12 ms·

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 t

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.
  - toyg 3y ago
    This is the correct view. The Palestinian issue is a deeply-felt issue for a quarter of the world's population, give or take.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Are those population’s countries accepting Palestinian refugees?
      - toyg 3y ago
        The palestinian diaspora at this point is basically worldwide, which is somewhat ironic considering who caused it. This has little to do with the actual point, though.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        My point is it is deeply felt up to the point of actual sacrifice, either in the form of lives waging a war on behalf of Palestinians, or in the form of money re-homing them.
        toyg 3y ago
        > My point is it is deeply felt up to the point of actual sacrifice Because otherwise it invalidates their opinion? So, are you ready to sacrifice yourself in the streets for Mr. Biden / Mr. Trump / Mr. Macron / Ms. LePen / etc etc, or to rehome the "victims" of their policies?
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        >Because otherwise it invalidates their opinion? It provides some signal as to how “deeply” one (or a group) feels. >So, are you ready to sacrifice yourself in the streets for Mr. Biden / Mr. Trump / Mr. Macron / Ms. LePen / etc etc, or to rehome the "victims" of their policies? No, I do not deeply feel regarding this topic.
        toyg 3y ago
        > It provides some signal as to how “deeply” one (or a group) feels. Because refusing diplomatic and business relationships, repeatedly condemning Israeli actions in the largest international forums they have access to, demonstrating in the streets of their countries, jeopardizing relationships with the richest countries in the world because of this topic, etc etc, are not sufficient signals...? You can certainly criticize ambiguities in certain environments (e.g. Saudi rulers), but overall I don't think one can seriously challenge the depth of feeling on the matter when it's shared by literally billions of people. Maybe one doesn't get exposed to all that because most of these people are poor, living in poor countries that are largely ignored by the Western mainstream, but they are definitely there.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  This conflict has been a huge thing since the 90s. I would argue the vast majority of people in the west had an opinion on that conflict.
  - smitty1e 3y ago
    Since 1948, when modern Israel was founded.
    - sabarn01 3y ago
      since the 1880's at least. The status of palistance was the cause for the crusades so I think we need to understand there is no resolution possible.
      - __loam 3y ago
        I don't think the crusades are especially relevant to the current issues, other than they happened to happen in the same place. WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans is basically where the current situation arose from.
        busterarm 3y ago
        The specific place is important for historical reasons and there have been migrations of Jews back to the area (after being expelled from Spain/Portugal, etc) since the 1490s. The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain. Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv. Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
- simonh 3y ago
  As OP pointed out, a billion Muslims is a lot of people. They may not have the palestinians at top of mind all the time, but a lot of them do at the moment.
  - hackyhacky 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > none of them are taking Palestinian refugees They believe that Israel would like to drive out the refugees and seize their land, essentially putting an end to Palestinians in Israel. They believe that's what happened when Israel was founded and subsequently - there are still refugee camps, and a priority of Palestinians is the 'right of return' to their former lands - and with recent Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and specifically with Israeli actions in the West Bank since Oct 7. Essentially, they think refugees will never be allowed back. That doesn't mean they care, but without that issue resolved, they won't accept refugees. Also, probably they don't want to take on care and feeding of millions, and to simultaneously relieve Israel, their enemy, of that burden.
      - hackyhacky 3y ago
        I agree with you that they have reason to believe that accepting refugees would play into Israel's hands. However, that fact alone is telling: they consider it more important to hurt Israel than to help Palestinians. If Arab nations actually care about Palestinian life as much as they say they do, they would prevent Palestinians from dying. By way of contrast: Poland took over 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees, despite the fact that most probably won't go back to Ukraine, and that depopulating eastern Ukraine helps Russia.
        wolverine876 3y ago
