Social Media Working to Protect ICE Clampdown in Minneapolis

Spread the love

Original article by Ari Paul republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

There was a time, not terribly long ago, when the right claimed that the big social media companies weren’t just skewed to the left in terms of moderation, but that they were actually acting in the direct interests of the Democratic administration (House Judiciary Committee, 5/1/24).

When right-wing billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter, eventually rebranding it as X, the right believed that he’d show the world that the popular site was a tool of the Democratic agenda (New Yorker1/11/23). The move increased Musk’s profile as a conservative crusader against social progress and economic populism before his brief stint as President Donald Trump’s federal jobs hatchet man in 2025 (Roosevelt Institute, 5/29/25).

Before a forced sale by its Beijing-based parent company, TikTok was attacked by both Democrats and Republicans because of its ownership, with both sides claiming that this not only gave the Chinese government the ability to spy on Americans, but also to skew political discourse away from Washington’s interests (FAIR.org11/13/235/8/241/3/25).

At Meta, founder Mark Zuckerberg quickly tried to distance his company from the notion that it acted in tandem with the Biden administration. Politico (8/26/24) reported:

Mark Zuckerberg says he regrets that Meta bowed to Biden administration pressure to censor content, saying in a letter that the interference was “wrong,” and he plans to push back if it happens again.

Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan (Joe Rogan Experience1/10/25) that the Biden administration had been “calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true.” He asserted that Meta, and especially Facebook, “had gone too far in complying with such requests, and acknowledged that he and others at the company wrongly bought into the idea” (Axios, 1/10/25).

Meta ‘in bed with the regime’

Daily Beast: Trump’s Pal Mark Zuckerberg Censoring Site That Names ICE & Border Patrol Goons

ICE List founder Dominick Skinner (Daily Beast1/27/26): “I don’t believe that it’s somehow an accident that a company so deeply ingrained in this regime is suddenly blocking a website that actively fights against it.”

If you took these claims at face value, you would expect that we would have a more neutral and less government-controlled social media in 2026. Instead, we have a social media oligarchy that is now working directly in the interests of the Trump administration’s national police state.

X converted from a free-wheeling social media site into a 24-hour online MAGA rally (Guardian1/4/25NBC News2/16/25) a long time ago. But there are new developments involving other platforms. All of Meta’s social media sites—FacebookInstagram and Threads—are blocking access to ICE List, a website that lists names of Homeland Security agents (Wired1/27/26).

Politico (1/27/26) reported that the website’s founder, Dominick Skinner, “questioned Meta’s policy against posting links to websites that contained people’s personal information.” Politico said he added “that Meta’s platforms had no issues with posting people-finder websites such as White Pages that shared individuals’ phone numbers and family members.”

Skinner told the Daily Beast (1/27/26):

I believe that Mark Zuckerberg is in bed with the regime. He was sitting behind Trump at the inauguration. His algorithms have worked to shape people into right-wing followers.

Meta donated to the Trump Ballroom,” he pointed out—which is also true of other tech firms such as AmazonMicrosoft and Google (Fortune10/26/25).

TikTok now free to censor?

Al Jazeera: Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda with 1.4m followers reports TikTok ban

“We have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefield in which we engage, and the most important ones are social media,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told pro-Israel influencers last September (Al Jazeera1/29/26). “The most important purchase that is going on right now is…TikTok.”

The TikTok deal is now final, with its Chinese former parent company, ByteDance, holding about a fifth of the network, with a major bulk controlled by tech giant OracleSilver Lake and the Abu Dhabi investment firm MGX (Reuters1/23/26). The sale was celebrated as a win against Chinese infiltration into the US media market, but the Washington Post editorial board (1/23/26) believed this wasn’t good enough:

ByteDance will maintain ownership of TikTok’s coveted algorithm and license it to the spinoff. The announcement emphasizes that the algorithm’s recommendations will be stored in Oracle’s US cloud system but also that the two companies will retain “global product interoperability,” with ByteDance maintaining control over e-commerce and marketing. That sounds like much less of a breakup than Congress intended.

