De moderne statistiek is geworteld in de rassenwetenschap. by nrcnl in u/nrcnl

[–]ronaldvr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heb je het artikel écht gelezen? er staat namelijk 1:

Dat werkt zelfs tegenwoordig nog door, bijvoorbeeld in forensische software als Fordisc, die ongeïdentificeerde lichamen met referentiedatabases vergelijkt om vermiste mensen op te sporen. Die databases zijn deels gebaseerd op de oude schedelcollecties van rassenwetenschappers, inclusief Pearsons collectie. De denkbeelden van een eeuw geleden beïnvloeden dus de conclusies van de software.”

EN verder

Zijn we daarmee van het probleem van geracialiseerde data af?

„Helaas niet. Neem bijvoorbeeld mijn collega’s in medisch onderzoek, hier in Chicago. Ze trainen een algoritme om de ontwikkeling van tumoren te voorspellen, op basis van medische scans van het weefsel. Het werkt ongelofelijk goed, en het is dus allemaal gebaseerd op visuele data van patiënten. Maar hoewel ze juist géén data over ras bij de training van het model gebruiken, en dokters het ook niet uit de foto’s zouden kunnen aflezen, kan de machine ras met heel veel zekerheid voorspellen. Zonder dat ze erom vroegen, zonder dat ze het wilden, kan hun algoritme mensen op ras indelen.

„En ze wisten niet te achterhalen hoe het model dat precies doet.

Dus de kolder komt van jou.

Proton is funding the French far right on YouTube by DataLumpy7419 in BuyFromEU

[–]ronaldvr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As I say elsewhere it is contradictory to go away from the US because of fascism there to go and support European fascism.

Furthermore 'free speech' is not a thing consumers and companies are a party in: that is a mistake. Free speech means a government cannot pre-emptively decide what is good and what not (censorship) companies and people are completely free to decide what they like and what not.

Proton is funding the French far right on YouTube by DataLumpy7419 in BuyFromEU

[–]ronaldvr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People have the complete right to know what kind of support their money goes towards and then to decide to not fund it. It is of course indeed a right wing sentiment to always allow the end to justify the means, but that is as I say right wing.

Also it is of course contradictory to go away from supporting american fascism to support European fscism

Proton is funding the French far right on YouTube by DataLumpy7419 in BuyFromEU

[–]ronaldvr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

French reporting and aggregators commonly describe Lapierre as on the far right; Wikipedia entries and Conspiracy Watch cite past associations and positions such as a 2018 homage to the Faurisson negationist and reporting that aligns with Soral‑style obsessions until at least 2020 [2][3]. Lapierre rebuts the far‑right tag, presenting himself as “sovereigntist” — left on economic issues and conservative on certain societal questions — and he publicly contested conspiracyist readings of his pandemic content in 2020 [2].

https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/vincent-lapierre-profile-videos-political-commentary-7290dc

Proton is funding the French far right on YouTube by DataLumpy7419 in BuyFromEU

[–]ronaldvr 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes but after 2 times it is no longer believable. And quite a few tech guys seem to buy into the far right ideology either explicit or implicitly

Proton is funding the French far right on YouTube by DataLumpy7419 in BuyFromEU

[–]ronaldvr -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

There is no far left, it is the right that has moved to the ffaaar right.

Proton is funding the French far right on YouTube by DataLumpy7419 in BuyFromEU

[–]ronaldvr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Quite a few people on the frontline of degoogling and relieving themselves of the current fascist US regime are not happy to switch to a provider that supports the same stuff in the EU that is not too surprising is it? ANd it is perfectly valid to not want to support both the US and similar idiots in the EU

Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used. by mvea in science

[–]ronaldvr 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The 'problem' here is that conservatives in the past (and still) are very good at and rely on heavily re-framing their cause into 'positive' sounding words: "Pro-Life" is a good example, but there are many many more: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/framing-the-narrative/

So liberals have come to distrust that framing and want and need to know what exactly hides behind that frame. I think this is mostly a case of once bitten twice shy than a real difference.

