The Power of Digital Tools to Defeat Antisemitism

By: Aaron Herman

Antisemitism has adapted to the digital age, spreading through social platforms, recommendation systems, and encrypted channels with unprecedented speed. The answer cannot be nostalgia for a bygone era; it must be a confident, democratic embrace of technology to defend truth, protect Jewish communities, and reinforce the rule of law. Democracies are already mobilizing: both the United States and the European Union have clarified that combating antisemitism online is a strategic priority tied to safeguarding open society, countering disinformation, and upholding human dignity. This is the work of principled, values-driven governance—strengthening civil society and responsible innovation against a very old hatred weaponized by modern networks .

First, detection and enforcement must keep pace with the velocity of hate. Platforms should operationalize clear standards, build robust detection pipelines for antisemitic content, and enforce rules consistently. Washington’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism calls on online platforms to explicitly cover antisemitism in their terms of service, improve enforcement, increase transparency, and invest in safety-by-design—recognizing that the private sector plays a decisive role in reducing harm at scale . Civil-society researchers have documented the ways antisemitism travels across social media, how it spikes in moments of crisis, and how lax enforcement or vague policies allow it to metastasize; better rules and more predictable enforcement are not a luxury, but a democratic obligation . The ADL’s recurring measurements of online hate underscore persistent gaps in platform tools and user protections, reinforcing the need for stronger product safeguards, streamlined reporting options, and better redress for victims of coordinated harassment .

Second, data-driven monitoring—the disciplined, transparent tracking of antisemitic narratives—transforms public pressure into policy progress. CyberWell’s open database projects demonstrate how structured evidence can help platforms recognize patterns quickly, tighten enforcement, and remove content that violates their own standards . Their reporting during the Israel–Hamas war and in the months that followed documented surges in classic antisemitic tropes and direct incitement, connecting online rhetoric to offline fear and intimidation—evidence that has galvanized stakeholders to demand faster, fairer enforcement . These initiatives bolster democratic oversight: when civil society can quantify abuse and publish the data, it becomes harder for companies to ignore clear violations and easier for regulators and advertisers to insist on standards .

Third, education and memory work at digital scale are essential to inoculate society against denial and distortion. European strategy highlights the role of combating disinformation and cultivating digital literacy so citizens can recognize propaganda, conspiracy thinking, and the deliberate twisting of history. Holocaust remembrance initiatives adapted for online audiences—survivor testimony, verified archives, and curated exhibits—do more than transmit facts; they connect human stories to democratic responsibilities, strengthening the moral immune system that counters denial, relativization, and the algorithmic recycling of ancient slanders. In moments when lies outpace truth, credible digital memory is a form of social resilience .

Fourth, shared definitions and standards clarify what must be detected and deterred. The U.S. strategy affirms the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism as a useful tool, including for training moderators and informing policy design, while encouraging context-sensitive application . Researchers are also advancing operational work to translate definitions into machine-readable signals without reducing complex harms to simplistic labels. This includes careful efforts to align AI detection with research on how antisemitism manifests linguistically and contextually online. The goal is consistent: ensure both humans and machines can recognize antisemitism accurately, reduce false negatives that allow abuse to spread, and minimize false positives that chill legitimate speech.

Fifth, confronting disinformation and synthetic media is now part of counter-antisemitism strategy. The EU’s approach integrates antisemitism with the broader fight against malign manipulation and conspiracy propaganda, which often rely on decontextualized clips, deceptive edits, and coordinated networks to inflame hatred and mainstream extremist narratives. Platforms and publishers need provenance and transparency tools, clear labeling for manipulated content, and rapid response protocols for high-velocity falsehoods that target Jewish people and institutions. This is not content control for its own sake; it is democratic hygiene in an age of weaponized ambiguity .

Sixth, accountability is a team sport. The U.S. strategy advances a whole-of-society framework: platforms commit to clear rules and enforcement; government convenes, coordinates, and sets expectations; researchers and NGOs provide independent measurement; and citizens are empowered with reporting tools, safety controls, and digital literacy resources . ADL’s findings—across multiple years—show why this partnership matters: without sustained external pressure and cooperation, companies underinvest in prevention, leave victims without adequate remedies, and allow hostile actors to exploit platform features at scale. Transparency reporting, independent audits, and data-sharing with trusted researchers are essential to move from episodic crackdowns to durable safety-by-design .

Seventh, crisis readiness has to be built in advance. Antisemitic narratives spike during geopolitical shocks, terror attacks, and heated news cycles; slowing amplification requires pre-positioned policies, pre-trained classifiers, pre-authorized civil-society notifier channels, and cross-company coordination to close evasion loopholes. CyberWell’s wartime monitoring and Yom HaShoah trend analysis underscore the predictability of specific slurs, denial tactics, and calls to violence—patterns that should be codified in platform response playbooks before—not after—an outbreak . The test of seriousness is speed, consistency, and the willingness to harden systems against repeat abuse.

This agenda is not about policing thought; it is about defending people and preserving the conditions of free inquiry. Antisemitism strikes at the heart of the Western project: equal citizenship, minority protection, and the integrity of truth against the mob. Democracies have both the legitimacy and the obligation to apply digital tools—transparent standards, smarter detection, robust enforcement, open data, and memory at scale—to protect Jewish communities and the public square alike . When governments set principled expectations, when platforms operationalize them rigorously, and when civil society supplies evidence and accountability, antisemitism recedes and liberty advances.

The path forward is clear. Adopt and enforce explicit antisemitism policies. Invest in AI-assisted moderation grounded in research and shared definitions. Support independent monitoring and publish the data. Expand digital education and remembrance that inoculate against denial and conspiracy thinking. And build crisis protocols that activate before the next surge. This is how free societies win: not by silencing debate, but by refusing to give bigotry the algorithmic advantages it currently enjoys—and by standing, consistently and unapologetically, with the Jewish people and with the democratic values that protect us all .