid, destroying infrastructure including hospitals, and causing mass population movements into areas that cannot support them, so the risk of death from starvation and infectious disease at a massive scale as an indirect result is high. The Likud-controlled IDF are also apparently enforcing a 'lock down' of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while allowing Israeli citizens to seize land by force and further expand the occupied territories. So the scale of the atrocities seems to be much higher on the Likud side than the Hamas side, covers both the West Bank and Gaza, and it makes sense that the Palestinian victims of those atrocities would receive more support. That doesn't mean that all the people who care about the plight of the Palestinian population are anti-Israel (they are just not posting about it because they are likely prioritising issues).
  • YZF 3y ago
    I don't think any other government in Israel would respond materially differently to Oct 7th. The only response Israel has to this scale of event is to re-occupy Gaza and the only way it can be accomplished without larger casualties on both sides is more or less what is transpiring today. I'm sure there are details that would be different but I don't think the script would be materially different if Likud was not in power. The military plan for re-taking Gaza is from the IDF, not the government. Likud-controlled IDF isn't really a thing, the government gives a target (removing Hamas) and the IDF executes. Any other government would give the same target. What I would and do blame the current government for is that Oct 7th even happened, the scale, and the immediate response. EDIT: I also blame the current government for trying to eliminate any possibility of a two state solution and effectively supporting the Hamas rule in Gaza as means of accomplishing that. I can probably blame them for lots more. That said the actual Oct 7th attack is all on Hamas and the response is pretty much the only response you'd have seen from any Israeli government (or anyone else in that position for that matter). We're in a place today that is a different place and we can talk all we want about what other possible places we could be. I'll agree with you on the west bank policy being a Likud/right-wing policy in general. We can also talk about why the Israeli public is more right wing leaning and the left has all but disappeared. I think those two groups are really more mutually exclusive than what you're trying to portray. At least to most Israelis they are. Because for most Israelis, when you say "peaceful within 1967 borders", it reads as "kill all the Jews in Israel". Many (most?) Palestinians will also not accept this statement because they consider Israel in the 1967 border to be the Palestinian state. If there was an overlap we wouldn't really be where we are, we'd have peace. I have not met many people who are in this overlap, i.e. they're both "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" in a meaningful way. Most people do not hold nuanced views at all, don't know that much about the conflict, don't really understand what's going on, hold on to simplistic narratives and "windows" they get from the media and social media. For me as an (ex-) Israeli your equating the response of Israel to the Hamas puts you squarely in the anti-Israeli camp. You blank statement "massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties)" feels like a blood libel. This is just my emotional response to how you phrase things. So that doesn't seem to be an overlap of pro-israeli and pro-palestinian.
• turquoisevar 3y ago
  There’s a reason why Goldbloom charted “change in likelihood” instead of simply showing sentiments in the chart. The reason is that if you look at the raw data he made available[0], the differences in sentiment between platforms are statistically insignificant. To say nothing of conflating anti-Israel sentiments with antisemitism. > US views skew pro-israel, and GenZ is closer to 50/50 The latest Gallup[1] says it’s about 50/50 in the US across demographics and almost 70% disapproval of Israel in the 18-34 age range (so a little bit of Gen Z and a little bit of Millennials). No polls specifically and exclusively break down responses to the exact Gen Z age range, but I doubt that would bring it closer to 50/50. Now, there’s, of course, the chicken and egg debate. Still, explicitly on TikTok, I’ve seen Goldbloom-esque studies that document that the algorithm is led by the user’s preferences instead of the other way around. I’ll see if I can find the URLs in my history. 0: https://github.com/antgoldbloom/tiktok_israel_hamas/blob/main/README.md https://github.com/antgoldbloom/tiktok_israel_hamas/blob/mai... 1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/545045/americans-back-israel-military-action-gaza.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/545045/americans-back-israel-mi...
