San Francisco State Prof Calls Out Twitch for Prohibiting Criticism of Zionism

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙬𝙣 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙪𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙕𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚, 𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

On Friday, November 15, the gamer streaming platform Twitch updated its “Hateful Conduct policy” to prohibit criticism of “Zionists” and “Zionism.”

“As part of our Hateful Conduct policy, we prohibit the use of terms that may not be harmful or abusive in isolation, but can be used as a slur or to denigrate others in certain contexts,” Twitch wrote in the blog post announcing the change.

“In line with that approach, starting today, using the term ‘Zionist’ to attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief is against our rules. We recognize that ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’ also refer to a political movement. Using the term to refer to the political movement, whether in a supportive or critical way, does not violate our Hateful Conduct policy. Our goal isn’t to stifle conversation about or criticism of an institution or ideology, but to prevent coded hate directed at individuals and groups of people.”

Twitch further illuminates the tenuous distinction it’s attempting to strike in its Community Guidelines:

𝘞𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘩𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘭𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴. 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱, 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 “𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴” 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘴. 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴, 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘏𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺. 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥.

𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘩𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦: 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵 [𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭].

𝘈𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦: 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴.

It would be pointless to attempt to enumerate, in painstaking detail, how problematic and even nonsensical these “guidelines” are (what does it mean to call for “violence” to a “political movement?”) Pointless, because the nonsensicality is precisely the point.

Through their vagueness, these guidelines signal to users that criticism of a settler-colonial, ethno-supremacist and genocidal project and ideology is a fraught affair that the company will proactively police.

The (not so) subtle takeaway?

Best to avoid supporting Palestine and opposing Israeli genocide on our platform.

The updated policy purports to respect the difference between political critiques and individual attacks while effectively foreclosing it.

The weaponization of identity vis-à-vis the false conflation of Zionism and Jewish identity is the preeminent tactic that apologists for Israeli settler-colonialism and genocide use to inhibit if not outright criminalize principled organizing, activism and advocacy for Palestinian rights, freedom, and liberation.

For pro-genocide forces, all denouncements of Zionism for the racist, settler-colonial ideology and movement that it represents constitute de facto antisemitism. Enshrining the possibility of slippage between advocacy for a liberation struggle and bigotry as so pronounced it warrants external corporate policing further normalizes the fictitious equivalence between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

Following on the heels of social media juggernaut Meta’s own Policy Forum Update regarding the use of “Zionist” as a potential “proxy,” Twitch’s actions reflect an alarming, growing trend of tech platforms willingly prohibiting anti-Zionism—and, ultimately, Palestine—from their digital spaces.

It’s not just the gesture alone: while not identical, the wording of Twitch’s updated policy hews closely to Meta’s, from the talking point of Zionist as “proxy” to the prohibition of comparison to animals (which Meta categorizes under “dehumanizing comparisons.”)

Some time ago, I wrote of Meta’s Policy Forum Update regarding anti-Zionist language as a tool of digital/settler-colonialism, a term I coined to capture the convergence between Big Tech hegemony and the Zionist settler-colonial project.

Twitch’s move shows how it is not merely asymmetrical content moderation that facilitates the digital elimination of Palestine from major tech platforms: as a growing number of corporate platforms enshrine the elimination of anti-colonial politics as a guiding principle for engagement, conduct policies, so-called “community standards,” or even more official “Terms of Service” are emerging as weapons of colonial erasure in their own right.

In ‘Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media’, Tarleton Gillespie argues that even as they strive to keep the process as opaque as possible, all platforms are defined by moderation: “Moderation is not an ancillary aspect of what platforms do. It is essential, constitutional, definitional. Not only can platforms not survive without moderation, they are not platforms without it” (21, emphasis mine.)

The mere fact of moderation is a prerequisite to a platform being a platform. And the way a platform moderates in turn defines its particular character. The public-facing guidelines under which platforms justify their moderation are therefore more than a series of ground rules, or an evasion of liability—they are, as Gillespie explains,

