The Online Hate Prevention Institute has been retained by the Royal Commission as expert witnesses. Our CEO, Dr Andre Oboler, testified before the Commission this morning, May 12th 2026.

Routine antisemitism monitoring.

OHPI’s evidence to the Commission includes findings from our routine antisemitism monitoring project. This work provides long-term data on the prevalence and nature of antisemitism across major social media platforms and allows changes over time to be measured using a consistent methodology. The monitoring examines both the volume of antisemitic material and the narratives appearing within it.

OHPI’s monitoring is conducted by trained human analysts rather than through automated AI collection systems alone. This allows the monitoring to identify coded language, conspiracy narratives, contextual references, irony, visual symbolism, and evolving forms of antisemitic discourse that automated systems regularly struggle to interpret accurately. The monitoring also examines the surrounding context of discussions, including how antisemitic narratives spread through comments, reactions, and online communities. OHPI has conducted this work since before the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, creating a substantial baseline against which later increases in antisemitism could be measured.

The routine monitoring currently examines material across 10 social media platforms using a methodology designed to support comparisons over time and between platforms. The data submitted to the Royal Commission records a sharp increase in online antisemitism following October 7. OHPI’s submission also examines the major categories and sub-categories of antisemitism appearing across social media platforms, including traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories, Holocaust-related antisemitism, and antisemitic narratives connected to Israel and Zionism.

The routine monitoring forms part of OHPI’s broader work documenting online hate and extremism in Australia and internationally. This work has informed reports examining online antisemitism before October 7, the increase that followed, responses to the Bondi terrorist attack, responses to attacks on synagogues in Melbourne, and the broader normalisation of antisemitic discourse online.

The submission to the Royal Commission includes the following finding:

“133. The graph below shows how much antisemitism would be collected in 80 hours (8 hours on each of 10 platforms) during each sample collection period. It shows a sharp rise in the period after October 7, 2023 (the start of November 2023 to the end of January 2024). This rise from 272 items to 1449 items is a greater than five-fold increase (a 539% increase).”

The submission explains that the figure of 272 items is scaled from 244 items collected during the earlier monitoring period before LinkedIn was added to OHPI’s monitoring system. The later figure reflects the expanded monitoring across all 10 platforms.

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook • Bondi Report • Ambulance Attack Responses Report.

The post October 7’s effect on Online Antisemitism – OHPI Royal Commission Testimony first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

The Online Hate Prevention Institute has been retained by the Royal Commission as expert witnesses. Our CEO, Dr Andre Oboler, is testifying before the Commission on May 12th.

The Experience of Jewish Australians Online

OHPI’s evidence to the Commission includes analysis from the “Public Squares” project, undertaken with support from the Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism (ASECA). The project examined reactions and comments attached to major social media posts relating to the Jewish community. These included posts from the Prime Minister, government agencies, public figures, and mainstream media organisations. OHPI analysed the reactions to these posts, measured the proportion of antisemitic responses, and classified the different forms of antisemitism appearing in the discussion.

The project examined comments because comment sections now form a major part of online public discourse. Discussions attached to posts by political leaders, journalists, news organisations, and public institutions shape how events are interpreted and understood. OHPI’s evidence argues that these spaces increasingly function as part of the modern public square. The level of hostility within them therefore has direct implications for social cohesion and for the experience of minority communities participating online.

The analysis found substantial variation between platforms and posts. In some cases antisemitic comments accounted for under 5% of visible discussion. In other cases they approached half of all comments collected. OHPI also compared reactions to posts relating to Jewish events with comparable posts celebrating religious and cultural events for other communities. The comparison found significantly higher levels of derision and hostility directed toward Jewish-related posts.

The following passage discusses a particular aspect of the report, which compared the online reaction to the PM’s post about Passover with other, analogous posts about other religious holidays for other communities. This analysis demonstrates a greater amount of derisive and hostile reactions to the PM’s Passover message, as compared with the posts about other community holidays. 

Analysis provided to ASECA excerpt:

152. While the above details show the data in aggregate, the level of antisemitism in the comments was not consistent and varied between 3.7% and 44.8% depending on the post’s content and the platform it was on. The report shows each post, provides an analysis of the reactions to it, a detailed dashboard related to the comments, and examples of the comments.

