OTT (over-the-top) platforms are increasingly finding that social media backlash doesn’t necessarily hurt viewership. Shows like The Royals and Nadaaniyan , which faced heavy trolling online, have emerged among the top streaming originals in Ormax Media’s mid-year list, with 15.5 million and 8.9 million viewers, respectively. Further, varying consumer tastes are often not adequately reflected in social media algorithms, where there might actually be an audience base for what some consider unwatchable.

“Social media chatter about long-form content, be it theatrical, streaming or linear television, can be misleading, because you can find yourself in an echo chamber that is not even remotely reflective of the real world,” Shailesh Kapoor, founder and chief executive officer (CEO), Ormax Media, wrote in a blog after publication of the list.

Nitin Gupta, chief creative officer, Chaupal, a platform specializing in Punjabi, Haryanvi and Bhojpuri content, agreed that social media trolling does not always lead to a drop in viewership. “In fact, sometimes it creates a sense of Fomo (fear of missing out) among audiences, even those who criticize the content. Trolling often becomes part of a larger conversation. It highlights areas that may need improvement but also brings more attention to the show,” Gupta added.

Backlash may help viewership

Outrage on X or Instagram is loud, but it’s rarely a perfect proxy for actual viewing behaviour, according to entertainment industry experts. Neelesh Pednekar, co-founder and head of digital media at Social Pill, a digital marketing agency, said the people who binge eight episodes on a weekend are not the same cohort crafting 20-thread takedowns. “OTT platforms optimise for completion rates, watch hours, and repeat sessions, metrics that don’t necessarily dip because a show is being roasted online. In many cases, backlash plateaus after 48-72 hours, while the title keeps quietly pulling steady (or even growing) streams. Unless the controversy hits a moral red line, such as calls for boycotts that spill into mainstream press, the impact is usually noise, not net loss,” Pednekar added.

Also Read | Movie theatres are back to being prime drivers of Bollywood revenue as OTT cools

Further, most OTTs have a playbook now which includes sentiment dashboards and social listening to separate genuine concerns from performative outrage, targeted public relations and creator outreach, such as giving interviews to the right journalists, seeding nuanced explainers and pushing “making-of” content to shift the narrative. They may also attempt product-side tweaks such as changing tiles or thumbnails, re-cutting trailers, or altering synopsis language to reset expectations.

Charu Malhotra, managing director and co-founder, Primus Partners, a management consultancy firm pointed out that in many cases, trolling ends up becoming free marketing. Controversy sparks curiosity and that is a real behaviour on OTT. When a show is being talked about, even negatively, people are more likely to check it out just to see what the trolling is about. For example, a show like Indian Matchmaking turned into a major online discussion point, mainly because of the social media criticism.

Controversy mongers

A lot of online outrage can stem from bad faith, Aparna Ramachandran, head–digital originals, Balaji Telefilms Ltd, said. Some individuals create outrage simply to increase their own online visibility or position themselves as opinion-makers by targeting major media brands.

“Therefore, it’s essential to understand audience bias and parse through the noise for valuable signals. Platforms look for clear indicators—such as genuine criticism or a disconnect with the content or the brand—to determine their next steps,” Ramachandran said, adding content typically has a long tail—its value is often recognized over time as it becomes part of larger conversations and cultural moments.

Not all shows have benefited from controversies. Netflix’s Leila, for example, set in a dystopian future with the world ruled by a totalitarian regime, didn’t spark interest.

To be sure, even as Indian OTT platforms navigate extreme criticism through a combination of strategies, most also provide age ratings and content warnings to help viewers make informed decisions about the content they consume. Some platforms have introduced self-regulation mechanisms to govern their content and address viewer concerns. Rajat Agrawal, chief operating officer (COO), Ultra Media & Entertainment Group that owns OTT platform Ultra Jhakaas, said, on one hand, excessive trolling can create a toxic environment around a show or film, making it less appealing to audiences. But on the positive side, trolling can sometimes generate buzz and increase curiosity as well.

“We’ve seen titles, on our platform and elsewhere, benefit from what I call ‘controversy curiosity’. In today’s digital age, where everyone’s forming opinions in real time, the algorithm rewards engagement, whether it’s outrage or excitement. Sometimes, the best marketing is accidental controversy. That said, the content must ultimately deliver; if it doesn’t, the spike is short-lived. But if the storytelling has merit, trolling ironically ends up being free publicity,” said Kaushik Das, founder and CEO, AAO NXT, an Odia language platform.

