The problem is that, while young people have been more pro-Palestine for a long time, historically a much smaller percentage were immersing themselves for hours a day in increasingly sensationalist, often misleading pro-Palestinian content; there historically was far less of an incentive to produce or disseminate it. So we quickly go from “pro-Palestine” to “pro-Hamas” to “pro-Osama Bin Laden” to “holocaust denial”.

This isn’t exclusively a TikTok problem, or an Israel/Palestine problem, or a young people problem, or a left/right problem. Algorithmic suggestions are extremism generating machines.

Israel is bombing and murdering thousands of Palestinians. That is why people are supporting them, not an algorithm "problem".

Why do teenagers care about this particular tragedy and not Syria or any of the horrors in Africa? Surely it can’t be the scale of killing since there are far worse civilian death tolls in conflicts around the world.

Probably because their president isn't on tv endorsing those horrors, funding them with their tax dollars and in general having their mainstream media champion them.

To take another brutal war affecting civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saud... sure sounds like it had the endorsement of two US Presidents both from ends of the political spectrum, and it was a money sink for over $50bn in US tax dollars in 6 years (see https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105988).

I'm not sure if those teens even know how to spell Yemen.

I take that you care deeply about the civilian toll in Yemen, and aren’t just bringing it up to cynically deflect away from them main discussion here then.

Even if we take what you’re saying at face value, the notion that you can’t speak out about something that is wrong because there are other things that are also bad is preposterous.

We are talking about teens here, you basically chastising children for not taking to the streets when they were 10 years old, when the Yemen conflict started.

I totally hear you and think it's messed up too, but I'm not sure this line of argument makes sense.

First, it's factually inapposite, because we don't have a bunch of disproportionately pro-Saudi American companies and billionaires trying to intimidate people speaking in favor of Yemeni civilians, considering ad blitzes to gaslight and obfuscate the issues, etc. We don't have a significant pro-Saudi bias in the media such that it views the conflict there as worthy of constant reporting and also as a relatively black-and-white struggle where Yemeni civilians either are getting what they deserve or are merely unfortunate collateral damage for justifiable military actions. We don't have a strong contingency of people in this country trying to act like speaking out against the killing of Yemeni civilians is being "pro-terrorist".

Second, it's logically inane to say that someone's criticism of something is invalid because they didn't speak out or criticize some other thing that they most likely don't even know about.

What if that criticism isn't actually because of the conflict, but because of prejudices against one of the parties? There are strong anti-Islam and anti-Jewish forces at play. That sort of racism generally invalidates an argument.

So you believe that there is no valid basis to criticize Israel's actions here, and that anyone who is critical thereof must certainly be acting out of bigotry and you won't hear otherwise?

And nothing I pointed out about how differently the war in Yemen is situated in the Western consciousness (i.e. basically not at all) versus this one matters?

There are all manner of reasons to criticize Israel’s actions.

I believe that most American teens opinions on this matter are influenced by either anti-Islam or anti-Jewish messaging they read through social media, and not a genuine interest in the conflict.

I have no doubt that anti-Muslim/Arab and anti-Jewish sentiment influence a lot of peoples' views, but you seem to be taking the view in this thread that it's appropriate to assume that's the case the first time you hear of anyone's views, to speculate it's the case that "most" American teens are influenced by those lines of thinking for some reason.

> it's logically inane to say that someone's criticism of something is invalid because they didn't speak out or criticize some other thing that they most likely don't even know about.

I'm not saying the criticism of Hamas and/or Israel is invalid, I just found it worth pointing out that there are conflicts that teens somehow can make up their mind on (that's TikTok's claim, not mine) and strong enough that they take to the streets for that, while they likely haven't heard of other somewhat comparable conflicts (support by "their government", civilians dying, half the world away, ...) at all.

Maybe it's just the general media circus (Yemen _isn't_ very present in the media, after all), but "algorithm" or not, I'm considering TikTok part of that media circus.

As such, "the kids are just voicing their opinion" seems a rather shallow excuse to me: They pick up what gets amplified. Having no idea about Yemen but strong opinions on "who's the baddie" in Gaza (since folks like to talk colonialism: it's clearly the UK) doesn't sound like an independently formed opinion at all, and so I'm not willing to let TikTok (et al) off the hook.

Syria is an old conflict and nothing has changed in many years. This particular tragedy has been stewing for a long time, and recently exploded. So, right now, the reaction is fairly well proportional to the rate of change.

It's also one where the US government and military has been itself in opposition to Assad's forces. What then would be accomplished by rallying over it?

People tend to get up in arms and out in the streets when their concerns aren't being addressed. They tend to be a lot quieter, even if they have major concerns, if they are. Sort of the concept behind "silent majority."

“Care” about a tragedy is entirely meaningless. Protest of your government’s policies to perpetuate a tragedy is slightly more meaningful. Not by much, granted. But slightly more.

Never saw a single protest when Obama was dropping a bomb every 20 seconds in 2016. I guess the noble peace prize made it okay.

are you suggesting there has been a year in US history devoid of protests -- or that people were unanimously happy with Obama and every one of his strategies?

neither are true.

There were definitely Syria war protests here in Seattle, 10 years ago. Substantial enough for ~1k people or so to block 2nd Ave

“I don’t think people should care about government funded genocide now, after all they didn’t care before” isn’t really the dunk you think it is.

How many civilians died in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan? Where were the protests? Israeli leadership is seen as right wing. If they were seen as left no one would even blink an eye. Obama was wholesale slaughtering people in 7 countries.

What’s your point?

Is there something specific about Israel/Palestine that isn’t present in those other conflicts? Something about the religion of one of the belligerents, perhaps?