  • hedora 3y ago
    The poll asked if they backed their current military action. That’s not the same as being pro- or anti-Israeli. In fact, less Israelis support the war than any of the American groups you mentioned. Only 29% support the war, with 49% against. (Note: the poll you cite doesn’t allow for unsure, making the numbers incomparable. I worded the above to count unsure as “not supportive of”. If you count them as “supporting”, then Americans are still about as supportive as Israelis.). https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-poll-finds-49-support-holding-off-gaza-invasion-2023-10-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-poll-finds...
    • turquoisevar 3y ago
      > That’s not the same as being pro- or anti-Israeli. That’s the relevant question: are you pro- or anti-Israel in their actions against Palestine? I doubt that a poll exists that just asks, “Are you pro- or anti-Israel?”. Perhaps some polls ask about the military action and polls that ask about the settlements in the West Bank or maybe polls that ask about the general treatment of Palestinians, but to say that a poll about the military action doesn’t measure any form of pro- or anti-Israel sentiments is a bit odd. > In fact, less Israelis support the war than any of the American groups you mentioned. Only 29% support the war, with 49% against. I take it the Reuters article you linked to is your source for this. Still, that article talks explicitly about polling the opinion on a ground invasion, which is even more specific than “military action.”
• andybak 3y ago
  For whatever algorithmic reasons tiktok is giving me 5 to 1 (at least) pro-israeli views at the moment.
  • xenospn 3y ago
    I stopped watching Instagram reels, but when I did I’d get 90% pro-Palestinian (I’m from Israel and live in California)
• kristopolous 3y ago
  Unless you know the ground truth, nothing can be said about this. And even then you have the Alf Landon effect : : being perceived as a minority invites voluntarily action.
• wslh 3y ago
  Hi dang I don't understand why you are not flagging this topic as there are many similar in HN which are flagged for less incendiary topics.
• samirillian 3y ago
  I think of this more as a distinction between exercising "platform power" versus "real world" power. #freepalestine is not an issue like #metoo, in that the court of public opinion does not really matter for the former, since Israel is a sovereign nation. The state of Israel is not going to get cancelled for toxic behavior. I think this was the argument framed in the article: despite popular support for the Palestinian cause, you are more likely to lose your job for stating pro-Palestine views. This is one probably reason that those without even enough clout to get fired for an opinion are even more rabid and vociferous. I understand your doubt of the organic pro-Palestine content, and I'm agnostic about it, but it is an easy train to get on right now regardless of the actual depth of your beliefs.
• bryans 3y ago
  Even if you're legitimately attempting to analyze political preferences or skew on social media, it seems incredibly inappropriate to be basing that analysis on someone who makes purely biased claims in all of their social media posts. There are so many analytical flaws in the graphs he provides, that they really shouldn't be used for anything. They've selectively[1] searched for multiple Palestine hashtags, which all show up under the same base hashtag[2], but then count all of the hashtags as separate data points -- and then compares them to a singular Israel hashtag that includes an emoji, which won't include most results regarding Israel. What's worse, is that including a Palestine hashtag doesn't remotely guarantee that the post is pro-Palestine or anti-Israel, and the same is true for posts including Israel hashtags not necessarily being pro-Israel, which can also be seen in [2]. In reality, the #palestine hashtag is used in pro-Israel posts all the time, so the sweeping generalizations made by Anthony Goldbloom aren't based on any legitimate statistical methodology. Instead of echoing Goldbloom's manipulation of data as factual, it should be used as an example of pro-Israel disinformation and entirely backs the article's claim. In fact, even Goldbloom admits that he made mistakes[3], and the other graph was made by him and not the company who conducted the survey, who actually disputes his claim. I think it could even be argued that your comment, without any supporting facts other than a very pro-Israel Twitter pundit who already debunked himself, is contributing to the misinformation discussed in the article, even if you're doing so unintentionally. [1] https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602/photo/1 https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602/... [2] https://www.tiktok.com/@kituuuub/video/7298048299905355041?q=%23palestine&t=1702079512698 https://www.tiktok.com/@kituuuub/video/7298048299905355041?q... [3] https://www.semafor.com/article/12/07/2023/tiktok-antisemitism-survey-nikki-haley-debate https://www.semafor.com/article/12/07/2023/tiktok-antisemiti...
