By Editor,Peter van Onselen

Copyright dailymail

Here’s the ugly truth about the Gaza-era social media discourse.

Sensationalist labels have replaced real debate, and uneducated pile-ons too often result from disinformation.

Abbie Chatfield might be the latest case study. Her former friend Heath Kelley is suing her for defamation over an Instagram blast tied to his ‘pro-Israel’ stance.

It stems from a private exchange the pair had that she made public. How charming.

The courts will decide the legalities, but the bigger issue goes beyond their dispute: once again, social media is being weaponised to turn disagreements into reputational napalm – particularly when it comes to Palestine.

Which brings us to the PM, who gave a 90-minute interview on Chatfield’s podcast earlier this year. Leaders shouldn’t launder political messaging through outrage influencers who show a willingness to torch private citizens and use their own personal dramas as clickbait to earn a crust.

It normalises pile-on politics and, frankly, demeans the office of the Prime Minister.

Defenders of the inflated rhetoric around Palestine say that strong words fit the horrors of Gaza. Many Australians agree that what’s happening is horrific – but branding your opponents ‘genocide supporters’ isn’t going to win hearts and minds.

It comes across as performative, preaching to the converted and blind to nuance. It also shrinks the space for good-faith disagreements.

Chatfield had received private messages from a friend – whom she once claimed to love – about Israel’s record on gay rights and women’s rights, and she decided to use them as part of a public-shaming ritual.

Is that advocacy? Or personal betrayal? I’ll let you decide.

The fact that a court must now adjudicate on the matter is just sad.

But Chatfield isn’t alone. Grace Tame’s posts are also often a textbook example of escalatory rhetoric. Atrocity labels such as ‘genocide’ and ‘ethnic cleansing’ are repeatedly used in her public statements, framing support for Israel as ‘legitimisation of Jewish supremacist ethnonationalism’. Talk about a word salad.

Nike ended Tame’s ambassador deal in June after reviewing some of her more inflammatory posts. It’s hardly surprising really.

You don’t need to be a defender of Israel to see how much of the language used in this debate pours petrol on an already out-of-control fire. Nuanced understandings are lost in the modern online world, often replaced by blunt insults designed to shock.

The inevitable result is polarisation. The middle (where persuasion usually happens) simply walks away. For them, it is too negative and nasty to engage with.

We’ve been here before.

Remember the Sydney Opera House furore? Viral clips ricocheted around claims that protesters had chanted ‘gas the Jews’. A forensic analysis by NSW Police later found no evidence that phrase was ever used. Apparently, audio tracking found that the chant was ‘where’s the Jews?’

Offensive, yes. An example of poor expression, certainly. But the more incendiary version – now proven to be false – drove the narrative for months. By the time the correction arrived, it almost no longer mattered.

The courts are increasingly left to mop up social media beefs – and let’s face it, who among us seriously trusts the judicial system? But it’s all we have when disputes become intractable.

Brittany Higgins lost her defamation case against Linda Reynolds over Twitter/X posts, and significant damages were ordered. The lesson is simple: social media isn’t a lawless town square in Australia.

The rules of engagement when using social media really shouldn’t be controversial.

Draft what you post first, then take a break before hitting send. If you wouldn’t (or couldn’t) splash it across a newspaper front page or say it to a defamation lawyer, then maybe don’t spray it out to your half a million followers, either.

Argue with substance rather than resort to extreme insults that are invariably inaccurate.

I mean – really – how does pointing out that Israel has a better track record on gay rights than Hamas make you a supporter of genocide? Come on.

If you think someone has got it wrong on Gaza, explain why with good reasoning, rather than simply condemn them as moral monsters.

And if you’re the nation’s political leader, pick platforms that elevate arguments rather than just get a thumbs-up from your media team.

Yes, free speech includes the freedom to be intemperate. But if the aim is to persuade those in the sensible centre, performative fury is a dead end.

The causes people care about deserve better than possibly defamatory slurs – and leaders who legitimise the whole circus by climbing into its tent.

Courts can award damages after the fact, but they can’t rebuild reputations and undo the damage of intemperate posting.

They certainly can’t rebuild trust in a public square now wired for permanent outrage.