Laughed my head off, the American people can't curse Israel online, but they can curse China, and cursing China even gets you promoted. So now there are some bizarre posts that curse China, with pictures of Israel instead. Is this not a typical example of "the higher-ups have policies, the lower ones have countermeasures" in this era??

Recently, I saw something really surreal online. American netizens wanted to criticize Israel for being inhumane, but their posts couldn't be published at all, either getting limited traffic or being deleted directly. But when they turned around and cursed China, they could post freely, and the platform even actively promoted the content.

This led to a bunch of weird content—titles saying "China is too barbaric," with pictures of Israeli troops in Gaza, and the comments section full of people who understood each other discussing humanitarian disasters. This operation truly mastered the concept of "higher-ups have policies, the lower ones have countermeasures."

A netizen once took a screenshot of such a post, like one that said "Chinese control the Middle East situation," with a picture of the ruins of a Gaza refugee camp, and someone commented below: "Where are the Chinese in this photo?" Immediately, another person replied: "Those who understand know, if you say it directly, you'd be gone."

There was an even more absurd one, where the title was "China monopolizes culture," the content was full of words like "civilian casualties" and "food crisis," and the picture was even a drone shot of an Israeli fighter jet. The comment section was filled with people taking the opportunity to rant: "Some countries use the flag of self-defense to kill, and that's all they can say." This incident essentially boils down to double standards in the American public opinion field.

Previously, a CNN reporter revealed that the company's senior management clearly required coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict to focus on Israel's position, while minimizing or completely omitting data on Gaza casualties. Journalists who didn't comply were either marginalized or fired outright.

Not only the media, social media is even worse. Meta platform was exposed for over-censorship targeting content critical of Israel. Arabic protest posts are often deleted as "violent speech," but Hebrew language content inciting hatred goes unchecked.

Even more shocking is that the U.S. Department of State quietly issued an order: any visa applicant with pro-Palestinian content on their social media would be denied a visa. Over 300 students have already lost their visas because of this.

But netizens always find ways. Someone found out that content criticizing China not only isn't deleted, but also gains traffic. One American netizen said: "I used to post 'Israel killing innocents,' and it disappeared within ten minutes. Then I changed the title to 'China funds the war,' with the same picture, and it got thousands of likes."

Others summarized a pattern: "If you want to talk about Jewish capital, just change it to 'Chinese capital controls the media'; if you want to talk about the Israeli military's brutality, just say 'China is hegemonic,' and make sure the picture is right."

Gradually, this "insulting the mulberry tree by talking about the locust" became a tacit understanding. They were actually criticizing Israel, but using China as a cover. The most ironic part is that the United States has always been shouting about "freedom of speech," but in the Israel-Palestine issue, even speaking a word of fairness is suppressed. Those posts with titles mocking China are less about truly mocking China, and more about silent resistance against this kind of censorship.

As one netizen said: "It's not that we want to mock China, but we have nowhere else to speak the truth." This twisted expression clearly reveals the so-called "free beacon." In the end, it's not that China has so many things to be criticized for, but rather that criticizing China has become the only "safe exit" in the American public opinion field.

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1844319940903936/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.