Debate over Gaza has increasingly shifted from mainstream media into online spaces. What was meant to democratise discussion has instead become a terrain shaped by abuse, intimidation, and growing attempts to silence dissenting voices.

If a battle is taking place in the marketplace of ideas, it’s locus has shifted from opinion articles in newspapers to online commentary at sites like this one and exchanges on social media platforms such as X and Facebook.

Emboldened by anonymity and the absence of editorial constraints, ideological warriors on social media frequently lack even the pretext of self-control: vitriol rules the day.

The purpose of so much hate on social media is to shut down debate, not to liberate it from gatekeepers in the media mainstream. Israel’s genocidal attacks in Gaza over the last two years perfectly illustrate both the opportunities and limitations of social media in the political domain.

There are three broad, if overlapping types of genocide supporters on X and Facebook.

1. The morons, trolls and bots who only trade in personal abuse.

They usually have no more than 50 followers and inevitably fight a losing battle with English grammar. This struggle with literacy is matched by overwhelming anger, extreme outrage and a total lack of impulse control.

These apologists cannot trade in civil discourse or evidence-based argument, preferring second-hand memes and vilification. Because they are ignorant about history and deeply insecure about their own beliefs, the thought of very different views being allowed in the public domain is utterly intolerable: they have a Stalinist mindset – even if they have no idea who Stalin was.

They keep posting in search of infelicities and in the desperate hope you will respond to their stupidities or repetitive, banal abuse. What drives them spare is non-engagement, so it is best to mute them when they become obsessively offensive but let them retain access your posts: they will soon start cooking. Easy to spot, they rarely use their actual name and often have multiple flags in their avatars: ignore.

2. The commissars who instinctively and reflexively defend the state of Israel without brain access to arguments or evidence.

Their anti-intellectualism means they have never read a book or a serious article on the subject. And they respond to contradictory evidence by closing their eyes, blocking their ears and hiding from reason. Their mouths, however, remain open – for advocacy, in this case for the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians who mistakenly believe they have property entitlements and a right to life in their own homeland.

Strong on victimhood, they remain fixed in the safety of the diaspora, have no intention of moving to Israel or allowing their sons and daughters to be conscripted into the IDF. Despite religious fantasies about ‘our land over there’, many have never even visited Israel let alone the occupied territories. They live in a hermetically-sealed self-reinforcing ideological bubble which is impervious to other points of view. What they call “research” and “education” on the subject amounts to nothing more than confirmation bias.

The gentiles in this group want the fully-funded junkets paid for by the Israel lobby to continue, to see if they can be duchessed around Jerusalem without noticing the apartheid wall or even seeing an Arab.

They can also be easily ignored, or if there is time, made fun of.

3. The pseudo-thinkers who rehash the arguments of imposters, Israel government hasbara, and state crimes apologists.

They claim that evidence of genocide is fake, or the crimes don’t fit the charges, it’s all Hamas propaganda or the casualty figures are just wrong. Loyalty to the state, in this instance a foreign one, trumps all other considerations.

For this group, antisemitism and blood libels explain almost everything, including ICC indictments of Netanyahu and Gallant, ICJ rulings, the reports of independent human rights groups such as AI, HRW and B’Tselem, states which recognise Palestine, NGOs such as MSF, aid workers and UN agencies.

However, their uncritical support for a foreign state is based on the evisceration of the region’s history, allowing them to see absurd binaries (Israel settlements – good, Hamas resistance – bad) where serious analysts see complexity and historical context. Many still believe that a “war” suddenly and inexplicably erupted on 7 October 2023 when Hamas broke out of its concentration camp. Prior to that date, everyone inside Gaza was happy and content with their lot.

To this group, anyone or any group opposing Israel’s illegal occupation of Arab lands is a “terrorist” and the IDF, as the “most moral army in the world”, never commits war crimes on the battlefield, just occasionally some regrettable mistakes resulting in collateral damage.

This third group are often litigious and since the Bondi massacre, have been working assiduously to force the Albanese government to criminalise pro-Palestinian speech and advocacy on the streets, in the media and at universities.

Long accustomed to pro-Israel narratives being largely unchallenged, many in this group have been shocked by the turn of public opinion against Israel over the last two years, especially by young Jews in the US. Much of this has occurred as people bypass mainstream media gatekeepers, uncovering alternative sources of information where a genocide was effectively live-streamed to them. As a result, Israel’s image around the world has taken a terrible hit.

Consequently, pro-Israel billionaires in the US have begun buying up TV news networks (CBS) and social media platforms (Elon Musk – X; Larry Ellison – TikTok) to “re-balance” the ideological equation in favour of Prime Minister Netanyahu. This extends from outright censorship of pro-Palestinian voices to manipulating social media algorithms into promoting a pro-Israel narrative.

The sudden emergence of UpScrolled, developed by a Palestinian Australian as an alternative to TikTok and Instagram, is a direct response to the agglomeration of social media platforms and search engines by pro-Zionist billionaires in the US.

The response of these new media barons is analogous to what university administrators in the US have done to pro-Palestinian students and faculty: the shutting down of voices they don’t like. They regard information and ideas as nothing more than commodities to be bought and sold in the market place. As people with the most money to spend, they can simply tilt the field to favour their views, just as Rupert Murdoch has done for decades with his media assets. And they are open and unapologetic about it.

Of the three groups they are the most deserving of engagement. However, for many of them, not changing their mind is a source of strength and a badge of honour. Remember this subject is about loyalty and commercial interests, not rationality or morality. Don’t expect to open up too many minds.

It is one thing to be concerned about algorithmic censorship in social media and the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a small billionaire class with interests very different to the rest of society. Biased search engine results and AI are already being recruited to Israel’s cause, as demanded by Mr Netanyahu.

However, it is even more chilling to think that, in the near future, an article like this one which discusses genocide conducted by one state against defenceless civilians may be in violation of recently-passed hate laws in Australia, resulting in censorship and sanctions. At that point, thought crimes will have moved from the pages of dystopian novels to our everyday lives.