As part of our examination of ‘reactions’ we examined a range of additional posts by the Prime Minister that were unrelated to the Jewish community. Some were announcements in relation to policies and promises, others were greetings to different ethnic and religious communities for cultural and religious festivals. The report notes:

The 53.2% responses of derision is significantly higher than on similar posts for other communities posted around the same time. The percent of reactions that signalled derision was 27.8% for the Assyrian community, 24% for the Muslim community, 13.3% for the Vietnamese community, 8.1% for the Christian community, and 4.9% for the Orthodox Christian community.

It also provides the following table on angry reactions:

OHPI’s evidence to the Commission states that public online spaces require more consistent moderation standards and stronger staff training in recognising antisemitism. The submission also raises concerns that some comments identified during the project may involve unlawful conduct requiring investigation rather than simple removal from platforms.

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook 

The post OHPI analysis provided to Royal Commission on Experience of Jewish Australians Online first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

The Royal Commission was established by the Australian Government following the deadliest terrorist attack in Australian history which occurred at Bondi Beach in December 2025 and targeted the Australian Jewish community. The Commission is examining the causes and impacts of antisemitism in Australia and will recommend measures to strengthen public safety, counter hatred, and rebuild social cohesion.

Dr Oboler and OHPI have been retained by the Royal Commission as expert witnesses. Our evidence examines the online reaction to the Bondi massacre, and the spread of antisemitic narratives across social media in the aftermath of the attack. It also looks at the rise in antisemitism after the terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.

The data on antisemitism in Australia before and after October 7 2023 can be seen in the following reports:

• The Online Antisemitism in Australia 2023 Report (14 August 2023)
• Online Antisemitism Before October 7 (25 March 2024)
• Online Antisemitism After October 7 (25 March 2024)
• Responses to the Melbourne Synagogue Attacks in 2024 & 2025 (21 July 2025)
• Social Media and the Normalisation of Hate: October 7 Two Years On (13 October 2025)
• Bondi Report (14 January 2026)
• Australian responses to the attack on London ambulances (30 March 2026)

The report also includes new data and analysis prepared specifically for the Royal Commission and a summary of data prepared for other parts of the Australian Government.

The testimony submitted to the Royal Commission highlights:

How Antisemitism spiked after October 7 2023 and remained persistently high

The report looks at OHPI’s systematic monitoring across 10 social media platforms. It also included comparisons between the platforms and explored the nature of the antisemitic narratives.

OHPI is charity and our work is supported by public donations. Your support is essential to ensure our work monitoring online antisemitism continues. In the graph above you can see the gap from September 2024 until June 2025 when no data could be gathered due to a lack of funding. Your support (click here) can ensure this doesn’t happen again.

How quickly antisemitic conspiracy theories emerged online following the Bondi attack

Social media was used to invert the roles of victims and perpetrators. Rather than expressing empathy for those targeted, many online responses sought to blame the Jewish community, deny the antisemitic nature of the attack, or rationalise the violence. OHPI’s evidence argues that these forms of online reaction are not isolated incidents, but part of a broader pattern in which antisemitic disinformation undermines social cohesion, reduces public empathy for Jewish victims, and normalises hatred online.

How Antisemitism manifested in Australian online public squares

The report shares a summary of some of the key findings of work undertaken for Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. The project examined the comments on posts where Australians gather and engage in public discourse. It examined the comments on posts about the Jewish community, combatting antisemitism, and the Middle East by Australia’s political leaders and the Australian media. It highlighted a high degree of antisemitism in these public squares and that the vast majority of it was from Australians. It found traditional antisemitic narratives claiming government action on antisemitism demonstrated Jewish control of government. It also found high levels of Australian Jews being targeted with hate as a response to Israeli policies or actions, or alleged actions. Many Australians are not seeing the inherent racism in this.

Shortcomings in transparency

The report to the Royal Commission also discussed a range of issues related to transparency reporting on hate speech and platforms efforts to address it, which have gone backwards in recent times.

Join us on social media

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook 

The post OHPI Testifies to Royal Commission first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) has welcomed the unanimous endorsement by Melbourne City Council to authorise the Lord Mayor to submit a prepared submission to the Royal Commission. 

The motion, moved by Lord Mayor Nicholas Reece and passed by the Future Melbourne Committee on 5 May 2026, authorised the Lord Mayor to formally lodge the Council’s submission to the Royal Commission.

