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. lossol+dJ[view] [source] 2023-12-08 22:25:30
>>mastaz+ji
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.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. underd+0N[view] [source] 2023-12-08 22:46:02
>>lossol+dJ
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.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. lossol+GS[view] [source] 2023-12-08 23:14:56
>>underd+0N
> 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

> 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

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. dotanc+B81[view] [source] 2023-12-09 00:52:01
>>lossol+GS

  > this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg
That map uses the word "Palestine" with three different definitions:

1. The geographical area of Palestine, also often called The Holy Land among other names, that was not inhabited by Jews.

2. The area that the UN Partition Plan designated for an Arab state.

3. The areas that the Palestinian Authority has both civil and military control over.

The problem with the first definition is obvious: It displays a geographical area with a racial modifier. That would be like showing a map of France with all the areas where French people live highlighted, then assuming that 100% of the remaining areas are "Immigrant Land". In reality, the far majority of the land was not settled by Jews nor Arabs in time frame of this map - it was so empty that the Ottomans created laws specifically to increase both Arab and Jewish settlement in the area, they didn't care so long as the taxes were paid.

The UN Partition Plan was not perfect, but it for the most part proposed an Arab state in the areas that were Arab majority, and a Jewish state in the areas with a Jewish majority. The Arabs rejected this plan in an attempt to conquer more land - so complaining that the borders changed from these borders is disingenuous. The Arabs started a war (well, more than one) with the specific intent of changing these borders.

[go to top]