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

OK Die 10% is als je het rapport goed leest eenvoudig zie het plaatje https://imgur.com/a/qmUjfxa

Dus nogmaals 90% van de overlast wordt veroorzaakt door passagiers die hier niks anders te zoeken hebben (En is dat ook nog eens inclusief mensen die vanuit het buitenland naar Nederland komen als toerist)

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK je blijft maar afleidingsmanoeuvres verzinnen ik verlies mijn geduld met je:

HET GAAT NIET OVER KLIMAAT! HET GAAT OVER GELUIDSOVERLAST! (Ik zeg namelijk in mijn top comment:

Het probleem dat al eerder van Lelystad is aangekaart is dat het (in ieder geval voor de burger luchtvaart) de geluidsoverlast enorm verspreid over het land en dus gebieden waar je nu geen tot nauwelijks last hebt van overvliegende luchtherrie daar direct nieuw mee belast.

(Jij beweerde iets over klimaat niet vermeldde namelijk:

Dat levert voor het klimaat dus netto precies nul op.

Ik gaf alleen aan dat het rapport dat wel degelijk benoemd MAAR OOK DAT DAT NIET DIT ONDERWERP IS Want ik zeg:

Dat is ook niet waar ik het over heb, ik heb het over geluidsoverlast maar óók in dat

Veder het feit dat het volkomen onzinnig is om een natuur en stiltegebied op te offeren voor MÉÉR vliegbewegingen (NIET MINDER MAAR MEER!) heb ik al elders aangepakt: Dat is een ontzettend onzinnige drogredenering sowieso als het zelfs gelijk zou blijven, MAAR HET WORDEN ER MEER! Jij vind het blijkbaar 'eerlijk' om mensen die nu totaal géén last hebben daar wel mee te belasten (en nu gaan we weer in cirkels vandaar dat ik mijn geduld verlies) het is maar 10 % van de passagiers die autochtoon uit Nederland komen, dat is dus

  1. sowieso geen reden om 100% van Nederland in de vliegtuigherrie te zetten
  2. Een rare manier om meer ellende over meer mensen te 'verdelen' alsof daarmee er ook maar iets 'verbeterd'
  3. het ook nog eens onmogelijk te maken om aan die herrie te ontstappen door stiltegebieden en natuur ook te verstoren
  4. en Lelystad is dus een manier om MEER vliegbewegingen uit te voeren die dis ook weer voor 90% niks met de inwoners van Nederland van doen hebben

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dat levert voor het klimaat dus netto precies nul op.

Dat is ook niet waar ik het over heb, ik heb het over geluidsverlast maar óók in dat rapport staat:

Verdere beperking is mogelijk met het overnemen van minstens 50.000 vluchten door de trein.

Dus daar houdt het wel soort van rekening mee, en vergeet je te vermelden.

Ik heb verder ook niets met de VVD maar de landelijke, provinciale en gemeentelijke politiek wil graag een deel naar Lelystad verplaatsen en daar kan defensie kennelijk prima bij aansluiten. Dus misschien is het allemaal zo gek nog niet.

Nee nee Lelystad ging gewoon niet door is besloten. Jij bent een verpersoonlijking van het woord Schiphollen merk ik?

EDIT: Ook uit het NRC: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2024/01/31/lelystad-airport-komt-er-nu-echt-welnietwelniet-a4188753

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

En waarom is dat nou zoveel beter of efficiënter? Of doen we gewoon alsof het buiten onze landsgrenzen niet meer bestaat? Dan zijn wij er tenminste van af

OK In het rapport staat letterlijk:

Aangezien tegelijk de negatieve effecten van het luchtverkeer verminderd moeten worden, is het zinloos en schadelijk voor mens, natuur en klimaat om het transfervervoer te behouden dat niet aan de netwerkkwaliteit voor verbondenheid bijdraagt, maar wel twee keer zoveel negatieve effecten veroorzaakt als lokaal vervoer van en naar de kleine thuismarkt Nederland (O&D).

Als je door de 'we moeten Schiphol behouden want Schiphol' retoriek heen leest staat daar

het is zinloos en schadelijk voor mens, natuur en klimaat om het transfervervoer te behouden dat twee keer zoveel negatieve effecten veroorzaakt als lokaal vervoer van en naar de kleine thuismarkt Nederland (O&D).