OHPI CEO Andre Oboler wrote to Council in support of the motion, describing the submission as “well reasoned, informative” and an important contribution to the Royal Commission process.

In its submission, Melbourne City Council documented the growing operational burden antisemitism has placed on local government, including the rapid removal of hateful graffiti, ongoing monitoring of social media platforms, and coordination with police and community institutions. The Council reported that more than 1,020 offensive graffiti incidents handled since 2023 could be considered antisemitic, alongside the removal of thousands of antisemitic stickers and posters across the city.

OHPI’s submission highlighted the significance of this data, noting that Council’s figures demonstrate the extent to which antisemitic incidents remain underreported through traditional reporting systems.

OHPI also welcomed the Council’s recognition that online hate and extremist narratives are increasingly spilling into physical spaces. The Council submission identified “Digital and Social media influences – Online hate, misinformation and disinformation, including extremist narratives that are increasingly spilling into physical spaces” as a key driver of antisemitism and declining social cohesion.

In his submission, Prof. Oboler argued that social media companies’ reduced investment in moderation systems has shifted growing burdens onto institutions such as councils, which are increasingly required to maintain safe online and public environments themselves.

OHPI welcomed the City of Melbourne’s “zero tolerance and rapid response” approach to antisemitic graffiti and hateful material, and its recognition that antisemitism undermines both community safety and social cohesion.

OHPI’s full submission to Melbourne City Council is available below.

5 May 2026 

Dear Melbourne City Council, 

I am writing on behalf of the Online Hate Prevention Institute, an Australian charity focused on preventing all forms of online hate, and with staff in the greater Melbourne area. We write in support resolution 7.1, that the Future Melbourne Committee: “Endorses the City of Melbourne submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion appended to this Notice of Motion and authorises the Lord Mayor to lodge the submission on behalf of Council.” 

We welcome and thank the Council for the actions it is taking, particular over antisemitic stickers and graffiti which we have observed on many occasions while visiting the city. Many of the stickers come from the same source and despite including warning in tiny font such as, “Stickers supplied for personal use. Distribute responsible and abide by the law” (witnessed next to Parliament Station on 13 February 2024) the stickers are clearly produced with the purpose of defacing public space and creating anti-Jewish hostility. This particular sticker featured an antisemitic internet meme and turned it into a physical expression of anti-Jewish hostility which was then embedded into the built-up environment. Council’s rapid removal of these stickers renders them less effective and the city safer. 

In our view Council’s submission adds value to the Royal Commission by providing valuable empirical data on just how many stickers there are. ECAJ’s two most recent Antisemitism in Australia reports note a total of 428 antisemitic stickers / posters across all of Victoria between 1 October 2023 and 30 September 2025. [1] 

Council’s report of “thousands of stickers and posters” and specifically “4,500 square metres of antisemitic graffiti and materials” in Melbourne alone highlights that there is significant under reporting in the ECAJ statistics and the problem is much worse than even these figures show. It also highlights the important role Council plays not only in fixing the problem, but in recording the data. 

We also particularly welcome the inclusion of the section “Daily monitoring and management of racist and hate speech on City of Melbourne social media platforms” which states “The City of Melbourne’s Customer Experience team also checks the City of Melbourne’s social media accounts multiple times a day and responds to commentary that breaches the City of Melbourne’s social media policy.” This burden on the City of Melbourne is in part a result of social media companies not taking sufficient action themselves to remove such content. The burden that this places on Council to maintain a safe online space is something the Royal Commission should hear. 

We strong endorse Council’s conclusion about the drivers of antisemitism, and in particular that one of the main ones is: “Digital and Social media influences – Online hate, misinformation and disinformation, including extremist narratives that are increasingly spilling into physical spaces.” The failure of social media companies to better address the hate is not only feeding this hostile environment, it adds an additional burden to Council and the public purse. This problem has accelerated in part due to tech companies cutting back on both technological and human solutions designed to address this problem [2]. This is leading to less content being removed by platforms and more burden placed on page owners like the City of Melbourne [3]. 

We bring to Council’s attention the fact that the National Anti-Racism Strategy barely mentions antisemitism at all. While it is still worth supporting, it creates a gap and funding is also needed for work on antisemitism specifically to close that gap. 