FAIR (3/14/249/27/241/3/25) has long been skeptical of the US government move to force the sale of TikTok, as it was often based on dubious claims about data mining, and awash with McCarthyist fearmongering. Worse, Oracle’s co-founder is Larry Ellison, another right-wing tech billionaire (FAIR.org9/19/25All Things Considered10/6/25), making the TikTok sale eerily reminiscent of the Musk takeover of Twitter.

Right after the deal was finalized, “users were raising concerns that the company is ‘censoring’ videos, including ones critical of President Donald Trump, ICE or mentions of Jeffrey Epstein,” AP (1/27/26) reported. “The complaints were enough for California Gov. Gavin Newsom to announce…that he is launching a review into whether TikTok is violating state law by censoring Trump-critical content.”

It reportedly wasn’t just censorship about ICE and Epstein. “Award-winning Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda has said she has been permanently banned from TikTok,” Al Jazeera (1/29/26) said, “days after the social media platform was acquired by new investors in the United States.”

Cripple social media to crush protests

CNN: Apple removes ICE tracking apps after Trump administration says they threaten officers

Apple pulled an ICE alert app from its online store as “defamatory, discriminatory or mean-spirited content.” CNN (10/3/25) noted: “Apple and its CEO Tim Cook have in recent months sought to strengthen the company’s relationship with the White House, amid policy changes from Trump that could threaten its business.”

Wealthy capitalists buy social media companies for the same reason they buy newspapers and radio stations: They want to use media to sway the political discussion toward policies that meet their economic and political interests. Musk taking over Twitter isn’t much different from Amazon titan Jeff Bezos taking over the Washington Post and turning its opinion section into a right-wing propaganda machine (Golden Hour9/15/25New Republic11/3/25Press Watch12/12/25; FAIR.org1/22/251/28/25) and putting its news operation on life support (The Hill1/27/26).

But given growing street resistance to the state terror perpetrated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol in cities around the US, these reports about social media blackouts are alarming, reminiscent of reports out of Turkey (Reuters9/8/25) and Iran (New York Times1/25/26).

With Zuckerberg, Musk and Ellison all showing their allegiance to the administration in various ways, this is all just more evidence that regime-adjacent social media are working in the interests of Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. And this has been brewing for some time. A few months ago, CNN (10/3/25) reported, Apple “removed ICEBlock and similar apps that allow people to alert others nearby about sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in their area,” after receiving “a request from the US Department of Justice.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation (11/20/25) sued the DoJ and Department of Homeland Security over this and similar instances of platforms removing “apps that document immigration enforcement activities in communities throughout the country.”

‘A really troubling thing

CAIR: CAIR Commends UpScrolled for Protecting Free Speech, Condemns TikTok’s ‘Censorship Spree’ Under Pro-Israel Owners

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (1/27/26) commended the news social media platform UpScrolled “for pledging to protect the free flow of ideas on its platform, including both support for and opposition to the Israeli government’s human rights abuses.”

In an interview with FAIR, EFF senior counsel David Greene said there are several problems at play. One is that

there’s still a great deal of concentration in the direct-publishing social media space, so any decision that gets made by Meta or YouTube or TikTok is going to affect a ton of people who use their services to get their information.

But there is also tremendous pressure by the government to keep immigration enforcement, and all the expanded policing around mass deportations, in the shadows by keeping agents’ identities anonymous. “That’s a really, really troubling thing,” he said.

Greene also stressed that “if Meta or TikTok are doing this just to curry favor with the administration, or because they ideologically agree with it, that’s not illegal; they have a First Amendment right to curate their sites.”

Illegal, no, but still a critical problem. We aren’t looking at a totalitarian form of speech control, where the state and ruling party directly control various forms of media. Rather, we have a clan of oligarchs aligning themselves with authoritarian government goals because they benefit from being close to the regime.

While many activists have shown dismay at these developments, others have said the challenges inspire hope. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (1/27/26) said in a statement that “young people censored on TikTok have no intention of giving up their activism,” as they have “have repeatedly shown that they will not allow politicians, corporations or colleges to censor their speech.”

FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.

Original article by Ari Paul republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn't bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.