        They say they wouldn't be helping the Palestinians, creating yet more permanent refugees and the loss of their land. However, I will say that it's hard to say that the foreign government's choices should outweigh the self-determination of the Palestinians who could actually choose whetehr to leave or stay. I don't think they care nearly as much as they say they do. I think Hamas doubts it too; one reason for the attack was to stop Arab reconciliation with Israel that may have left Palestinians in the cold. The idea that they would care seems like a bit of prejudice - Americans and Europeans don't care about every refugee either, no matter where they're from or what they've done, especially these days.
- matkoniecz 3y ago
  > I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7. This appeared repeatedly as important news, sadly mostly due to wars and terrorism. Jerusalem relevance alone for multiple religions with its holy sites made it important topic for many.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    People being aware of the issue isn't the same as the issue being their primary interest. Or even being in their top ten interests.
    - matkoniecz 3y ago
      I was responding to "I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even even thought about Palestine or Israel"
- mastazi 3y ago
  I think you are underestimating the diversity of these global platforms. As an example, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are among the top 10 countries in terms of Twitter users. https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-...
- catlover76 3y ago
  I think it's pretty unfair this person is being down voted. Yes, most Americans knew the conflict existed previous to this past October, but few who weren't Jewish or Muslim and/or Arab (I think most Arab Christians are generally/vaguely pro-Palestinian, but not sure) would have had strong opinions about it or been able to tell you much. I don't think the issue has ever featured this heavily in the US news cycle since oil embargoes in the 70s, and the issue is a lot more contentious now due to a few different factors. Right now, unless someone consumes zero news media and has very curated social media feeds, I don't see how they could avoid understanding this has all been a major geopolitical event that is continuing to unfold.
  - michaelsbradley 3y ago
    > few…would have had strong opinions about it or been able to tell you much That’s simply incorrect. Extensive news coverage of the flareups I referred to led to the subject matter becoming a common topic of conversation and public interest. Heck, I remember there being conversations and debates about it among kids in my school’s cafeteria, and that was in a part of the US where at the time way less than 1% of the population was Jewish or Muslim.
- Macha 3y ago
  > I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7. It has been a relatively prominent issue in Ireland, and especially Northern Ireland for some time. You can find plenty of images over the years of republican murals with Palestinian flags on them (e.g. 10 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/189yeg/one_struggle_a_belfast_mural_expressing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/189yeg/o... ), or conversely unionist bonfires with palestinean flags on it: (e.g. last year https://nitter.dafriser.be/M_AndersonSF/status/1542523209311846406#m https://nitter.dafriser.be/M_AndersonSF/status/1542523209311... )
instaeloq 3y ago
I think your interpretation is wrong. OP stated: "If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views". They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.
- mastazi 3y ago
  I don't see how that quote from OP is incompatible with my point, please explain > They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized. I'm also saying that they are prioritised, here is a sentence from my previous comment: > As a result, certain views are prioritised
- Affric 3y ago
  > “If anything” This is an important clause here. It means that they do not believe that pro-Israel views are prioritised but __if__ any it is the case that there are prioritised views are pro-Palestinian views. Now, you could argue that this is a bad faith rhetorical device but it is not “explicitly stating that they believe pro-Palestinian views are prioritised”.
  - xkekjrktllss 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nostrebored 3y ago
      [flagged]
- IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
  Prioritized in what exact way? You are fed what you are interested in and like, on TikTok. It is easy to read yourself of topics or content you are uninterested in or dislike.
  - Invictus0 3y ago
    Make a brand new account and visit TikTok. You will be shown lots of pro Palestinian content
lossolo 3y ago
The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine, a stance that is reflected in numerous UN General Assembly votes. Holding a pro-Israel position in this context represents a very US centric view, which is not similarly echoed in the rest of the world.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  >The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine. History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.
  - nostrebored 3y ago
    Can you define who the global ruling class is?
- underdeserver 3y ago
  No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
  - lossolo 3y ago
    > No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg > The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries. Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847