𝘥𝑖𝘴𝑐𝘶𝑟𝘴𝑖𝘷𝑒 𝑝𝘦𝑟𝘧𝑜𝘳𝑚𝘢𝑛𝘤𝑒𝘴… 𝑇𝘩𝑒 𝑝𝘳𝑖𝘮𝑎𝘳𝑦 𝑝𝘶𝑟𝘱𝑜𝘴𝑒 𝑜𝘧 𝘵ℎ𝘦 𝘤𝑜𝘮𝑚𝘶𝑛𝘪𝑡𝘺 𝘨𝑢𝘪𝑑𝘦𝑙𝘪𝑛𝘦𝑠 𝑖𝘴 𝘯𝑜𝘵 𝘢𝑟𝘣𝑖𝘵𝑟𝘢𝑡𝘪𝑜𝘯. 𝐼𝘯𝑠𝘵𝑒𝘢𝑑, 𝘵ℎ𝘦𝑦 𝑐𝘰𝑛𝘴𝑡𝘪𝑡𝘶𝑡𝘦 𝘢 𝘨𝑒𝘴𝑡𝘶𝑟𝘦: 𝑡𝘰 𝘶𝑠𝘦𝑟𝘴, 𝑡𝘩𝑎𝘵 𝘵ℎ𝘦 𝘱𝑙𝘢𝑡𝘧𝑜𝘳𝑚 𝑤𝘪𝑙𝘭 𝘩𝑜𝘯𝑜𝘳 𝘢𝑛𝘥 𝘱𝑟𝘰𝑡𝘦𝑐𝘵 𝘰𝑛𝘭𝑖𝘯𝑒 𝑠𝘱𝑒𝘦𝑐𝘩 𝘢𝑛𝘥 𝘢𝑡 𝑡𝘩𝑒 𝑠𝘢𝑚𝘦 𝘵𝑖𝘮𝑒 𝑠𝘩𝑖𝘦𝑙𝘥 𝘵ℎ𝘦𝑚 𝑓𝘳𝑜𝘮 𝘰𝑓𝘧𝑒𝘯𝑠𝘦 𝘢𝑛𝘥 𝘢𝑏𝘶𝑠𝘦; 𝑡𝘰 𝘢𝑑𝘷𝑒𝘳𝑡𝘪𝑠𝘦𝑟𝘴, 𝑡𝘩𝑎𝘵 𝘵ℎ𝘦 𝘱𝑙𝘢𝑡𝘧𝑜𝘳𝑚 𝑖𝘴 𝘢𝑛 𝑒𝘯𝑣𝘪𝑟𝘰𝑛𝘮𝑒𝘯𝑡 𝑓𝘳𝑖𝘦𝑛𝘥𝑙𝘺 𝘵𝑜 𝑡𝘩𝑒𝘪𝑟 𝑐𝘰𝑚𝘮𝑒𝘳𝑐𝘪𝑎𝘭 𝘢𝑝𝘱𝑒𝘢𝑙𝘴; 𝑎𝘯𝑑 𝑡𝘰 𝘭𝑎𝘸𝑚𝘢𝑘𝘦𝑟𝘴, 𝑡𝘰 𝘢𝑠𝘴𝑢𝘳𝑒 𝑡𝘩𝑒𝘮 𝘰𝑓 𝑡𝘩𝑒 𝑝𝘭𝑎𝘵𝑓𝘰𝑟𝘮’𝘴 𝘥𝑖𝘭𝑖𝘨𝑒𝘯𝑐𝘦, 𝑠𝘶𝑐𝘩 𝘵ℎ𝘢𝑡 𝑛𝘰 𝘧𝑢𝘳𝑡𝘩𝑒𝘳 𝘳𝑒𝘨𝑢𝘭𝑎𝘵𝑖𝘰𝑛 𝑖𝘴 𝘯𝑒𝘤𝑒𝘴𝑠𝘢𝑟𝘺. 𝑇𝘩𝑒𝘺 𝘢𝑟𝘵𝑖𝘤𝑢𝘭𝑎𝘵𝑒 𝑡𝘩𝑒 “𝘦𝑡𝘩𝑜𝘴” 𝑜𝘧 𝘵ℎ𝘦 𝘴𝑖𝘵𝑒. (47)

This is the crux of the issue.

It is not simply that Twitch, as Meta before it, is patently laying the groundwork for further erasure of Palestine on its platform. It is that, in a time of genocide, the company has engaged in a communicative performance that establishes Zionism as integral to its company ethos.

This move no doubt signals to pro-genocide users, sponsors, and politicians with varying material and ideological investments in Palestinian death that they have little to fear in the way of intentionally platformed opposition, as it also signals to Palestinians that yet more digital terrain has been proudly ceded to the settler-colonial project and ideology predicated upon their erasure and elimination.

This policy change not only presages repression—it emerges from it.