Continue ReadingSocial Media Working to Protect ICE Clampdown in Minneapolis

Gooning For Apartheid: How Israel Uses Sex to Whitewash Genocide

Spread the love

Original article by Alan Macleod republished from MPN under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

Amid an ongoing assault on its neighbors, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is attempting to improve its image by posting highly sexually suggestive content featuring its soldiers, changing the prevailing emotion of onlookers from outrage to lust.

A wide range of IDF thirst trap accounts—many with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of followers—proliferate on social media. These accounts are quietly sanctioned by the Israeli government, in an attempt, in its own words, to “appeal” to a young male demographic.

MintPress News explores the phenomenon of Israel using sex to whitewash its actions.

Babes Carrying Out Massacres

Since the October 7, 2023, attacks, virtually every user on social media has been exposed to images of Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure. But a large subsection of the internet—particularly young males—also see another side of the Israeli military. A myriad of IDF thirst trap accounts also pepper the internet. Pages like “IDF Babes,” “Hot IDF Girls,” and “Girls Defense,”—each with hundreds of thousands of followers across different platforms—post content sexualizing and lionizing female Israeli soldiers in equal measures.

The images and videos often come with explicit political messages. This weekend, for example, IDF babes posted a picture of an IDF soldier in nothing but a bikini, with the caption, “Corporal Dina stumbled across a Syrian T-34/85 tank in our Golan Heights,” thereby explicitly claiming the Golan Heights—Syrian territory illegally occupied since 1968—as Israeli.

Another common template for posting is the “on/off” format, featuring two pictures of the same woman, side by side: one in a combat uniform and another wearing little or nothing.

IDF

Some Israeli soldiers have their own thirst trap accounts. The best-known of these is Natalia Fadeev, a military police reservist also known as Gun Waifu. Posting highly sexually suggestive content alongside passionate defenses of Israel, Fadeev is the undisputed queen of Israeli military social media, racking up millions of followers across social media. (This included 2.7 million on TikTok alone, before her account was suspended).

Her content mixes open hostility for Muslims with not-so-subtle denial of Israeli atrocities. “Get in loser, we’re going to capture some Mohammads!” reads one caption. Another asks her young male audience, “Look me in the eyes, do you really think I could commit war crimes?”

Horny For The Dead

The practice of publishing images of scantily clad female Israeli soldiers is not limited to thirst trap accounts. Established media regularly do the same, even when announcing the deaths of said women. In July, pro-Israel journalist Mazelit Airaksinen wrote a memorial for an Israeli woman killed on October 7. “Karin Vernikov had just finished her time in the IDF and had just got home from a horse riding trip to South Africa, when Hamas attacked on October 7. She was only 22,” she wrote, adding words from her mother: “My little girl won’t come back, I can’t hug you. How can I go on, how can I breathe without you?”

The image Airaksinen used to illustrate the deceased Vernikov, however, was so inappropriately suggestive that it caused the note to go viral. In the photo, Vernikov is wearing extremely tight-fitting orange yoga pants and looking over her back, down at the photographer, exposing her rear to the camera. “Using her ass cheeks to get sympathy is a new low,” replied one user. “What is with this soft core porn obituary like what even is this?” read another top-rated reply.

Airaksinen is far from the only journalistic source to use images more appropriate for an OnlyFans account in their obituaries, however. The Times of Israel illustrated their article on the killing of Romi Eliyahu Bernat with a highly suggestive back shot. And for the obituary of Liraz Nisan, who died while fleeing the Supernova Music Festival, they chose a picture of the 20-year-old wearing only a bra.

This sort of posting is evidently state-endorsed, as the government of Israel regularly partakes in it itself. A prominent case in point is that of Shani Louk, another young Israeli woman killed on October 7, 2023. Israel has posted multiple suggestive images of Louk on its official Instagram page, even as it announced her death. It has also commented on the looks of other Israeli women killed in the violence.

https://iframely.net/p7xfubC?theme=dark&v=1&app=1

Moreover, the idea to post thirst traps and to explicitly present IDF women as a sexualized force was a creation of the Israeli government itself. In 2017, it initiated a public relations campaign to enhance the country’s image within the United States. It began looking for U.S. partners to distribute semi-pornographic photos of its soldiers. The result was a series of collaborations with men’s magazine Maxim, with the headlines: “Meet the Sexy Israeli Army Soldier Who’s Got the Internet All Fired Up,” “Check Out the Smoking Hot Instagram of This Israeli Army Girl Turned Swimsuit Model,” “Behold, 12 More Smoldering Soldiers From the ‘Hot Israeli Army Girls’ Instagram Account,” and, “Gal Gadot, Bar Refaeli and 14 More Smoldering-Hot Israeli Women.”