We note the Lord Mayor of Melbourne’s letter accompanying the submission states, “I continue to advocate for the full implementation of all recommendations from the 2022 Inquiry into Extremism in Victoria and the 2025 Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Plan.” We welcome those commitments, but note there is no mention of the plan to combat antisemitism in the submission itself, nor a recommendation that the Commonwealth provide funding to implement it, as is recommended for the National Anti-Racism Strategy which if you read it has a very strong focus on other communities but not the Jewish community which is barely mentioned. If possible, we would recommend adding an endorsement of the Plan to Combat Antisemitism and suggesting that the Royal Commission recommend the Commonwealth fund its implementation alongside the National Anti-Racism Strategy. 

The submission is important, and it is important the Royal Commission hear the voice of the Melbourne City Council. The submission is well reasoned, informative, and in our view serves the residents and the wider Melbourne community well. We encourage the Future Melbourne Committee to support the resolution. 

We would welcome the opportunity to present our data on online antisemitism to the Future Melbourne Committee at another time. 

Adj. Assoc. Prof. Andre Oboler 

CEO, Online Hate Prevention Institute Member, Australian Government’s Delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Adjunct Associate Professor, Law School, La Trobe University.

[1] 144 reports between 1 Oct. 2024 – 30 Sep. 2025 https://www.ecaj.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ECAJ-Report-Anti-Jewish-Incidents-Australia-2025.pdf Page 6 and 284 between 1 Oct. 2023 – 30 Sep. 2024 https://www.ecaj.org.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ECAJ-Report-Anti-Jewish-Incidents-Australia-2024-1.pdf Page 5.

[2] https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/

[3] Only 1.3 million items of hate were actioned between October and December 2025, compared to 18 Million between April and June 2023. https://transparency.meta.com/reports/community-standards-enforcement/hateful-conduct/ 


Read OHPI’s latest report: Australian responses to the attack on London ambulances

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook • Bondi Report • Ambulance Attack Responses Report.

The post OHPI’s Endorsement of Melbourne City Council Motion on Royal Commission Submission first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Why this content may be considered offensive or harmful

The first video is a Holocaust denial video. It shows a man dressed up as a Rabbi refers to “six million headlights”. He is rubbing his hands in glee and holding a bag of money, a visual instantiation of the most common antisemitic meme on the internet. Background on this meme, which originated from white supremacist circles and has been around for over 20 years, was covered in an early OHPI report. Then there is a response from the shop staff, who is wearing a black shirt with the letters HH – a short form for “Heil Hitler”. He replies, “you only have enough for 271,000 of them”. This is a reference to Holocaust denial claim that is often seen online and relates to a misrepresentation of a genuine document from WWII, more background on this is here. The document is used to claim only 271,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. As the Arolsen Archives notes, It “lists the numbers of death certificates issued upon application for prisoners from concentration camps, such as Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen. The figures do not include the millions of Jews murdered in extermination camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau or those who died in mass shootings.” A bit of background, the Arolsen Archives is the world’s most comprehensive archive on victims and survivors of Nazi persecution, it was formerly (in the immediate aftermath of WWII) known as the International Tracing Service.

The second video has the same two actors dressed in the same antisemitic way. The “Jew” says “I heard you sell body parts here”, the shop staff replied “yeah we do, we sell body parts for cars, not for kids you sick f*ck”. In addition to the elements noted above, impersonating a Rabbi looking like the antisemitic meme of the Jews (the Happy Merchant), this one is a reference to blood libel – the false claim in medieval Europe that Jews stole children and killed them to use their blood in rituals. It seems specifically to reference the Swedish blood libel (more here and here and discussed in my expert evidence in the Wertheim v Haddad case here), which is a modern variant based on a false claim of organ harvesting and trading in body parts.

If the activity was not authorised by management, those involved in this activity should be sacked as well as being charged by police under Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. If the business was involved, i.e. if there was expressed, tacit, or impliedly authorisation or permission, the company itself should be charged with that offence. This is not just a matter of problematic social media content, it is a crime and should be treated as such. Social media platforms should remove all copies of the video, while preserving information that may be needed by police and prosecutors.

The post Queensland Holocaust Denial Videos first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Saturday 18 April.

Dr Andre Oboler, CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), was the guest speaker at Caulfield Shule’s Seudah Shlishit, where he addressed the growing challenge of online antisemitism and the structural factors driving it.