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.
- toyg 3y ago
  This is the correct view. The Palestinian issue is a deeply-felt issue for a quarter of the world's population, give or take.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Are those population’s countries accepting Palestinian refugees?
    - toyg 3y ago
      The palestinian diaspora at this point is basically worldwide, which is somewhat ironic considering who caused it. This has little to do with the actual point, though.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        My point is it is deeply felt up to the point of actual sacrifice, either in the form of lives waging a war on behalf of Palestinians, or in the form of money re-homing them.
        toyg 3y ago
        > My point is it is deeply felt up to the point of actual sacrifice Because otherwise it invalidates their opinion? So, are you ready to sacrifice yourself in the streets for Mr. Biden / Mr. Trump / Mr. Macron / Ms. LePen / etc etc, or to rehome the "victims" of their policies?
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        >Because otherwise it invalidates their opinion? It provides some signal as to how “deeply” one (or a group) feels. >So, are you ready to sacrifice yourself in the streets for Mr. Biden / Mr. Trump / Mr. Macron / Ms. LePen / etc etc, or to rehome the "victims" of their policies? No, I do not deeply feel regarding this topic.
        toyg 3y ago
        > It provides some signal as to how “deeply” one (or a group) feels. Because refusing diplomatic and business relationships, repeatedly condemning Israeli actions in the largest international forums they have access to, demonstrating in the streets of their countries, jeopardizing relationships with the richest countries in the world because of this topic, etc etc, are not sufficient signals...? You can certainly criticize ambiguities in certain environments (e.g. Saudi rulers), but overall I don't think one can seriously challenge the depth of feeling on the matter when it's shared by literally billions of people. Maybe one doesn't get exposed to all that because most of these people are poor, living in poor countries that are largely ignored by the Western mainstream, but they are definitely there.
sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
This conflict has been a huge thing since the 90s. I would argue the vast majority of people in the west had an opinion on that conflict.
- smitty1e 3y ago
  Since 1948, when modern Israel was founded.
  - sabarn01 3y ago
    since the 1880's at least. The status of palistance was the cause for the crusades so I think we need to understand there is no resolution possible.
    - __loam 3y ago
      I don't think the crusades are especially relevant to the current issues, other than they happened to happen in the same place. WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans is basically where the current situation arose from.
      - busterarm 3y ago
        The specific place is important for historical reasons and there have been migrations of Jews back to the area (after being expelled from Spain/Portugal, etc) since the 1490s. The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain. Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv. Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
simonh 3y ago
As OP pointed out, a billion Muslims is a lot of people. They may not have the palestinians at top of mind all the time, but a lot of them do at the moment.
- hackyhacky 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > none of them are taking Palestinian refugees They believe that Israel would like to drive out the refugees and seize their land, essentially putting an end to Palestinians in Israel. They believe that's what happened when Israel was founded and subsequently - there are still refugee camps, and a priority of Palestinians is the 'right of return' to their former lands - and with recent Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and specifically with Israeli actions in the West Bank since Oct 7. Essentially, they think refugees will never be allowed back. That doesn't mean they care, but without that issue resolved, they won't accept refugees. Also, probably they don't want to take on care and feeding of millions, and to simultaneously relieve Israel, their enemy, of that burden.
    - hackyhacky 3y ago
      I agree with you that they have reason to believe that accepting refugees would play into Israel's hands. However, that fact alone is telling: they consider it more important to hurt Israel than to help Palestinians. If Arab nations actually care about Palestinian life as much as they say they do, they would prevent Palestinians from dying. By way of contrast: Poland took over 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees, despite the fact that most probably won't go back to Ukraine, and that depopulating eastern Ukraine helps Russia.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        They say they wouldn't be helping the Palestinians, creating yet more permanent refugees and the loss of their land. However, I will say that it's hard to say that the foreign government's choices should outweigh the self-determination of the Palestinians who could actually choose whetehr to leave or stay. I don't think they care nearly as much as they say they do. I think Hamas doubts it too; one reason for the attack was to stop Arab reconciliation with Israel that may have left Palestinians in the cold. The idea that they would care seems like a bit of prejudice - Americans and Europeans don't care about every refugee either, no matter where they're from or what they've done, especially these days.
matkoniecz 3y ago
> I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7. This appeared repeatedly as important news, sadly mostly due to wars and terrorism. Jerusalem relevance alone for multiple religions with its holy sites made it important topic for many.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  People being aware of the issue isn't the same as the issue being their primary interest. Or even being in their top ten interests.
  - matkoniecz 3y ago
    I was responding to "I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even even thought about Palestine or Israel"
mastazi 3y ago
I think you are underestimating the diversity of these global platforms. As an example, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are among the top 10 countries in terms of Twitter users. https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-...
catlover76 3y ago
I think it's pretty unfair this person is being down voted. Yes, most Americans knew the conflict existed previous to this past October, but few who weren't Jewish or Muslim and/or Arab (I think most Arab Christians are generally/vaguely pro-Palestinian, but not sure) would have had strong opinions about it or been able to tell you much. I don't think the issue has ever featured this heavily in the US news cycle since oil embargoes in the 70s, and the issue is a lot more contentious now due to a few different factors. Right now, unless someone consumes zero news media and has very curated social media feeds, I don't see how they could avoid understanding this has all been a major geopolitical event that is continuing to unfold.
- michaelsbradley 3y ago
  > few…would have had strong opinions about it or been able to tell you much That’s simply incorrect. Extensive news coverage of the flareups I referred to led to the subject matter becoming a common topic of conversation and public interest. Heck, I remember there being conversations and debates about it among kids in my school’s cafeteria, and that was in a part of the US where at the time way less than 1% of the population was Jewish or Muslim.
Macha 3y ago
> I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7. It has been a relatively prominent issue in Ireland, and especially Northern Ireland for some time. You can find plenty of images over the years of republican murals with Palestinian flags on them (e.g. 10 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/189yeg/one_struggle_a_belfast_mural_expressing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/189yeg/o... ), or conversely unionist bonfires with palestinean flags on it: (e.g. last year https://nitter.dafriser.be/M_AndersonSF/status/1542523209311846406#m https://nitter.dafriser.be/M_AndersonSF/status/1542523209311... )

instaeloq 3y ago

I think your interpretation is wrong. OP stated: "If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views". They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.

mastazi 3y ago
I don't see how that quote from OP is incompatible with my point, please explain > They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized. I'm also saying that they are prioritised, here is a sentence from my previous comment: > As a result, certain views are prioritised
Affric 3y ago
> “If anything” This is an important clause here. It means that they do not believe that pro-Israel views are prioritised but __if__ any it is the case that there are prioritised views are pro-Palestinian views. Now, you could argue that this is a bad faith rhetorical device but it is not “explicitly stating that they believe pro-Palestinian views are prioritised”.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nostrebored 3y ago
    [flagged]
IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
Prioritized in what exact way? You are fed what you are interested in and like, on TikTok. It is easy to read yourself of topics or content you are uninterested in or dislike.
- Invictus0 3y ago
  Make a brand new account and visit TikTok. You will be shown lots of pro Palestinian content

lossolo 3y ago

The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine, a stance that is reflected in numerous UN General Assembly votes. Holding a pro-Israel position in this context represents a very US centric view, which is not similarly echoed in the rest of the world.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
>The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine. History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  Can you define who the global ruling class is?
underdeserver 3y ago
No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
- lossolo 3y ago
  > No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza. I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg > The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries. Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847