Explaining the rationale behind the campaign, David Dorfman, a media adviser with the Israeli Consulate of the United States, told the BBC: “Males that age have no feeling toward Israel one way or another, and we view that as a problem, so we came up with an idea that would be appealing to them.”

Other attempts to improve the IDF’s image have included inviting American celebrities to spend time with all-female units. In 2017, comedian Conan O’Brien traveled to Israel and filmed a segment where he trained with female IDF soldiers. Two years later, actress and singer Hailee Steinfeld also went there on a state-funded PR trip.

Birthright as Sex Tourism

Under Israeli law, all Jews have the right to an Israeli passport and to move to Israel. To encourage this process, the government provides free trips to Israel costing thousands of dollars each to all diaspora Jews (once they have been screened for pro-Palestine views). Nearly one million young people have gone on these Birthright trips.

On these trips, sex between local (Jews) and visitors is, according to staffers, actively “encouraged.” Birthright organizers facilitate what they call “hormonal encounters” by employing good-looking IDF soldiers to accompany the groups wherever they go. These soldiers understand their role very well. Many groups do not stay in hotels, but together in Bedouin-style tents, “a setup conducive to first kisses,” one report notes. Many visitors report feeling pressured into fornication on what is commonly described as a free, ten-day “sex vacation.”

For the government, the utility of all this is clear. It has calculated that impressionable teens who lose their virginity in Israel are much more likely to develop a deeper, emotional connection to the State of Israel. Birthright alumni move to Israel in greater numbers than those who did not receive a free trip, and are 160% more likely to marry a Jewish spouse. This helps alleviate the country’s demographic problem, i.e., building a Jewish supremacist state in a region where they are still a minority. To that end, then, Birthright employs open-minded individuals whose services allow the job to be done.

Between these hormonal encounters, visitors are shown a sanitized history of the country, brought to key buildings and monuments, and often have the chance to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has pledged over $100 million in government funding to support the project.

War Crimes as Dating App Profile Pics

Another way in which Israeli soldiers have associated military life with sex is in their dating profiles. Images of soldiers serving in Gaza proliferate on Israeli dating apps. One estimate suggests that over one-third of all profiles feature men and women in IDF uniforms.

The pictures on these profiles range from smiling faces in uniforms, brandishing weapons, to soldiers displaying stolen Palestinian property, posing in bombed-out buildings, reveling in the destruction of Gaza, and even some in which individuals openly desecrate mosques.

While this phenomenon has shocked many international onlookers, in the Israeli dating market, soldiers are hot commodities. “I feel that girls are throwing themselves at me since I started my reserve duty,” one reservist told Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. “After I uploaded photos of myself in uniform, girls seemed more attracted and interested in me… I feel that a photo in my uniform is like standing next to a Ferrari. It’s a status symbol,” he added.

Israel is not the only country attempting to shore up support for its military by sanctioning the posting of thirst traps; the United States does it, too. Yet it has strongly and very publicly leaned into this portrayal of itself, in a way that the U.S. Army has not.

Realizing that Western support is crucial for its project of colonization, the Israeli government oversees an enormous public relations operation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ PR budget has increased by over 2,000%, now standing at $150 million. Part of this goes towards targeting young people, with campaigns to sexualize its soldiers.