Drawing on more than two decades of experience combating online hate, Dr Oboler spoke about why antisemitism continues to grow online, and the role played by social media platforms, corporate incentives, and political dynamics.

He explained that while online antisemitism reflects broader societal trends, it is also amplified by the systems designed to maximise engagement.

“It is your attention that is being sold,” Dr Oboler said. “. The longer you are on the platform, the more of your attention there is to sell.”

Dr Oboler highlighted how scapegoating, conspiracy narratives, and a sense of insider knowledge are used by extremist groups to attract and retain audiences. He also pointed to the role of state actors, including Iran, in spreading antisemitic propaganda and disinformation.

Platforms, profit, and the erosion of safeguards

A key focus of the talk was the role of platform design and corporate decision-making.

Dr Oboler described how early investments in trust and safety — including automated detection systems — had begun to reduce harmful content. However, these efforts have been scaled back in recent years.

According to OHPI research and reporting, including analysis covered in , major platforms have significantly reduced the amount of hate speech they remove, despite rising levels of online antisemitism.

He noted that cuts to trust and safety teams, combined with policy changes limiting automated moderation, have created an environment where harmful content is more likely to spread.

“Improved safety doesn’t generate profits,” he explained. “It costs money.”

Disinformation and real-world harm

Dr Oboler also connected online hate to real-world incidents, including coordinated disinformation campaigns following antisemitic attacks.

He referenced OHPI’s recent report into responses to the London ambulance attack, which found that a large proportion of online reactions were antisemitic or driven by conspiracy theories.

The report highlighted how tactics such as DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) are used to shift blame onto Jewish victims and reduce public empathy.

Dr Oboler also discussed the recent Nazi videos in Queensland, and OHPI’s analysis of how such content spreads and the legal implications of its distribution.

OHPI’s ongoing work

Dr Oboler outlined OHPI’s current work, including supporting government, law enforcement, and community organisations, as well as contributing to court cases and international policy discussions.

He noted that antisemitism has been a major focus of OHPI’s recent output, with the majority of reports and articles over the past two years addressing this issue.

Prepared remarks

The following are the prepared remarks from Dr Andre Oboler’s address:

Why online hate keeps growing.

There are numerous reasons online hate and online antisemitism keep growing. The antisemitism in society is a reflection of the antisemitism online, but it also feeds it.

Yes, there are those like Hamas and Iran using antisemitism as a tool, whether commissioning crimes, or spreading propaganda designed to incite hate.

I want to speak about something else. The technology, corporate culture, and political culture which provide the infrastructure and environment that serve as an accelerant.

I want to suggest to you that the business model of social media is wrong. Like the tobacco industry, the business model only works if the harm it causes is ignored.

How does social media work? Yes, it shows you content, but you don’t pay for this. You are, as is often said, the product not the customer. It is your attention that is being sold. And the more that is known about you, the higher the premium that can be charged to put specific content in front of people more specifically like you.

There is another side to this. The longer you are on the platform, the more of your attention there is to sell. So other content is also pushed to you. Content that will keep you engaged and spending more time than you intended scrolling.

What makes content engaging? Emotional engagement. This could be done by showing you content that is too cute, or funny, or happy to walk away from — but that only goes so far. What’s far more effective is content that incites anger and eats away at you.

There is a way to do both. Get people angry and feeling empowered. This is not new to social media. Scapegoating channels anger and hate is even more engaging. It is how neo-Nazis and other hate groups attract people. Also effective is making people feel included and special, like they know the truth when everyone else is in the dark. So conspiracy theories spread.

The challenge posed by platforms & corporate interests
I’ve been working in this space since Facebook was new and trying to topple MySpace from dominance. For a long time, platforms pretended there wasn’t a problem. There was no transparency, and companies claimed any focus on harms would stifle innovation.

Through lobbying and pressure, both positive and negative, on institutions that would otherwise sound the alarm, the problem was pushed down the road. Even a delay was worth millions to the companies.

In the early to mid-2000s we started seeing some improvements. Investment in what was known as “trust and safety” and early efforts to build safeguards (often described as “AI”) into the products. At OHPI’s suggestion YouTube began using digital fingerprints to detect re-uploads of videos it had already removed. Facebook started using auto-detection to remove hate speech before anyone even saw it. In 2018 they were claiming around 95% of all the hate speech removed was automated and removed before anyone actually saw the content.