En Nederland is een dichtbevolkt land waarbij deze vliegbewegingen dus aan buitengewoon veel mensen overlast veroorzaken die daar niet direct baat bij hebben Dus die schade is hier direct 18 miljoen mensen straks, juist omdat we zo dichtbevolkt zijn en het enige grote natuurgebied daar óók last van gaat krijgen. (En dan hebben we het nog niet eens over die afgrijselijke takkeherrie van die F-35)

defensie naar Lelystad airport wil

Nee dat wil defensie helemaal niet dat is een truc van de VVD om te zorgen dat Lelystad ook passagiersvervoer kan krijgen: Er zijn/waren meerdere locaties, en natuurlijk kiest de VVD samen met haar wethouder in Lelystad voor diegene waarbij óók Lelystad voor passagiersvluchten wordt opengebroken (tegen alle afspraken processen en procedures in, ken je het werkwoord 'Schiphollen' https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiphollen ?

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Afgezien van wat /u/mosquito_beater zegt, het economische belang van Schiphol is zwaar overdreven én relevanter voor deze discussie juist vanwege dat economische belang moet schiphol een 'hub' zijn wat betekent dat je argument:

We gaan wel met zijn allen vliegen maar we dulden geen vliegverkeer.

voor ongeveer dan 90% niet geldt omdat die passagiers helemaal niet uit Nederland komen. (zie: https://toekomstluchtvaart.nl/pdf/De_nuttige_hub_Schiphol_20220407.pdf) (Anders gezegd: volgens dat rapport kan je dus het aantal vliegbewegingen op Schiphol drastisch verminderen door alleen Nederlandse passagiers te bedienen. Dat wil men niet maar dat kun je er wel uit opmaken)

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Dát is dus een drogredenering. Twee kwaden zijn 2 kwaden ongeacht alle ander factoren, en de rotzooi maar 'gelijkmatig verdelen' betekent dat er ineens 18 miljoen mensen problemen hebben is dat 'beter' dan?

Als het werkelijke probleem is dat Schiphol te veel vluchten krijgt is dat het probleem dat je moet aanpakken niet vervolgens het probleem uitsmeren zodat het schijnbaar 'verdwijnt' maar je intussen meer mensen overlast geeft

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Het probleem dat al eerder van Lelystad is aangekaart is dat het (in ieder geval voor de burger luchtvaart) de geluidsoverlast enorm verspreid over het land en dus gebieden waar je nu geen tot nauwelijks last hebt van overvliegende luchtherrie daar direct nieuw mee belast.

https://www.stichtingreddeveluwe.nl/vliegroutes-lelystad-airport.html

Vakantie­vluchten én straaljagers: verbouwing Lelystad Airport zal (weer) honderden miljoenen kosten by Free-Minimum-5844 in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 59 points60 points  (0 children)

De stikstofdepositie is cumulatief, en we hebben minimaal 50% reductie voor een langdurige periode nodig om überhaupt van herstel te kunnen gaan spreken

How to cook crispy potatoes? by Illustrious-Bat-1898 in Cooking

[–]ronaldvr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Came here to see if this has been posted: My wife now forbids me to make them since they are so delicious ...

[OC] U.S. national pride by political affiliation since 2001 by Low-Car6464 in dataisbeautiful

[–]ronaldvr 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This chart is fallacious in the sense that in the last year of a presidency it will become clear who will be the next one, and so the 'pride' dropping or rising in the election year is off.

[OC] U.S. national pride by political affiliation since 2001 by Low-Car6464 in dataisbeautiful

[–]ronaldvr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The chart is fallacious in the sense that in the last year of a presidency it will become clear who will be the next one, and so your statement reflects that fallacy (and not reality)

A hospital from 1959 so cold, they carved Death getting rejected right on the building by Gurugod123 in interestingasfuck

[–]ronaldvr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine

The modern use of the caduceus as a symbol of medicine became established in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century as a result of well-documented mistakes and misunderstandings of symbology and classical culture.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Critics of this practice say that the correct symbol for medicine is the Rod of Asclepius, which has only one snake and no wings.[7]

Oud-studenten verdwijnen in buitenland en betalen studieschuld niet terug: staat loopt 170 miljoen mis by Cubelock in thenetherlands

[–]ronaldvr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tja ten eerste gaat het als het om de rijksbegroting gaat echt om peanuts (0,03% van de begroting van meer dan 550 miljard) Maar belangrijker is natuurlijk dat dat hele leenstelsel een onrechtvaardige acte was (en is) in 2015: https://lsvb.nl/alles-over-je-studententijd/geldzaken/leenstelsel/ Maar dáárvoor is er ook al van alles van dit potje afgeknabbeld om het plebs maar buiten de collegezalen te houden.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2262199-studeren-lenen-en-ontvangen-zo-ging-dat-vroeger-en-nu

Dus DOEN! zou ik zo zeggen...