It is far from clear, however, how effective this campaign is. Only nine percent of Americans aged under 35 years old approve of Israel’s actions in Gaza, compared to 49% of those 55 and older. This aversion to Israel extends to young American Jews, a plurality of whom believed that, even before October 7, 2023, it was an Apartheid state. This massive disparity in opinion can be partially explained by the different media the generations consume. Older Americans, still reliant on newspapers and cable news, continue to support Israel. Younger generations, exposed to a wider variety of viewpoints on social media, however, have abandoned Israel. As Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the pro-Israel group, the Anti-Defamation League, explained, “we have a major TikTok problem.” It was this perceived anti-Israel bias that, in March, led American lawmakers to ban the platform.

Israel and its supporters have been forced into creative methods to defend their actions and change the subject. One method has been to push highly sexualized images of its military into the social media feeds of young men worldwide. Yet these thirst traps have not managed to stem the tide of negative sentiment towards Israel and its policies in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. Despite Israel’s best efforts to do so, it turns out that you can’t whitewash a genocide with cum.

Feature photo | Illustration by MintPress News

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams. Follow Alan on Twitter for more of his work and commentary: @AlanRMacLeod.

Continue ReadingGooning For Apartheid: How Israel Uses Sex to Whitewash Genocide

Islamophobic posts about Sadiq Khan more than double in a year, analysis shows

Spread the love

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/25/sadiq-khan-islamophobic-abuse-doubles

New analysis reveals a sharp rise in Islamophobic messages targeting the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, with nearly 28,000 posts last year. Photograph: Steve Taylor/SOPA Images/REX/Shutterstock

Most Islamophobic content referring to London mayor, a prominent voice against online abuse, was on X

The number of Islamophobic posts aimed at Sadiq Khan has more than doubled in a year, according to fresh analysis that suggests the London mayor remains a lightning rod for racist abuse.

Almost 28,000 social media posts referring to Khan included a key Islamophobic phrase last year, a huge increase on the 12,000 sent a year earlier and a more than eight-fold increase from 2022, according to the analysis commissioned by the Greater London authority (GLA).

This year, Khan has already been mentioned alongside Islamophobic keywords 2,180 times. The vast majority of abuse was posted on X, with a record number of posts referring to Khan posted from the UK in the past year. The research found that 89% of the offending Islamophobic posts about Khan since 2015 had originated on the platform.

Khan has been one of the most prominent voices speaking about online abuse, warning that the west must now face up to a “century-defining challenge” after a resurgence of the far right. He has criticised X’s owner, Elon Musk, whom he blames for making the problem of online abuse far worse. Under Musk, the accounts of far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson have been reinstated.

Article continues at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/25/sadiq-khan-islamophobic-abuse-doubles



Continue ReadingIslamophobic posts about Sadiq Khan more than double in a year, analysis shows

Big Tech’s complicity in genocide: The unforgivable silence of online platforms

Spread the love

Original article by Ziyad Motala republished from Middle East Monitor under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

A view of Google Headquarters in Mountain View, California, United States on March 23, 2024 [Tayfun Coşkun – Anadolu Agency]

A damning report, “Palestinian Digital Rights, Genocide, and Big Tech Accountability”, by 7amleh, a Palestinian-led non-profit organisation that is focused on protecting the human rights of Palestinians, has laid bare the disturbing and active role that major online platforms and big tech companies play in perpetuating human rights abuses against Palestinians. While the world watches the horrors unfold in Gaza, the role of these digital accomplices cannot be ignored. The report highlights that platforms like Meta, X, YouTube and tech giants Google and Amazon have enabled, facilitated and even profited from these atrocities, effectively shielding war crimes under a digital smokescreen.

The findings are a harrowing indictment of how big tech companies, under the guise of neutrality, have become active participants in censorship, disinformation and incitement to violence. They have provided crucial infrastructure that underpins Israel’s military actions, allowing their platforms to be weaponised, silencing Palestinian voices while amplifying hate speech and calls for genocide. The complicity of these platforms is not a mere oversight; it is an entrenched system of deliberate decision-making that prioritises profits over human rights.

Systematic censorship of Palestinian voices

At the heart of the report’s findings is a shocking pattern of systematic censorship targeting Palestinian voices. Between October 2023 and July 2024, over 1,350 instances of censorship were documented on major platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok. These platforms disproportionately targeted Palestinian journalists, activists and human rights defenders, with Meta’s platforms being among the worst offenders. The censorship took many forms: accounts were suspended, content takedowns became routine and distribution of pro-Palestinian narratives was heavily restricted.