Again, what’s your point? Don’t beat around the bush. Make a claim and provide a rational argument to support it. If you aren’t willing/able to do that, there’s no point debating you.

> How many civilians died in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan? Where were the protests?

There definitely fucking were protests against the Iraq war o_O

Really, for all of the examples you provided, the situation is either that a) our government wasn't among the bad actors or allied therewith (e.g. Syria--do you want people to protest ISIS or the Asad regime or something? What would be the point?); b) there were protests, and there was criticism, and there was condemnation, and you seem to be ignorant of them so you assume nobody else cared either

How dare these teenagers not protest against war 7 years ago!

Sure they care now, but where were they when they were 8???

Probably because it’s received far more widespread coverage since Israel - a wealthy, prominent country - is involved.

at least because one is one is cared more about by the media than the other. The Syrian stuff has always been a "side story" even though it's been terrible and ongoing for some time.

The Syrian stuff really started during a different media era.

Why did people care more about Ukraine than Iraq? Who cares?

Tiktok has a very real algorithm problem that pushes terrorism & antisemitism to millions of people. They have started to crack down since the Osama thing, but prior to that tiktok refused to remove hate and calls for violence from their platform.

#freepalestine and #standwithpalestine (as mentioned in the article) are not terrorism or anti-semitism.

Sure, and if you read what I wrote carefully, I didn’t say anything about the algorithm having anything to do with why young people are pro-Palestine.

Ww2 Japan was bombed by the United States and thousands died after they launched a surprise attack which killed thousands of Americans including hundreds of civilians.

Palestine launched a surprise attack killing thousands and now they face the same thing.

A lot happened before those two bombs were dropped, so how would you articulate your stance about those I wonder? Axis and Allies were bombing each other all over the place. Plenty of cities (in Japan, since you hyper focused on the nuclear bombs) were devastated and wrought with bombings before.

The US didn't bomb Japan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, but to accomplish a military objective. Also, past errors, to the extent there were any, are not valid reasons for current ones - otherwise we'd quickly have no laws or morality at all.

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which is taken very seriously by militaries, requires distinguishing between military and civilian people and assets, only pursuing military targets and objectives, and when civilians will be harmed, requires that it be in proportion to the military benefit.

Here are a couple of links. The first is the authoritative International Committee of the Red Cross's very usable LOAC page, and the second is the application of it to the Gaza war by leading experts:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1

https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-ar...

Do you have any data to back up that assertion? As a teenager of the 90s, we were not all that globally conscious.

As a teenager of the 80s, we were conscious of apartheid in South Africa and the boycotts thereof, and of the starvation in Ethiopia ("We Are The World").

I remember reading the newspaper about the Shining Path in Peru, and about the Iran-Iraq War.

The Falkland Islands War was a big one. The school librarian had a map open showing where the British Navy was on their way down.

Right! Glasnot, and perestroika in Russia, and the Solidarity movement in Poland. And the German teen who flew into Moscow and landed on Red Square.

Ferdinand Marcos going into exile, and his wife's bajillion shoes.

Tienanmen Square.

Oh, and of course the fall of the Berlin Wall back in 1989.

Israel has had a larger prominence in the US mind because of it being the Holy Land. I know people who went there to see where Jesus lived, for example. We also had some teens from a kibbutz visit our high school and talk about their life.

In addition to the newspaper, and the TV news shows, my family subscribed to National Geographic, and well remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl , a refugee from the Soviet-Afghan war.

How much more global do you need?

Congratulations on your wonderfully diverse and globally conscious upbringing. I do not think it was representative of most Americans experience in recent history. I remember reports in the news after 9/11 that most American children surveyed were unable to locate Afghanistan on a map, with only 17% being able to find the country. Similar abysmal numbers for identifying Israel and Iraq. America was next to last, Sweden had the highest geographic literacy. Basic geographic literacy is key to understanding world events.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/geography...

Geography knowledge is a very different topic.

Most people in the 1980s couldn't have pointed to Ethiopia on a map, but they knew of the starving children there.

Most people in the 1980s couldn't have pointed to Afghanistan, but they knew Rambo went there in Rambo III, and that Reagan supported the "freedom fighters" there.

Most couldn't have pointed out South Africa on the map, but they knew who Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela were.

Why do you need to know where Palestine and Israel are on a world map in order to be aware of what's going on there?

> I do not think it was representative of most Americans experience in recent history.

Is your understanding of the global consciousness of the 1980s based solely on your perception of geographical knowledge of the era?

Do you really think modern geographical knowledge is significantly better?

Just an anecdote, but I was a teen in the 00s. I became aware of the conflict my freshman year of college and my impression was that while complicated, among my peers (even Jewish ones) the greater balance of sympathies laid with the Palestinians.

I believe you. But the problem is, young people are mistaken, what this attack is really about. Free Palestine is a myth, Hamas does not care about Palestine, they have not asked for a seperate state, but the destruction of Isreal. I do not advocate the brute beat down by Isreal either

I think things changed a lot after 9/11. At all the anti-war rallies it was common to hear "From Iraq to Palestine, Occupation is a Crime." Also, in the 90s, being globally aware was a LOT harder than even 10 years later, even if you set out to do so. These days, kids may well have played online games with folks in Palestine, or at least neighboring countries.

The world has changed a fair bit in the last 30 years.

Well, our brains don't exist in vats. A storm of information is flowing through our heads constantly. They're pro Palestine because of their exposure to that information, increasingly curated by these algorithms.

I think they're probably right, in that it's not just their algorithm that has had this impact. It's all the algorithms, their social circle, the propagandistic media that's not fed by an algorithm but designed the old fashioned way such as TV, and of course their faculty of reason which is often discounted when we talk about this sort of thing.