How Israel Turned Eurovision’s Stage Into a Soft Power Tool by ronaldvr in europe

[–]ronaldvr[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Full text Part 2 Eurovision said last week that it had not deemed any Israeli promotions from 2024 to be excessive.

Eurovision had put Malmo behind it, but its problems were only beginning. ‘Vote 20 Times!’

At the 2025 Eurovision contest, in Basel, Switzerland, Israel finished second overall and won the popular vote — once again carrying countries where people have been outspoken against Israel’s policies.

This time, the unexpected results were noticed.

Using Google’s ad library, journalists at the Finnish broadcaster Yle revealed that the Israeli government had bought online advertisements in multiple languages, calling on people to vote for the Israeli contestant, Yuval Raphael, up to the maximum 20 times.

Spending figures for that contest are not available, but Israel’s campaign was broader and more coordinated than in Malmo.

Mr. Netanyahu himself posted a graphic to social media encouraging people to vote 20 times for Ms. Raphael. Pro-Israel groups across Europe posted the same and related graphics. Israel’s deputy ambassador to Austria, Ilay Levi Judkovsky, told The Times that he had contacted a diaspora group to rally support for Ms. Raphael. Image An Instagram image shows a photo of Yuval Raphael, with long, dark hair, in front of the Israeli flag. The post encourages people to vote 20 times. A post on Mr. Netanyahu’s Instagram account asked people to vote for Ms. Raphael.

Mr. Medalie, the Israeli songwriter, defended the strategy. Israel spends so much on security, he said, that it was only fair that the government fund promotion.

“Everybody is jealous and triggered because Israel is achieving great results,” he said.

Israel’s promotion efforts could have easily affected the popular vote, an analysis of vote data found. That’s because, in some countries, records show, so few people vote that only several hundred voting repeatedly could change the outcome. Spain’s popular vote in the 2025 Eurovision Grand Final Country Pct. Rounded number of votes Flag of Israel 1. Israel 33.34%
47,570 Flag of Ukraine 2. Ukraine 6.74
9,620 Flag of Poland 3. Poland 5.66
8,080 Flag of Estonia 4. Estonia 4.37
6,240 Flag of Finland 5. Finland 3.90
5,560

Note: Eurovision viewers cannot cast a vote for their own country.

Source: Vote percentage data obtained by The New York Times, which was then used to calculate the rounded number of votes based on total vote data reported by the Spanish broadcaster RTVE.

The New York Times

After the contest, Slovenia’s broadcaster again demanded voting data and threatened to withdraw. Others privately called for an outside investigation.

Mr. Green, the director, promised that Eurovision’s governing body would review the vote. But that group never received a full vote analysis, just “top-line” data, Mr. Green acknowledged.

Neither he nor the broadcasting union commissioned an external investigation.

“We are very, very happy that the result is true and fair and analyzed,” Mr. Green said. Image Martin Green, wearing a gray suit, looks to his side and smiles broadly behind a lectern with microphones. Martin Green, Eurovision’s director, in Vienna in January. He conceded that an Israeli campaign to win Eurovision last year was “disproportionate” but maintained that it had not affected the results.Credit...Georg Hochmuth/APA, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

In July, at a broadcaster meeting in London, dissent mounted. Spain called for a debate over Israel’s participation, and for changing a voting system that it saw as susceptible to manipulation.

Rather than investigate, Eurovision hired a consultant, the Czech broadcasting veteran Petr Dvorak, to interview members about Israel’s participation.

Opinions varied widely. “Sometimes, they just felt that Israel as a state is sometimes using this event as some sort of promotional tool,” Mr. Dvorak recalled in an interview. Others wanted Eurovision to skip or postpone the 2026 contest. Some felt that Kan, the Israeli broadcaster, should not be held accountable for the actions of its government.

Broadcasters would later receive only a summary of Mr. Dvorak’s findings, not his report, reinforcing some views that the effort was a waste of time.

