My latest piece tackles an old question: Why are social media platforms so bad at moderating antisemitic content? Today in Deep Shtetl, I offer three reasons you probably haven't heard, but explain a lot: newsletters.theatlantic.com/deep-shtetl/61…
1) Social media companies lack the cultural competency to even identify most antisemitism. Because they don't know what the prejudice looks like, they are terrible at fighting it. newsletters.theatlantic.com/deep-shtetl/61…
3) Social media companies tend to police content that embarrasses their executives in their own social and cultural spheres. Global antisemitism, like many other abuses around the world, doesn't come up at dinner parties, so it doesn't get attention. newsletters.theatlantic.com/deep-shtetl/61…
An update on this story: Twitter has now taken down all the antisemitic tweets flagged in my post, thus proving my thesis that social media companies will remove such content when it becomes sufficiently embarrassing. The problem is that this is not a very good moderation system!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Important context for Harris telling off the protesters is that it was the second time they'd interrupted her and she had personally met with family members of those killed in Gaza before the rally. Politicians get less receptive when it seems like nothing they do is credited.
In general, if you want to influence a politician, you have to bargain and give them a little space, not just make constant demands, or they will determine that you can't be appeased and aren't worth it.
*Voted to condemn UN resolution against Israeli settlements that Obama allowed to pass
*Participated in AIPAC conference, called Israel "our truest and closest ally in the region, with a commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties, surrounded by a pretty tough neighborhood"
*Met with Netanyahu personally, released photo to media
*Said of campus protests, "I think when Jewish students are telling us they feel unsafe in that, we need to believe them, and I do believe them... Creating a space where political dissent or political rallying can happen is one thing. Intimidation is another."
*Said in June: "the ability of Jewish people to self-determine themselves is foundational...The failure to recognize the state of Israel is taking away that self-determination. So it is antisemitic."
When I wrote my article about the super selective campaign against Josh Shapiro over Israel, I focused on Mark Kelly's Israel positions because he was co-leading prediction markets at the time, and didn't discuss Walz's much. There's plenty.
1. Anyone who's closely followed the leaks to Israeli and Middle Eastern media knows that Biden's ceasefire/hostage deal proposal is Israel's proposal, which largely matches Hamas's demands. Biden made it public because he has good reason to believe both parties might still reject it and he wants to call their bluffs.
2. Throughout the war, Israel (under significant US pressure) has made increasingly generous deal offers to Hamas. Each time, Hamas has moved the goalposts and come up with new demands. This latest offer matches Hamas's last demands. Biden is making it public to call their bluff.
3. Behind closed doors, Netanyahu has repeatedly authorized his negotiators to make far-reaching proposals to Hamas. But the terms are anathema to Bibi's far-right coalition allies. Biden knows this means Bibi might renege on his offer—so he made it public to call Bibi's bluff.
Reportedly, one major difference between Hamas's hostage/ceasefire proposal today and previous proposals is that Hamas is refusing to commit to releasing only *living* hostages in the first phase of the deal. It is insisting that the 33 hostages released can be alive *or* dead.
Some hostages are unfortunately feared dead, but latest estimates have the number of living hostages at around 70, so Hamas here is not necessarily indicating that it doesn't have 33 living hostages, just that it's using them as bargaining chips.
This also explains why Hamas (per @AliVelshi and others) was willing to accept just 33 prisoners in exchange for each Israeli hostage—a relatively low number given their past demands. If they're exchanging hostage *bodies*, lower price makes sense.
I wrote about the viral TikTok conspiracy that Jews are trying to ban the platform—pushed by influencers with millions of followers with an assist from Candace Owens—and why such conspiracies misunderstand how political power works and undermine democracy. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
For decades, America has worked assiduously to prevent China from controlling technological infrastructure. Washington led an international campaign to ban Chinese telecom giant Huawei from Western markets. It forced Grindr's Chinese owners to sell it. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Polls show robust public support for a TikTok ban or sale to non-Chinese owners. For years, Gallup has found Americans see China as the country's "greatest enemy." In other words, politicians have strong political & electoral incentives to take on TikTok. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I wrote about the one thing most likely to force new elections in Israel and threaten Netanyahu's reign. It's not anything Biden or Schumer might say or do, but something far more fundamental to Israeli politics at this moment: theatlantic.com/international/…
Since its founding, Israel has had mandatory Jewish conscription into its army, with one notable exception: ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students do not serve. This started as 400 men. It's now 66,000. After October 7, Israeli society is no longer OK with this: theatlantic.com/international/…
Mass Israeli public demand to draft the ultra-Orthodox is a huge problem for Netanyahu. The ultra-Orthodox parties provide 18 of his 64 coalition seats. They oppose enlistment. But others in Bibi's government demand it. This could break the coalition. theatlantic.com/international/…