So, when I get an message from the community e-mail list that goes something like “Emergency! Click on this link now to vote in a CNN poll condemning Israel. We’re losing!”, I don’t necessarily rush to vote (ie I take care of it when I get around to it). The truth is that these CNN polls stay on the site for months or years, and all they do is drive more traffic to CNN’s site, allowing them to get more money from advertisers.

U.S. foreign policy is certainly not going to be driven by a CNN poll – because the State Department, along with everyone else, knows that online polls and petitions are extremely malleable. If real-life elections and votes can be “thrown” by clever political functionaries, online votes are far easier to bend. The choices the objects of those petitions make – for right or wrong, better or worse – are not  influenced by such polls, because in the end, everyone does what they think is best, following their own truth – even if half a million people say they’re wrong!

Or rather, 455,165 people, to be exact – the number of people who signed a petition at the Care2 Petitionsite demanding that Wikipedia remove a 14th century image of  Muhammad from its entry on the Kaaba; actually, Wikipedia has a whole host of historic depictions of Muhammad. According to modern Islamic practice (according to some sources, this was not the case in the past), depicting Muhammad in an image is against Islamic law.

But not Wikipedia law, which strives for NPOV (neutral point of view) in all situations. I’ve knocked Wikipedia in the past for being too NPOV, in fact.  Of course, it’s always open season on Israel among the many liberals/leftists who edit Wikipedia, so I was interested in seeing how they handled the “Muhammad image” affair. Refreshingly, Wikipedia hasn’t backed down; the Talk page for the Kaaba article is full of comments by indignant Muslims demanding the image’s removal, but Wikipedia has decided to keep them, in a decision that appears final (requests for reconsideration keep appearing every few months, though).

Considering the recent history of angry Muslims “doing something” about images of Muhammad (ie rioting after the publication of the “Muhammad caricatures” in European newspapers), Wikipedia deserves credit for standing its ground, despite the overwhelming numbers of people who signed a petition demanding the images’ removal.  Not that I advocate insulting any religion; my own has certainly been mistreated on the internet (and before the on-line era) for a very long time. Wikipedia is supposed to be a secular, objective body of knowledge that came into existence from the collective wisdom of the world’s internet users, so as such it is the very symbol of the “Secular City”. While we would all want the world to conform to our own world views, Wikipedia has decided to remain true to its NPOV self, despite the polls.

Wikipedia recommends that Muslims who are offended by the images to adjust their browsers not to display them; it is under no obligation, it says, to subscribe to a particular Islamic viewpoint, which says that displaying the images in itself is heresy, just like it is under no obligation to accept my points of view on Judaism, Israel, or Zionism – even if I have the facts on my side! But then again, I don’t go to Wikipedia when I want a jolt of Zionism. There are plenty of alternatives out there that subscribe to my truth. I know no amount of nudging is going to change Wikipedia’s NPOV, so I move on.

It’s either that – or riot. In a free market, we’re constantly faced with different truths;  my truth is just as relevant and true to me as yours is to you. If we are going to accept the POV of one group, we have to accept everyone’s. True democracy means accepting the existence of the point of view you disagree with, even if it violates your truth (as opposed to deliberately offensive). Live and let live.

What about where things get really offensive? That depends; if everyone is getting poked at the same time, and no one group is getting singled out, then that may be a case for live and let live as well. Take, for example, a game called Faith Fighter, which depicts “God” getting into a street brawl with the prophet of your choice – Jesus, Buddha, and -  Muhammad. Because of many complaints by Muslim groups earlier this year, Italian game publisher Molleindustria decided to remove it from their site. It’s back now – but in two versions, one in which  Muhammad’s “face” (we are talking here about a cartoon caricature) is blacked out, and one where he is depicted like one would expect a devout Muslim to be portrayed.

Frankly, after playing the game, it’s hard to believe that Muslims – or Hindus, Buddhists, or even Jews, who do not permit G-d to be depicted in picture form – would be placated just because “their man’s” face is blocked out; the game is offensive, face or no face.  And even if you’re not particularly religious, you’ll definitely find something to hate with at least one of the other games Molleindustria has on their site. But here again, we see an example of an offensive internet depiction – and provision for alternatives that don’t offend. Live and let live, in other words – like it or not.

