zlacker

[return to "The pro-Israel information war"]
1. jdross+15[view] [source] 2023-12-08 19:20:04
>>anigbr+(OP)
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/1721561226151612602

If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views https://twitter.com/committeeonccp/status/173279243496103143...

It also seems like these platforms create (rather than support) anti-Israeli views: https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1730255552738201854

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.

It's probably relevant that there are 1 billion Muslims to 16 million Jews, and that the largest relevant population of pro-Israeli internationals is India and Indian Hindus, and they are not on TikTok (blocked in India).

◧◩
2. sertbd+bg[view] [source] 2023-12-08 20:15:31
>>jdross+15
> 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.

◧◩◪
3. mastaz+ji[view] [source] 2023-12-08 20:24:34
>>sertbd+bg
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.

◧◩◪◨
4. Kitten+gl[view] [source] 2023-12-08 20:38:23
>>mastaz+ji
> 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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. sjfjsj+7o[view] [source] 2023-12-08 20:51:17
>>Kitten+gl
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. smitty+vs[view] [source] 2023-12-08 21:09:46
>>sjfjsj+7o
Since 1948, when modern Israel was founded.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. sabarn+9u[view] [source] 2023-12-08 21:17:37
>>smitty+vs
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. __loam+vA[view] [source] 2023-12-08 21:45:55
>>sabarn+9u
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. buster+UC[view] [source] 2023-12-08 21:55:52
>>__loam+vA
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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. sabarn+uD[view] [source] 2023-12-08 21:57:45
>>buster+UC
Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. sillys+9Q[view] [source] 2023-12-08 23:02:39
>>sabarn+uD
If this is true (I don't know), a good percentage of the European settler Jews would have had to converge upon Jerusalem. In 1800, before the European Zionist settler colonialist project began, there were only 7000 Jews in all of historic Palestine. A large increase from the period ending just 20 years prior where there were only 2000 Jews in all of Palestine.

You have to go back to the 4th century, and earlier, for Judaism to have a significant presence in Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti...

Note: The original European Zionist Jews called their own project settler colonialism back then, and they were opposed by Orthodox Jews, at the time.

[go to top]