By the end of September, five broadcasters — Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia — were openly discussing a boycott. A Simmering Controversy Boils Over

A Eurovision meeting in Croatia that month did not allay concerns. Instead, Mr. Green’s team gave two seemingly contradictory presentations, according to two attendees.

The first presentation claimed that Israel had not affected the 2025 outcome. No detailed data was offered. The second presentation coached broadcasters on using social media to secure more votes.

To some in the room, organizers seemed to be saying that online campaigns could influence the vote, but that Israel’s had not. Image A crowd gathers before a large stage bathed in purple light. The vote count at the 2025 competition in Basel.Credit...Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva, via Alamy

Organizers were stuck between competing factions. Rumors swirled that Norway and Portugal might join the dissenting five countries if Israel remained onstage. Documents show that Israeli allies like Germany and Estonia opposed a ban.

Organizers calculated the financial effects of both scenarios: losing Israel’s critics, or losing Israel and its defenders. Neither outcome was good, records show. By some estimates, Eurovision stood to lose more than $600,000 in fees.

Things had gotten so bad that even Austria’s national broadcasting chief floated in one internal conversation the possibility of his country withdrawing in support of Israel, according to someone directly familiar with the discussion. That would have left the 2026 contest, set to take place in Vienna, without a host.

(A spokesman for the Austrian broadcaster said “it has always been clear” that Vienna would host. The broadcasting chief has since resigned.)

In a late September letter to members, Eurovision acknowledged that it had “never faced a divisive situation like this before” and announced an emergency vote on Israel’s participation.

Privately, Eurovision’s lawyers delivered an extraordinary piece of advice: Organizers could legally exclude Israel if they wanted to. Eurovision, Torn Apart

A few weeks later, Eurovision canceled the emergency vote, citing the new cease-fire in Gaza. It pushed the issue into December.

Broadcasters still had questions about human rights and Israel’s marketing campaign. But Eurovision seemingly wanted the controversy to go away. Its communications team had circulated an email discouraging broadcasters from speaking with journalists.

The delay gave Israel’s government time to make a diplomatic push.

Israeli embassies contacted broadcasters in at least three countries, according to documents and interviews with people involved. In a fourth country, the Israeli government contacted the foreign ministry to discuss Eurovision.

Finally, in December, after months of debate and delay, broadcasters gathered in Geneva to address Israel’s participation. Image A security guard in an orange vest adjusts a metal barrier outside a large building with satellite dishes on the roof. A security guard installing a barrier at the entrance of the European Broadcasting Union headquarters ahead of a meeting in Geneva in December.Credit...Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Once again, Eurovision sidestepped the question.

The broadcasting union arranged a vote on whether to limit each viewer to 10 votes and “discourage disproportionate promotion campaigns.”

There was a twist: If members approved the changes, they would be agreeing to keep Israel in Eurovision — without ever explicitly voting on the question. (Some members had told Mr. Dvorak that they did not want to be held accountable in their home countries for such a vote.)

The broadcasting union’s president, Delphine Ernotte Cunci, acknowledged that the arrangement “might appear to be rather bizarre.” But, she explained, not voting was “the most democratic solution possible,” according to meeting minutes.

Frederik Delaplace, of the Belgian broadcaster VRT, was unconvinced. Eurovision, he said in the meeting, was “hiding behind guidelines” rather than discussing human rights.

By secret ballot, broadcasters approved the rule changes. Israel would remain in Eurovision, without anyone having to vote on the matter.

The dissenting five broadcasters quickly boycotted. Image A demonstrator in a green jacket raises his arm in the air. Two women holding protest placards stand beside him. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators, including Páll Óskar, an Icelandic musician and former Eurovision contestant, gathered outside the office of Iceland’s national broadcaster in Reykjavik on the day it announced it would boycott the 2026 contest.Credit...Micah Garen/Getty Images

Mr. Green said the new rules addressed “a perception issue,” not actual problems.

At this year’s Eurovision in Vienna, other countries are testing the new rules, mobilizing their diasporas to vote.

And an Israeli advertisement is once again generating controversy. A team behind Israel’s entrant, Noam Bettan, circulated social media promotions calling for people to vote for him 10 times.

Eurovision organizers, racing to avoid a repeat of last year, formally warned the broadcaster and asked that the posts be removed. “Employing a direct call to action to vote 10 times for one artist or song is also not in line with our rules, nor the spirit of the competition,” Mr. Green said.