READ: Israel accused of using Google ads to undermine UN body

Meta’s manipulative algorithm changes played a key role in this censorship. The report reveals that during the ongoing war in Gaza, Meta altered its content moderation policies to lower the threshold for flagging Palestinian content, reducing the accuracy of its filters and triggering unnecessary takedowns. For Palestinian content, Meta’s filters operated with a mere 25 per cent certainty of a violation, compared to the usual 80 per cent applied elsewhere. These so-called “temporary risk response measures” were never lifted, allowing for an outsized level of scrutiny on Palestinian content creators. This is not an isolated incident – it’s a calculated, discriminatory policy that silences marginalised voices and hinders the free flow of information at a time when it’s needed the most.

As 7amleh’s report highlights, Meta’s broken promises to safeguard free speech, coupled with its biased content moderation, exacerbated the situation for Palestinians. Human Rights Watch had already condemned Meta for its systemic censorship of Palestinian voices during the war, with over 1,050 instances of content removal on Facebook and Instagram. In nearly all cases, this censorship targeted peaceful, pro-Palestinian content while allowing violent, anti-Palestinian content to flourish unchecked. Comments like “Free Palestine”, “Stop the Genocide” and “Ceasefire Now” were removed under Meta’s spam guidelines, reflecting a dangerous double standard that stifles legitimate political discourse.

Platforms as instruments of genocide

The report makes clear that online platforms are not simply neutral forums but have become instruments of incitement to genocide. Between October 2023 and July 2024, over 3,300 instances of harmful content – including incitement to genocide – were documented, the majority on X and Facebook. These platforms allowed high-level Israeli officials and other users to openly call for the extermination of Palestinians, dehumanising them as “sub-humans”, “animals” and worse. This genocidal rhetoric wasn’t limited to obscure corners of the internet. It was promoted, amplified and left unchallenged by the very platforms that claim to be committed to community standards and human rights.

For instance, on X, a December 2023 post by the deputy mayor of Jerusalem described blindfolded Palestinian detainees as “ants” and called for burying them alive. Although this specific post was eventually removed, countless others like it remain, fuelling a climate of violence and dehumanisation against Palestinians. This failure to combat hate speech directly contravenes international law, particularly in light of the International Court of Justice’s January 2024 order, which directed Israel to prevent and punish incitement to genocide.

These platforms are not just failing in their duty to protect free speech; they are actively facilitating the spread of genocidal propaganda. In the case of Meta, the report details how over 9,500 takedown requests from the Israeli government were sent to Meta between October and November 2023, with a shocking 94 per cent compliance rate. This high level of cooperation with a state actively committing war crimes raises serious concerns about the ethical boundaries of these companies. Meta’s decision to comply with such requests without transparency or accountability reveals a deeper issue: these platforms are willing to become tools of state oppression when the price is right.

READ: Israel using Meta’s WhatsApp to kill Palestinians in Gaza through AI system

The role of Big Tech: Project Nimbus and the automation of killing

Beyond the sphere of social media, Google and Amazon’s collaboration with the Israeli military under Project Nimbus casts an even darker shadow over the tech industry’s role in this conflict. The $1.2 billion cloud computing contract, as the report highlights, provides critical infrastructure to power Israel’s AI-driven Lavender and Gospel targeting systems – systems that are directly linked to the mass civilian casualties in Gaza.

The Lavender system, in particular, functions as a tool for automated killings, identifying targets based on massive data inputs and feeding them into the Israeli military’s bombing campaigns. The report describes how Lavender alone identified over 37,000 potential targets, contributing to the deaths of thousands of civilians, including women and children. By providing cloud services to facilitate this mass-scale targeting, Google and Amazon are directly implicated in these violations of international law. Despite mounting global pressure, both companies continue to support Israel’s military operations under Project Nimbus, even as the civilian death toll in Gaza rises.