In October, Twitch banned a group of predominantly Arab streamers for one month after they hosted a TwitchCon dedicated to Arabic terms of endearment that also featured criticism of the boycott target Sabra hummus.

The bans followed outcry from Zionist Twitch users and the ADL. Kotaku reporter Alyssa Mercante described facing a wave of backlash following reporting on the ban, and speculated that mass reporting was being intentionally used to target pro-Palestine Twitch channels.

The New Arab reports that the ADL and Congressman Ritchie Torres pushed for the policy change and have aggressively vilified Twitch due to its platforming of pro-Palestine commentator Hasan Piker.

Why would Twitch capitulate so readily?

Twitch may not be “giving in” so much as coming clean. It’s important to recall that Twitch was purchased by Amazon in 2014. Google, which was also attempting to buy the company, lost out on that opportunity, but both Google and Amazon have subsequently partnered on Project Nimbus, helping the Zionist state technologically streamline its current genocide.

Given that Palestinian death and destruction seems a worthy investment for its parent company, it’s not exactly surprising that Twitch would move to further censor Palestine-focused expression.

Aggressively banning users for invoking a pro-Palestine boycott and updating its “hateful conduct” policy could be ways for the company to save itself the bureaucratic headache of dealing with the aggressive outrage machine of anti-Palestinian racists and more effectively reflecting its true material interests on the ideological front.

Of course, digital platforms are not exempt from but are consequential actors in the broader fabric of socio-political concerns. To return to Gillespie,

𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘵… 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴. (21)

Moderation is a mechanism by which platforms enforce and express their corporate vision of social propriety and accountability.

The content and structure decisions of platforms in turn bear on users’ senses of normativity and taboo when it comes to social engagement. Even if their decisions are unjust, platforms’ rulings on what content to prohibit interact with and even ultimately influence the broader contours of social hegemony.

Repression of Palestine is increasing, and its logic and mechanisms are standardizing across multiple fronts.

To that end, we can’t dissociate this growing trend of corporations prohibiting anti-Zionist speech by equating it with antisemitism from a related trend: that of universities, which, as Neil Smith reminds us, are themselves “multibillion-dollar, multinational corporations with major interests in the global equity markets and in local real estate development [read: gentrification] which also happen to give out degrees every May” (Uneven Development 264) justifying outlandish, often preemptive repression of faculty who address Palestine in their activism and/or research under misuse of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Weaponizing legal statutes intended to oppose structural discrimination for the purposes of inoculating Israel and its settler-colonial, genocidal ideology from intellectual and political criticisms is proving an effective strategy for Zionists.

Reflexively risk-averse and bureaucratic to a degree that could very well outpace Kafka’s feverish imaginings, universities across the country have shown themselves eager to proactive suspend and even fire faculty out of an increasingly normalized misapplication of anti-discriminatory policy, often couched under the broader framework of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI.)

Here, Steven Salaita emerges as a prescient critical voice.

In 2011’s Israel’s Dead Soul, Salaita argued that the inherent violence of liberal multiculturalism could be reflected in its ability to subtend Zionism. This observation is in no way muted by DEI having largely eclipsed multiculturalism as the operative jargon for politically vacuous institutional virtue-signaling.

The specific terms may have changed, but the playbook is largely the same: liberal notions of “identity” and “difference” are mobilized in such a way as to hide asymmetries of power and punish righteous opposition to colonialism and genocide under the milquetoast banner of “difference.”

“Difference” in turn becomes the ruling episteme for corporate and pseudo-intellectual efficiency in its ability to invalidate the imperative for resistance and the conditions of possibility for its epistemological and symbolic fortification and expression.

There is little conceptual distinction between the misapplied Civil Rights statutes being used to punish outspoken faculty and the increasingly uniform anti-anti-Zionist policies cropping up in the guidelines of Big Tech platforms.

The connections are being drawn for us, and the increasing accommodation of Zionism in public spaces must continue to be the subject of massive, ongoing opposition.

From Twitch to American higher education, outsized corporations and corporatized universities are leaning on the same vapid liberal frameworks and buzzwords to penalize opposition to colonialism and genocide.

-

– Omar Zahzah is a writer, poet, organizer, and Assistant Professor of Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas (AMED) Studies at San Francisco State University. Omar’s book, Terms of Servitude: Zionism, Silicon Valley, and Digital/Settler-Colonialism in the Palestinian Liberation Struggle is forthcoming from The Censored Press in Fall 2025. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.