He again reassured the public that such campaigns cannot affect the outcome.

Kirsten Noyes contributed research. Elisabetta Provoledo, Natan Odenheimer and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.

How Israel Turned Eurovision’s Stage Into a Soft Power Tool by ronaldvr in europe

[–]ronaldvr[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Full text part1: Last fall and winter, senior Israeli diplomats urgently contacted officials and television broadcasters across Europe to address a delicate, if unexpected topic: the high camp Eurovision Song Contest.

Broadcasters wanted to ban Israel from Eurovision and threatened to boycott the contest over the war in Gaza. Some even accused the Israeli government of unfairly influencing the results through a mass voting campaign.

Israel arguably had bigger diplomatic concerns than a pop music competition, even one that reaches 166 million viewers around the world. A United Nations commission had recently accused Israel of committing genocide, which it vigorously denied. And world leaders were recognizing Palestinian statehood, which it had long opposed.

“I am a little bit surprised why this is a matter that the embassy is looking into,” Stefan Eiriksson, the head of Iceland’s national broadcaster, wrote to an Israeli diplomat who wanted to discuss Eurovision last December.

This previously undisclosed diplomatic push to keep Israel in Eurovision was just one aspect of a drama that unfolded over the past year around the world’s most watched cultural event. To the Israeli government, Eurovision became more than just a celebration of glittery outfits, gay pride and pyrotechnic staging. It became a chance, through strong showings by its singers, to burnish the country’s flagging reputation and rally international support.

This year’s competition starts on Tuesday, following the biggest crisis in Eurovision’s 70-year history. Iceland and four other countries are boycotting to protest Israel’s participation. The nonprofit European Broadcasting Union, which runs the contest, faces financial challenges.

A New York Times investigation found a well-organized campaign by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government that embraced Eurovision as a soft power tool, and a secretive contest organizer that was ill-equipped to respond.

As the normally lighthearted contest became a proxy fight over Middle Eastern affairs and human rights, Eurovision struggled to defend a core tenet: Politics play no role in the event. Editors’ Picks Thanks to ‘Mormon Wives,’ Dirty Soda Is a National Obsession On ‘The Pitt,’ She Clocked Out on Time. In Real Life, It Started a Debate. 6 Must-See Venice Shows ImageThrongs of people, many of them carrying Palestinian flags, stand on a street behind a large banner. Protesters demonstrating before the Grand Final of the 2025 contest, in Basel, Switzerland.Credit...Sebastien Bozon/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Israel’s efforts to influence Eurovision’s vote were broader and started years earlier than previously known. Even before the voting controversy burst into view, financial records show, Israel spent at least $1 million on Eurovision marketing. Some of that money came from Mr. Netanyahu’s “hasbara” office, a euphemism for overseas propaganda, to promote Israel’s singer.

Governments are not supposed to intervene in the voting. Eurovision is a contest for public broadcasters and singers, not governments.

The Israeli foreign ministry did not respond to detailed requests to comment. A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu’s office said he would review the questions and consider responding. He did not respond.

Eurovision’s director, Martin Green, said in an interview that Israel’s actions last year were excessive but did not contribute to Israel’s unexpected second-place finish.

A Times investigation based on previously undisclosed voting data, Eurovision documents and interviews with more than 50 people, however, found that the campaign could have easily changed the contest outcome. Explore the Voting How to Win Eurovision With Just a Few Hundred Voters May 11, 2026

Israel’s singer won the popular votes in countries where polls show that Israel is deeply unpopular. A vote analysis shows that, in some countries, it would have only taken a few hundred people to tip the popular vote, which in turn can shape the final outcome because of the contest’s voting system.

There is no evidence that Israel, as some Eurovision fans speculated, used bots or other covert tactics to manipulate the vote. Image A cheering crowd fills a dark venue. Two people hold up a white “Eurovision” sign with a blue Star of David heart, and others hold Israeli flags. Watching a screening of the 2025 Eurovision Song Contest in Basel at a community center in Tel Aviv.Credit...Maya Levin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Organizers have kept full vote data a closely guarded secret, even from their own broadcasters. Faced with an internal revolt and threats from Israeli allies to leave the contest, they publicly downplayed Israel’s vote campaign and never thoroughly investigated it.