• erokar 3y ago
  Might it be because the whole world is actually concerned about the massacre Isreal is now committing on the Palestinian people?
• NomDePlum 3y ago
  I'd assume the anti-Israel views could be caused by the actions of Israel. Is that not a reasonable interpretation? Normally a country killing many thousands of innocent children, women and men, in an act of bloody revenge is not thought well of. That's not to condone Hamas's acts on October 7th, but to point out that indiscriminate violence is usually not an answer to anything.
• hsuduebc2 3y ago
  Thought the same. +1
• KenArrari 3y ago
  The skew is just from that view being much more popular. It's organic content. The pro-israel side is from heavy manipulation of the recommendation algorithms and billions of dollars worth of propaganda investments (including paying people to post). Also worth noting the strong pro-israel sentiment in India is only amongst extreme far-right Hindus.
• sb057 3y ago
  FWIW a recent YouGov poll[1] found that 20% of 18-29 year-olds agree with the statement that "the Holocaust is a myth," with an additional 30% neither agreeing or disagreeing. Compare this to 0%(!) of 65+ year-olds agreeing, and a mere 2% neither agreeing or disagreeing. To put another way, the oldest generations are in 98% agreement that the Holocaust happened, compared to 50% of young adults. [1] https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabRepor...
  • oska 3y ago
    A better polling company would use more objective language, such as : "Millions of Jews were targeted for persecution, imprisonment and extermination by Nazi Germany" It's fine for people to use the word 'Holocaust' to reference that history if they want to but it's also a word that carries some baggage and some assumption of 'specialness'. A polling company shouldn't use it, in my view. I think they would have got a (much) higher degree of agreement if they had used my suggested phrasing (or something like it). People have become increasingly wary of the way that the persecution and genocide of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s has been elevated (e.g. by Hollywood) above the many other great persecutions and genocides that also occurred during the 20th century. (Also, getting young people to respond to a statement such as "the Holocaust is a myth" is unnecessarily provocative and will incentivise a certain proportion to agree to it, just 'for the lolz').
• typon 3y ago
  I think what's relevant is that people see a genocide happening and it's common sense to condemn the people committing it.
• hedora 3y ago
  This conflict (and the press/social media sentiment) seems to be going exactly as planned by both sides of the conflict. According to Israeli intelligence, Hamas’s primary goal was to cause as much death and destruction in Gaza as possible. The Israeli civilians were just collateral damage. They needed Israel to over-react and commit so many war crimes that it would force other countries into the conflict, and also get a new generation of Palestinians to sign up for the cause. Not only did they achieve all their goals, but they did it in one day! They had budgeted for three days of slaughtering Israeli citizens, since they thought it would be harder to force a response. Since they called it off early, they presumably have more resources in reserve than expected. As it usually goes with these conflicts, Hamas and the Israeli hardliners won on day one, and literally everyone else lost: The strong anti-Israeli sentiment online will just justify more military investment in Israel, and might even help them use fear to win an election or two. At the same time, Hamas recruiters can again use rational arguments to get people to sign up. The frontline of the Israeli military (including many draftees) get screwed, as do all the people that live anywhere near the conflicts.
• markdown 3y ago
  Interestingly enough, Israel has a stranglehold on r/worldnews. You'd be hard pressed to find any news or content there that doesn't praise Israel in their slaughter of the Palestinians.
  • xeromal 3y ago
    /r/worldnews kind of exists as a more right-leaning sub considering reddit's general leftist (in the context of American politics).
• gxyt6gfy5t 3y ago
  Also a quarter of young Americans deny The Holocaust. Hating Jews is deep in the identity and politics of young Americans https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/07/one-in-five-young-americans-think-the-holocaust-is-a-myth https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/07/one-in-fi...
  • hedora 3y ago
    It is one in five, so 20%, per your link. One in four think it was exaggerated. That’s a somewhat defensible position if you compare what Hitler did to what Stalin and the Japanese did. (At least when I was growing up, the Holocaust coursework completely ignored the Chinese, and mentioned Gypsies in passing, if at all. They covered homosexuals though.)