Covid disrupted this progress. Social media companies reduced investment in trust and safety, and those cuts continued even as usage and profits grew. Improved safety does not generate profits, and worse, it costs money.

Without getting too far into US politics, part of the “base” for President Trump came from the far-right. Some of those figured ended up in the Whitehouse in his first term. There is a whole chapter here we don’t have time to dive into. It brought the far-right far more into the open.

A key event was at the end of the first Trump Presidency, the January 6^th 2021 insurrection, after which major social media platforms purged the accounts of many insurrectionists. Many of them migrated to smaller platforms, often those promoting themselves as “free speech” platforms, often with active white supremacist and Nazi groups on them.

Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022 and decided to make Twitter, one of the mainstream platforms, into another “free speech” platform. He fired trust and safety staff. He welcomed back people who has been banned. He engaged in trolling and antisemitism himself. Let’s not forget the Nazi salute at the Trump victory celebration in January 2025.

Let’s also not forget how close Musk and Trump were in 2025. Mark Zuckerberg, wanting to align himself with this, make a critical announcement in January 2025. In a video he said that in his view 1 to 2 out of every 10 items Meta was removing were a mistake. He said these items were being removed due to the expectations of governments and communities, but he disagrees with society’s consensus. To correct what he saw as a flaw, he announced that moving forward automated removal tools would only be used on serious violation.

According to Meta’s own transparency reports through 2025 the amount of hate speech that was being removed dropped by 70% to 80% on Meta products like Facebook and Instagram. On both Facebook and Instagram, the amount of content (measured in millions of items) being removed for hate is at its lowest level since transparency reporting began. This is despite the massive rise that OHPI and others have documents in online antisemitism in recent years.

Our challenges today

OHPI has 10 staff working to address online hate. They come from government, consulting, academia, and industry.

Our work supports government, community organisations, court cases, and police. It informs and support global thinking on tackling online antisemitism and online hate more generally.

Where does antisemitism sit in our work? Over the 2024 and 2025 financial years we published 5 reports, 4 of them on antisemitism. We published 71 articles on our website, 70% of them on antisemitism.

Just to give an idea of life at OHPI, next week will be meeting with the Royal Commission, the AFP, DFAT,  staff in the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s office… and all of that is before the end of Tuesday.

Rabbi Rabin often shares some of the harmful content that is circulating online to raise awareness and speak out again it, something that is much appreciated. A few days ago he wrote about the horrific video from Panel House in Brisbane.

We also responded to these videos, but what we do is a little difference. An analysis we provided of the videos noted can be found here.

We also noted that posting the video was breach of Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code which makes it an offence to “menace, harass, or cause offence” using the a communication service such as the internet. We also highlighted that companies can be charged with this offence if they are involved and in that case the fines are 5 times higher.

We’ll be raising this in our meeting with the AFP.

Read OHPI’s latest report: Australian responses to the attack on London ambulances

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook • Bondi Report • Ambulance Attack Responses Report.

The post Dr Oboler Addresses Caulfield Shule on Online Antisemitism first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Read OHPI’s latest report: Australian responses to the attack on London ambulances.

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook • Bondi Report • Ambulance Attack Responses Report.

The post OHPI advises Herald Sun on Holocaust Denial Video first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

We discussed reporting pathways and referral processes for serious community-identified cases, and the AFP expressed strong interest in receiving regular updates on our findings — affirming what has become an important and ongoing relationship.

The AFP also offered to connect us with organisations that would benefit from OHPI’s training programs, reflecting our growing capacity to support communities and institutions in responding to online hate.

We’re proud to be deepening this cooperation and look forward to the work ahead.

If you’d like to know more about OHPI’s training programs, please contact info@ohpi.org.au.

Read OHPI’s latest report: Australian responses to the attack on London ambulances.

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook • Bondi Report • Ambulance Attack Responses Report.

The post OHPI Collaboration With AFP first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

The shooting at Port Arthur was the deadliest massacre in modern Australian history. People were targeted indiscriminately by an attacker who was intellectually disabled, mentally unstable, and acting out a psychopathic desire to achieve notoriety. In response to the massacre the Howard administration established the National Firearms Agreement – the foundation of what has been considered globally as one of the best examples of effective gun control measures. 

In this article we examine the public responses to three posts commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre. One is from a charity created in response to the massacre, one from an Australian Facebook page with a large following, and the third is a post by Australia’s Prime Minister to commemorate the day.