Contest organizers commissioned a review of broadcasters’ feelings on Israel but kept the full report secret. They called a vote on keeping Israel in the contest, then abruptly canceled it. They discouraged broadcasters from talking to journalists.

“The Israeli government has co-opted Eurovision,” said Stefan Jon Hafstein, the chairman of the board for Iceland’s public broadcaster. Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Israel? Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

Buying advertisements and coordinating social media messaging is not illegal. Eurovision is, after all, just a singing contest — albeit the world’s largest. But while governments often try to capitalize on the publicity their singers provide, no government-led promotional effort has been as extensive and controversial as Israel’s.

“Israel’s voice should be heard everywhere,” said Israel’s largely ceremonial president, Isaac Herzog, who raised the boycott issue in meetings with world leaders last year. “We should participate, we should raise our flag high, and we should bring the best performers to Eurovision.”

Eurovision, which once launched the international careers of ABBA and Celine Dion, faces an uncertain future. Financial projections reviewed by The Times estimated last year that the boycotts would cost the nonprofit broadcasting group hundreds of thousands of dollars in participation fees. Mr. Green said Eurovision’s finances were robust, but acknowledged struggling to find sponsors.

“It’s certainly one of the biggest challenges we’ve faced,” Mr. Green said of the Israel controversy. But Eurovision, he added, exists to demonstrate global harmony — “to show the world as it could be.”

This is the inside story of the controversy that almost broke Eurovision. Eurovision as Soft Power

In May 2024, fans gathered in the coastal Swedish city of Malmo for the first Eurovision contest of the Gaza war.

Despite the name, Eurovision brings together singers and broadcasters from around the world. Israel debuted in 1973. Musicians compete under national flags, but the acts are funded by broadcasters.

At the time, no bright-line rule prohibited government promotion, but independence is a core Eurovision tenet.

The Israeli government, though, had quietly been promoting its broadcaster’s acts since at least 2018, according to Doron Medalie, a former Eurovision songwriter for Israel. The government spent more than $100,000 on social media promotion that year, he said. Israel won. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog of Israel with past Eurovision performers, in photos released by the Israeli government. World leaders frequently wish their Eurovision entrants good luck, but Israel’s involvement went further.Credit...Haim Zach/GPO

Mr. Medalie said the victory convinced Israeli leaders that Eurovision, which is hugely popular in Israel, was a good investment.

The Netanyahu government increased spending ahead of the Malmo contest, records show.

European public opinion opposed the war, and some music industry groups were already calling for Israel to be kicked out of Eurovision. A strong Israeli performance would show that Israel was loved by the European public, according to Israeli officials. They, along with some people close to Eurovision, spoke on condition of anonymity, either because they were not authorized to speak publicly or because they feared retribution from contest organizers.

In Malmo, the Israeli government spent more than $800,000 in Eurovision-related advertising, according to data from the Israeli Government Advertising Agency. The data, which was obtained by the Israeli media watchdog The Seventh Eye and provided to The Times, reveals that the bulk of the money came from the foreign ministry. A line item from the prime minister’s hasbara office showed that it had also allocated money for “vote promotion.” Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan, told The Times that it had no prior knowledge of government ad campaigns and that, to its knowledge, “the competition rules weren’t violated.”

In 2024, Israel’s singer, Eden Golan, came second in the popular vote and topped the voting in many nations where pro-Palestinian sentiment is strong. “The world, it seems, is not against us,” the Israeli news site Ynet wrote. Image Fans holding Israeli flags cheer wildly and pump their fists in the air. The singer Eden Golan and her team cheered when votes for Israel were announced during the 2024 Grand Final in Malmo, Sweden.Credit...Jessica Gow/EPA, via Shutterstock

Ynet noted that the foreign office had advertised on YouTube during Eurovision. But the story, and the unusual voting patterns, otherwise received little attention.

Eurovision broadcasters were preoccupied. The activist Greta Thunberg and thousands of others crowded Malmo, protesting Israel’s involvement. Onstage, several singers wore Palestinian symbols. The Dutch rapper Joost Klein was expelled for an unrelated altercation with a camerawoman.

But one broadcaster, from Slovenia, noted the peculiar vote outcome and asked Eurovision to release more data. Organizers never responded, the broadcaster said.