Hate speech and disinformation: A coordinated assault on truth

The report goes on to document a deluge of hate speech and disinformation campaigns, often spearheaded by Israeli officials and amplified by online platforms. These campaigns, which include the systematic dissemination of dehumanising content on Telegram, X and YouTube, have targeted Palestinians both inside Gaza and across the diaspora. The report cites three million instances of violent content in Hebrew aimed at Palestinians on X alone, much of it coordinated by Israeli state actors.

Perhaps most troubling is the Israeli government’s influence operation known as STOIC, which ran a disinformation campaign targeting US and Canadian lawmakers to undermine the work of The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This campaign, orchestrated with the help of AI, spread false narratives that led to the defunding of UNRWA, cutting off critical humanitarian aid to Palestinians. This is not merely a failure of moderation but an example of how platforms can be weaponised for state-driven disinformation, with devastating consequences for innocent civilians.

Profiting from genocide: Advertising amidst war crimes

As if censorship and disinformation weren’t enough, the report also exposes how platforms like Facebook have profited from harmful advertisements promoting violence against Palestinians. The investigation found that Facebook ran ads calling for the assassination of pro-Palestinian activists and the forced expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. Meta profited from these campaigns, further entrenching its complicity in the human rights violations unfolding in Gaza.

READ: Google, Amazon workers protest billion-dollar contract with Israel

Meanwhile, YouTube ran ads from the Israeli government that used graphic imagery to sway public opinion in favour of its military actions in Gaza. Despite YouTube’s policies against violent content, these ads flooded social media with incendiary narratives, particularly in Europe and the US, contributing to the normalisation of war crimes under the guise of counter-terrorism.

Time for accountability

The findings of this report should compel the international community to act. It is no longer acceptable for tech companies to hide behind vague policies and empty commitments to free speech while facilitating the mass killing and silencing of a besieged population. The complicity of Meta, X, YouTube, Google and Amazon in these atrocities must be brought into the spotlight and held accountable for their role in enabling these crimes.

These platforms are not neutral arbiters of truth – they are corporations driven by profit, willing to accommodate genocidal regimes and turn a blind eye to the suffering of millions if it serves their bottom line. As the report makes clear, it is time for the world to demand that these companies stop profiting from the destruction of Palestinian lives. The silence and complicity of big tech are unforgivable, and they must not be allowed to escape responsibility any longer.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Original article by Ziyad Motala republished from Middle East Monitor under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Continue ReadingBig Tech’s complicity in genocide: The unforgivable silence of online platforms

Murdoch to Musk: how global media power has shifted from the moguls to the big tech bros

Spread the love
The Conversation, Mary Altaffer/AAP, Frederic Legrand/Shutterstock

Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne

Until recently, Elon Musk was just a wildly successful electric car tycoon and space pioneer. Sure, he was erratic and outspoken, but his global influence was contained and seemingly under control.

But add the ownership of just one media platform, in the form of Twitter – now X – and the maverick has become a mogul, and the baton of the world’s biggest media bully has passed to a new player.

What we can gauge from watching Musk’s stewardship of X is that he’s unlike former media moguls, making him potentially even more dangerous. He operates under his own rules, often beyond the reach of regulators. He has demonstrated he has no regard for those who try to rein him in.

Under the old regime, press barons, from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch, at least pretended they were committed to truth-telling journalism. Never mind that they were simultaneously deploying intimidation and bullying to achieve their commercial and political ends.

Musk has no need, or desire, for such pretence because he’s not required to cloak anything he says in even a wafer-thin veil of journalism. Instead, his driving rationale is free speech, which is often code for don’t dare get in my way.

This means we are in new territory, but it doesn’t mean what went before it is irrelevant.

A big bucket of the proverbial

If you want a comprehensive, up-to-date primer on the behaviour of media moguls over the past century-plus, Eric Beecher has just provided it in his book The Men Who Killed the News.

Alongside accounts of people like Hearst in the United States and Lord Northcliffe in the United Kingdom, Beecher quotes the notorious example of what happened to John Major, the UK prime minister between 1990 and 1997, who baulked at following Murdoch’s resistance to strengthening ties with the European Union.