• ryloric 3y ago
  Indians largely don't care about this conflict, it's too far and too irrelevant to take up enough space in our day to day lives. The online bot armies are not really indication of public sentiment.
• Shawnj2 3y ago
  I think there is an information war Israel is still winning just because they have more media resources. Accurate and unbiased information about what is happening in Gaza is somewhat hard to find while Israel has a lot of reliable information supporting anything they want. The information that does come out from Gaza spreads farther, unfortunately a lot of which is wrong because people spread unreliable sources, but information from Israel supporting their positions is greater and more accurate because they have more media resources.
• nebula8804 3y ago
  First of all based on how this Tweet author is writing he sounds like he is on the list of those 30 CEOs that wanted to blacklist anyone from Harvard that signed a pro-Palestinian letter. I wish they would instead release the full list of the 30 CEOs just like how they are doxxing the students or targeting anyone on Linkedin(via scraping) with a pro-Palestine view. Instead these people are cowards. Secondly, its been quite fascinating watching over the years the pro-Palestinian view be the minority but then seeing this event finally being the one that broke the camel's back. I always knew that the pro-Palestinian view would become the majority view but there was no way I could have expected it to grow this quickly. Over the last few years, we have seen an erosion of free speech in the US with all these Anti-BDS laws and it just drove me up the wall seeing the right cry about free speech yet have no problem with these laws. It really felt like we were going back for a decade before we could move forward. But this reaction is just another way that Gen-Z has really surpassed my expectations. Before this event, it was like screaming into the ether but you know what can't be faked or gamed by the Chinese or whoever else hates the US? The enormous protests occurring in the West. These are people making their own decision to go out and spend their time. Thats when I knew this isn't just another internet manipulation hogwash. Now the powers that be are brushing off all these Gen-Z people by complaining that they have a negative mindset of the world and using protest as a coping mechanism. Elon said this nonsense the other day and I couldn't believe how little he understand Gen-Z. These are the people that watched their older siblings get taken as fools by Obama's "hope and change". They entered the world on the cusp of post-9/11, watched the GFC take hold during childhood and then graduated with loads of debt into the COVID market. Of course they have a pessimistic outlook. Eventually a Millenial or Gen-Z will take the white house and then things will get really spicy. This really does feel like a generational divide. Regarding the Indian support of Israel: Now THAT definitely feels like internet manipulation nonsense. I have been following the conflict for over a decade on sites like Reddit, Twitter, and HN and never have I seen so much content from India over this. All of a sudden this is super important to them. Yeah right... :/
• dartharva 3y ago
  I would take the "Pro-Israeli" views coming out of India with a heavy grain of salt. The tweets you see of "India Israel" and the like are largely from troll farms intending to use the event to antagonize local Muslims that fall on the opposite part of the political spectrum they support. The average Indian is neither aware of the nuances of the overall conflict nor does he care, since it actually has extremely little to do with his daily life.
• wslh 3y ago
  It is weird but this thread was not flagged but all of these were: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582486 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582471 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38582239
  • throw_m239339 3y ago
    The hn admins allegedly vetted that one.
    • wslh 3y ago
      Vetted after zillions of comments?
• papito 3y ago
  TikTok is a Chinese product, and therefore inseparable from the Communist Party. This may also be a factor. It's the safest (read: more moderated and controlled) large social media platform. Why? It may seem valuable to cause havoc in the US electorate at a critical time, splitting the age groups and driving a wedge hard. For the terminally-online students this issue has almost become a litmus test - "If you are pro-Israel, you are not one of us. They say so on TikTok." This is a very good example of how social media completely takes over and leads the herd blindly in one direction, either through manipulation, or through just natural hype and bandwagon effect. In the past we had a few friends who would subject us to peer pressure and convince us to do stupid shit. Now these kids are in global peer pressure groups of millions.
• 38529977thrw 3y ago
  It is an interesting contrast to the situation in 'editorial rooms' (not virtual tiktok rooms) where most decision makers globally get their information. Some head of state in country X (entangled "innocent"* bystander state) is being bombarded by pro-Israeli 'official news organs' not some rando with a tiktok account. * All those ignored UN resolutions