Alannah & Madeline Foundation

The Alannah & Madeline Foundation is named after two sisters who, along with their mother Nanette, were killed in the Port Arthur Massacre. Six days before the anniversary they invited the public to write a message of support for those impacted by the Port Arthur massacre in their virtual Memorial Garden. 

The post has 1,100 reactions all of which are appropriate. Most are expressions of caring, many are likes for the post or loves, and 67 are crying.

The post also received 132 comments. These were appropriate and a selection of them are shared below.

Aussie Life’s Post

A post by the Facebook page Aussie Life (194K followers) shares a picture of memorial candles at the sight of Port Arthur and the message “In loving memory of the 35 people who lost their lives in the Port Arthur Massacre, 1996”.

The text accompanying the image describes the massacre as one of Australia’s darkest moments, sharing that it took 35 lives and left many others injured, and saying it became “the deadliest mass shooting in modern Australian history”.

The post provides detail of the attack which occurred across multiple sites as the shooter sought more victims. It describes the response, the ban on many automatic weapons and stricter gun laws overall, which it says changed Australia’s approach to public safety. The post says we pause to remember the victims, the families, and a moment that reshaped a nation.

The post received 2,300 reactions, only one was the “Ha Ha” emoji signaling derision. 

The post also received 117 comments. These examples illustrate thoughtful and appropriate ways to commemorate the tragedy of Port Arthur in the digital space.

The Prime Minister’s Message

A message by the Prime Minister posted on the day of the anniversary reflects on the “terrible, indiscriminate cruelty of that day” saying that it “remains beyond understanding”. He said that “Australia pauses today to remember the 35 people whose lives and futures were so pitilessly stolen” and that we “think of everyone whose world was shattered by the loss”. 

The Prime Minister wrote, “Our hearts go out to everyone who has lived with decades of loss, and every survivor and loved one who is no longer with us but was shadowed by an inconsolable grief for the rest of their days.” 

Prime Minister Albanese praised the first responders on the day and the Tasmanian community which came together after the attack. He praised Walter Mikac, the father of Alannah and Madeline, and husband of Nanette, discussed in the previous post, who channeled his grief into a call for national action on gun reform. He praised the Government (John Howard’s Coalition government) and the Parliament of the day for acting on that call for gun reform. 

The Prime Minister ended by saying, “Three decades on from that day when our nation stopped, let us stand together as we stood together then, united in love for everyone who never came home.”

The post received 4,100 reactions, most were appropriate while 16 expressed the “Ha Ha” emoji of derision which is entirely inappropriate. Still, we are encouraged that this represented less than 0.4% of responses. 

The post also received 1,500 comments. Unlike the previous two posts, the ones on the Prime Minister’s post included both appropriate responses and those promoting conspiracy theories or seeking to make partisan attacks on the Prime Minister. In our view such comments are disrespectful at a time when the nation is trying to come together to mourn. 

Appropriate comments:

Inappropriate comments:

These final comments demonstrates “up standing”. This is where posters push back against the inappropriate comments:

We remember those who lost their lives:
Winifred Joyce Aplin, 58;
Walter John Bennett, 66;
Nicole Louise Burgess, 17;
Sou Leng Chung, 32;
Elva Rhonda Gaylard, 48;
Zoe Anne Hall, 28;
Elizabeth Jayne Howard, 26;
Mary Elizabeth Howard, 57;
Mervyn John Howard, 55;
Ronald Noel Jary, 71;
Tony Vadivelu Kistan, 51;
Leslie Dennis Lever, 53;
Sarah Kate Loughton, 15;
David Martin, 72;
Noelene “Sally” Joyce Martin, 69;
Pauline Virjeana Masters, 49;
Alannah Louise Mikac, 6;
Madeline Grace Mikac, 3;
Nanette Patricia Mikac, 36;
Andrew Bruce Mills, 39;
Peter Brenton Nash, 32;
Gwenda Joan Neander, 67;
William Xeeng Ng, 48;
Anthony Nightingale, 44;
Mary Rose Nixon, 60;
Glenn Roy Pears, 35;
Russell James Pollard, 72;
Janette Kathleen Quin, 50;
Helene Maria Salzmann, 50;
Robert Graham Salzmann, 57;
Kate Elizabeth Scott, 21;
Kevin Vincent Sharp, 68;
Raymond John Sharp, 67;
Royce William Thompson, 59; and
Jason Bernard Winter, 29.