In a conversation between Major and Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of Murdoch’s best-selling English tabloid newspaper, The Sun, the prime minister was bluntly told: “Well John, let me put it this way. I’ve got a large bucket of shit lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I’m going to pour it all over your head.”

MacKenzie might have thought he was speaking truth to power, but in reality he was doing Murdoch’s bidding, and actually using his master’s voice, as Beecher confirms by recounting an anecdote from early in Murdoch’s career in Australia.

In the 1960s, when Murdoch owned The Sunday Times in Perth, he met Lang Hancock (father of Gina Rinehart) to discuss potentially buying some mineral prospects together in Western Australia. The state government was opposed to the planned deal.

Beecher cites Hancock’s biographer, Robert Duffield, who claimed Murdoch asked the mining magnate, “If I can get a certain politician to negotiate, will you sell me a piece of the cake?” Hancock said yes. Later that night, Murdoch called again to say the deal had been done. How, asked an incredulous Hancock. Murdoch replied: “Simple […] I told him: look you can have a headline a day or a bucket of shit every day. What’s it to be?”

Between Murdoch in the 1960s and MacKenzie in the 1990s came Mario Puzo’s The Godfather with Don Corleone, aided by Luca Brasi holding a gun to a rival’s head, saying “either his brains or his signature would be on the contract”.

Former British Prime Minister John Major fell foul of Rupert Murdoch – and paid the price. Lynne Sladky/AP/AAP

Changing the rules of the game

Media moguls use metaphorical bullets. Those relatively few people who do resist them, like Major, get the proverbial poured over their government. Headlines in The Sun following the Conservatives’ win in the 1992 election included: “Pigmy PM”, “Not up to the job” and “1,001 reasons why you are such a plonker John”.

If media moguls since Hearst and Northcliffe have tap-danced between producing journalism and pursuing their commercial and political aims, they have at least done the former, and some of it has been very good.

The leaders of the social media behemoths, by contrast, don’t claim any fourth estate role. If anything, they seem to hold journalism with tongs as far from their face as possible.

They do possess enormous wealth though. Apple, Microsoft, Google and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, are in the top ten companies globally by market capitalisation. By comparison, News Corporation’s market capitalisation now ranks at 1,173 in the world.

Regulating the online environment may be difficult, as Australia discovered this year when it tried, and failed, to stop X hosting footage of the Wakeley Church stabbing attacks. But limiting transnational media platforms can be done, according to Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton’s government.

Despite some early wins through Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, big tech companies habitually resist regulation. They have used their substantial influence to stymie it wherever and whenever nation-states have sought to introduce it.

Meta’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has been known to go rogue, as he demonstrated in February 2021 when he protested against the bargaining code by unilaterally closing Facebook sites that carried news. Generally, though, his strategy has been to deploy standard public relations and lobbying methods.

But his rival Musk uses his social media platform, X, like a wrecking ball.

Musk is just about the first thing the average X user sees in their feed, whether they want to or not. He gives everyone the benefit of his thoughts, not to mention his thought bubbles. He proclaims himself a free-speech absolutist, but most of his pronouncements lean hard to the right, providing little space for alternative views.

Some of his tweets have been inflammatory, such as him linking to an article promoting a conspiracy theory about the savage attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of the former US Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, or his tweet that “Civil war is inevitable” following riots that erupted recently in the UK.

As the BBC reported, the riots occurred after the fatal stabbing of three girls in Southport. “The subsequent unrest in towns and cities across England and in parts of Northern Ireland has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment.”

Nor does Musk bother with niceties when people disagree with him. Late last year, advertisers considered boycotting X because they believed some of Musk’s posts were anti-Semitic. He told them during a live interview to “Go fuck yourself”.

He has welcomed Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, back onto X after Trump’s account was frozen over his comments surrounding the January 6 2021 attack on the capitol. Since then both men have floated the idea of governing together if Trump wins a second term.

Is the world better off with tech bros like Musk who demand unlimited freedom and assert their influence brazenly, or old-style media moguls who spin fine-sounding rhetoric about freedom of the press and exert influence under the cover of journalism?

That’s a question for our times that we should probably begin grappling with.

Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingMurdoch to Musk: how global media power has shifted from the moguls to the big tech bros