But that’s the way it is in the Secular City. What happens when “truths” collide, as they did in this case? Until such time as the majority of people “see the light” – whatever that light is – true believers, of whatever faith, have to deal with other points of view. And that is perhaps the true “will of the people” – that everyone gets to have their truth, keeping clear of other “truths” they don’t like.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Artist Who Set Off Muslim Fury Visits City (nytimes.com)
• How to interpret the UK “ban minarets” poll (newstatesman.com)
• Kurt Westergaard, Danish Muhammad Cartoonist, Defiant In Face Of Threats (huffingtonpost.com)

That’s not to put down Facebook users, of course – I’m on there too, as I’m sure many of you are. But let’s face it: It’s nice that there are dozens of pro-Israel support groups on FB, but they basically “preach to the converted.” Of course, we need to encourage “our own” to stand up and be counted, but there’s little value-added in the effort; those who are anti-Israel will remain so, while the vast majority who are on the fence or have never thought about the issue are not using FB for their political information. Lest we forget, FB’s real purpose is to encourage internet social corrections.

Unlike Digg.com, or the dozens of other social bookmarking sites (http://xrl.us/beczuc) – where people go to actually find out new information, to educate themselves on topics they may have heard about in the news that they want to know more about, or just to “browse” and increase their knowledge of the world around them. Digg and its relatives are more “viral,” as well – meaning they have a much greater chance of getting “pushed” to more people. A “good Digg” could get your site or blog hundreds, or thousands of hits, spreading the word on the network of social bookmarking sites – and coming back for more. All you need is a good come-on (ie article or post title) and some interesting information – and, of course, a someone to submit your site to the Digg list (usually accomplished by the clicking of a Digg button on your site, which submits it to the Digg.com site – and the more people who click on it, the better).

And based on my perusal of Digg and similar sites in recent weeks, we need more pro-Israel articles to appear on the front page. The anti- crowd has long used social bookmarking to promote its agenda (many of them using shady tactics such as establishing “Digg clubs,” where members surf the net promoting each others postings), with the result that if you surf to Digg.com or Reddit.com, search terms like “Israel,” “Gaza,” “Zionism,” etc., to get an idea of what I’m talking about. If there’s one thing Digg users are looking for, it’s both sides of the story – and right now, only one side is on display.

Fortunately, there is a large body of information on the internet describing how to promote sites and links in Digg and Digg-like sites. Most of the information relates to promoting commercial sites or business ideas – but if you can use business tactics to promote moneymaking ideas, why not use them to promote pro-Israel ideas? It’s actually good practice, too – when you perfect your skills at promoting Israel’s story, you can use your newfound expertise to promote your own site, too!

Because there’s money at stake (in the form of user clicks, Google rankings, etc.), there are lots of advice sites out there. Some of them have good advice – like the ideas at http://xrl.us/beczts. This site recommends a “twelve step program,” that essentially promotes networking with others at blogs and sites to promote your cause, along with informal mutual cooperation to convince others to promote your link. Titles are important, according to http://xrl.us/beczt8 – which helpfully suggests that “Catchy titles and descriptions usually do better then dull titles and descriptions.” This site (http://xrl.us/beczue) tells you how to get to the top of the Reddit page (and make money from it!). And http://xrl.us/beczun tells you how Digg and other social bookmarking sites work – their underlying philosophy, and what the front pages of the sites are looking for in posts and submissions.

There are other ways to promote sites on Digg – but I wouldn’t recommend using them. There are “pay to Digg” sites, for example, which claims to pay out (a half a buck!) for Diggs by users (if you want to get Dugg, it will cost you $20!). Users who want to get paid get a list of five articles to Digg, and when they are verified, they get a credit in their account; after you “earn” $20, they’ll forward the money to your Paypal account (you have to Digg 200 stories to make that kind of money!). There are also “Digg clubs” or “buzz clubs” out there (http://xrl.us/beczuz), where you agree with others in your club to Digg or otherwise promote each other’s stories. The Digg people are wise to this, though, and if they get wise to you, you could get banned (http://xrl.us/beczu7).

While most of the concern over phony Diggs and Digging revolve around misuse of the system to make money, you wouldn’t want similar charges to hamper your efforts to promote Israel in the social bookmarking world. So efforts to get users get together specifically to click on links are out. But there’s nothing wrong with urging members of your own interest group to check out your own links – and to Digg them as well. This is where your membership in Facebook Israel groups can come in handy – since the people in those groups are already predisposed to checking out positive news about Israel, anyway. If you’re on Facebook, check out http://xrl.us/beczvf, where you can install the Facebook/Digg app in your account. The app shows people who log onto your page the last five stories you Dugg – giving them some material to check out and promote, in the effort to promote Israel’s story online.