Read OHPI’s latest report: Australian responses to the attack on London ambulances.
Read J-Wire’s coverage: Report warns of coordinated disinformation after London attack on Jewish ambulances.

OHPI LinkedIn • OHPI Instagram • OHPI Facebook • Bondi Report • Ambulance Attack Responses Report.

The post Online Responses to Port Arthur, 30 years on. first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.

Social media has become far more toxic over the last year. More people I speak to are turning away from it entirely. For the Jewish community, the level of antisemitism online is a huge factor is their disgust at social media in 2026. While antisemitism of all kinds, including online, is at record levels, this isn’t the whole story. While some communities, and particularly the Jewish community, are facing the problem more intensely than others, at least part of the problem impacts everyone. So what’s going on?

I’ll start with a post I just saw, posted 9 hours ago in the United States. The post, shown below, is from Stop Antisemitism which describes itself as a “Leading non partisan U.S. based org fighting antisemitism”. To be clear, they are legitimate, do good work, and this is not really about their post. The post itself is about an 18 year old woman who was charged by the FBI with plotting to kill Jews. The fact there are people, even young people, plotting to kill people based on their ethnicity / religion is disturbing. This are article is not really about that either. It is about the response to the post.

Even on a post like this, 187 expresses laughing emojis in response, as if killing Jews is their entertainment.

One comment from Texas said, “Free that girl, she just wants to make this world a better place.” It received 108 likes and 16 loves, with 37 angry responses.

The comment was not alone, another from Florida wrote: “FREE HER!!!! She is trying to make the world a better place for all!” and received 24 likes and 6 loves, 18 angry responses.

A user from Oregon writes, “Free her. She didnt do anything wrong”. This one received mostly angry responses (9) and a few likes (6).

A user from New York writes: “There is no antisemitism”.

A user from Texas wrote “Dirty Jews” with duplicate letters presumably to prevent it being automatically identified.

An Australian artist wrote: “Mossad asset?”

A user with a fake account with 8 friends writes “The only problem I had with Brenton Tarrant was that he shot up a mosque. If he shot up a synagogue, that would be the root of the problem as opposed to a symptom”.

A pro-Iran account from Bangladesh writes “Good job” followed by an emoji used by neo-Nazis to represent the Nazi salute, a German flag and a skull.

A user from South Carolina write: “Those who believe this is legit and wasn’t staged to add to the FAKE narrative of ‘anti-semitism’ are a major part of the real problem”.

A user from Iowa writes, “And there is no such thing as antisemitism, it is a made up position that is implemented by a group of people who are intent on controlling the narrative”

A recently created fake account with two friends contributes: “Only Jews would have a problem with this”

A user from Arkansas writes: “We applaud her for her heroic thinking” adding a heart.

Another user from Australia writes “So the elites can get away with satanic sacrifice of children I guess there really is two separate laws for people.”

A fake profile with 16 friends adds “In 5 more years, everyone is gonna want to eliminate these people….all problems lead to their breeds blood.”

A user from Washington state writes “Target Zionist”.

A user from California writes: “Zionism is a cancer to all humanity!!”

Another fake profile with 15 friends writes, “The entire World is awakening to the ABSOLUTE HORRORS of The Juice.”

A newly created profile claiming to be from Germany and with the last name Himmler (the same as the Nazi leader who headed the SS) writes: “Im with you lets build a big concentration camp”

A user with a locked profile writes: “looks like more state manufactured crime to push a narrative, remember that this is the same people that killed charlie kirk”

A user from Texas writes, “I would have joined her” with emojis saying strength, and giving the finger to Israel.

A user from New Jersey whose profile is filled with “anti-Israel” content, much of it antisemitic, writes, “Zionists use claims of Antisemitism and false Flag attacks to suppress concern or support for the people they attack or suppress #NobodyBelievesZionistsAnymore” with a link to a YouTube video.

It was not possible to review all the comments. Many asked for her GoFundMe page to support her.

The posts highlights how even obvious cases of antisemitism are dismissed, glorified, or supported.

It also highlights how, by not removing these comments, particularly those from fake accounts, social media is contributing to the antisemitic environment.

The post Is Social Media facilitating hate? first appeared on Online Hate Prevention Institute.