A smartphone displays a folder of social media applications, including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, Snapchat, and YouTube. Photo: Samuel Boivin via Reuters Connect

Years ago, social media was celebrated as one of the greatest democratic innovations of the modern age. It promised to give ordinary people a voice, remove barriers to communication, and create opportunities for meaningful conversations across borders and cultures. Those ideals remain attractive. The reality, however, has become far more troubling.

For many Jews and supporters of Israel, today’s digital landscape increasingly feels less like a marketplace of ideas and more like an environment where hostility toward Jews is amplified, rewarded, and too often left unchecked.

Criticism of Israel is not the issue. Democracies invite criticism, and Israel’s own citizens engage in vigorous public debate every day. Like every democratic nation, Israel’s policies deserve scrutiny and discussion.

The concern arises when political criticism crosses into something fundamentally different. Increasingly, discussions about Israel include language that denies the country’s legitimacy, questions the humanity of its citizens, or assigns collective guilt to Jews around the world for actions taken by the Israeli government.

In many online spaces, the distinction between anti Zionism and antisemitism has become increasingly difficult to recognize. The term Zionist is frequently used in ways that appear less concerned with political ideology than with identifying Jews themselves. Calls for violence against Zionists, demands for Israel’s elimination, and celebrations of attacks against Israeli civilians circulate with alarming frequency.

If identical language were directed at virtually any other ethnic, national, or religious community, public condemnation would likely be immediate. Yet when Israel or Jews become the target, many observers hesitate to respond with the same clarity.

Major platforms including Facebook, X, and LinkedIn have become hosts to content that would have been shocking only a few years ago.

Posts glorifying terrorism, praising organizations responsible for murdering civilians, reviving centuries old antisemitic conspiracy theories, or comparing Jews to Nazis often reach enormous audiences. Some of this material is eventually removed. Much of it remains visible long enough to spread widely.

At the same time, many users who post factual information about terrorist attacks, defend Israel’s right to exist, or express solidarity with Israeli victims report experiencing suspensions, reduced visibility, coordinated harassment, or content restrictions.

Whether these outcomes result from inconsistent moderation, algorithmic failures, or policy decisions remains a subject of debate. Regardless of the explanation, the perception among many users is unmistakable. They believe that hostility toward Israel and Jews is treated with greater tolerance than comparable rhetoric directed at many other communities.

Perception matters because it shapes public trust.

Social media algorithms further complicate the problem. Platforms are designed to reward engagement, and outrage consistently generates attention. Emotional content spreads faster than careful analysis. Extreme claims outperform measured discussion. Falsehoods often travel further than verified information.

The result is an environment where inflammatory rhetoric receives the greatest visibility while thoughtful conversation struggles to compete.

Perhaps even more concerning is the way digital communication alters individual behavior.

Professionals, educators, journalists, and business leaders sometimes share slogans or conspiracy theories online that they would never express in person. The distance created by a screen appears to weaken social restraint and ethical judgment.

Societies that normalize hatred against one minority often find it easier to justify discrimination against others. The mechanisms that encourage prejudice today seldom remain limited to a single community.

Human rights lose credibility when they are applied selectively. Principles become meaningful only when they are defended consistently, regardless of who is targeted.

Social media companies face an extraordinarily difficult challenge. Moderating billions of posts while protecting free expression is neither simple nor perfect. Yet protecting open debate should never become an excuse for allowing incitement, glorification of terrorism, or dehumanization to flourish unchecked.

The digital public square should encourage disagreement without abandoning basic standards of human dignity. It should reward evidence over propaganda, facts over conspiracy theories, and dialogue over intimidation.

Jews deserve the same protection from hatred that every other minority rightly expects. Those are not controversial propositions. They are foundational principles of any society committed to equality and human rights.

If online platforms can no longer distinguish between legitimate political debate and rhetoric that promotes hatred, then the challenge extends far beyond Israel. It becomes a question about the values that shape our public discourse and the standards we are willing to defend.

The future of democratic conversation depends not only on freedom of expression but also on the willingness to confront hatred consistently, regardless of whom it targets.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.