As far as regional platforms and shows go, controversial subjects do not spark as much debate because the viewer base is limited. Titles on bigger platforms are usually trolled online.

Now that AI developers are getting paid like pro athletes, it’s fitting that fans are placing big bets on how well they’re doing their jobs.

On Kalshi, Polymarket and other sites where people wager “predictions” on real-world events, gamblers lay down millions each month on their picks for AI’s top model.

The AI arms race is playing out in plain sight on social media, ranking sites and obscure corners of the internet where enthusiasts hunt for clues. The constant buzz makes the topic appealing for wagers, though not every scrap of information is meaningful.

Foster McCoy made $10,000 in a few hours in early August by betting against the success of OpenAI’s GPT-5 release. The 27-year-old day trader noticed people were misreading an online ranking site that appeared to hype GPT-5, so he put $4,500 on its competitor, Google’s Gemini, to be “Best AI This Month.” As more bettors fell in line with his call, he cashed out.

View Full Image Graphic: WSJ

That’s just another day for McCoy, who has traded $3.2 million on Kalshi since the start of 2025—making $170,000. He’s part of a growing contingent of bettors making hundreds of trades a week on AI markets, on a range of wagers such as “Best AI at the end of 2025,” “AI regulation becomes federal law this year,” and “Will [Chief Executive] Sam Altman be granted an equity stake in OpenAI this year?”

Trading volume across AI prediction markets has surged to around $20 million this month. Kalshi, the only platform currently available in the U.S., is seeing 10 times the volume on AI trades compared with the start of the year, a spokesman says.

Each bet, or “contract,” is priced in cents to reflect the odds: McCoy bought thousands of Gemini contracts at around 40 cents, meaning it had a 40% chance of winning. If the bet had settled and Gemini won, McCoy’s 40 cents would become a dollar. If Gemini lost, McCoy would lose it all.

But much of the action happens before the final outcome. As more people piled into the Gemini bet, the contract price rose. McCoy sold when it had reached 87 cents. It’s like betting on a sports match, only with the option to cash out when the odds rise in favor of your bet.

“You’re just betting against what the other guy knows,” says McCoy, who credits his success to “being chronically online.”

He trades from home on a triple-monitor setup tuned to the holy trinity of AI betting: X, Discord and LMArena, a leaderboard where people rate AI model performance in blind tests.

Social-media beefs can be gold for gamblers. After GPT-5’s debut, a flurry of Elon Musk posts claiming the superiority of his xAI Grok chatbot sent the “Grok to Win” market up more than 500% within hours. Before long, it had fallen nearly all the way back down.

View Full Image Rishab Jain, a Harvard undergraduate, tracks back-end updates and obscure X posts to anticipate new AI model launches. Photo: Rishab Jain

Bettors end up down rabbit holes hunting for more obscure tidbits. Harvard undergraduate Rishab Jain often scans X accounts of lesser-known researchers. The day before GPT-5’s release, OpenAI’s Sam Altman posted an image of the Death Star from “Star Wars.” When a researcher from Google’s DeepMind replied with an image of the killer globe under attack, Jain read it as a sign of confidence from Gemini’s makers.

Jain also scrapes source files from Google’s apps and monitors public GitHub repositories tied to its products, looking for back-end changes that might signal a soon-to-be-released Gemini model.

“I’m almost obsessively up-to-date with what’s going on in this world,” Jain says. “Google has so many products that need to integrate a new model before it officially launches, and you can see those changes happening in the back end if you know where to look.”

Since starting in June, he has won $3,500.

Strategies vary. Some bet on the big industry players, others buy low on less-known or soon-to-be-updated models. Some compare odds on Kalshi and Polymarket to find arbitrage opportunities in the odds.

As volume for these AI trades continues to grow, the incentive for good information will only increase, and the squeeze on casual bettors will get tighter, says Robin Hanson, a professor of economics at George Mason University.

“When you have better information in these kinds of markets, you can make better decisions,” Hanson says. “If you know a little more, you make more money.”

For now, the markets still draw a mix of sharks like McCoy and Jain along with casual bettors.

“I’m just a dude that likes tech and has some time and money,” says James Cole, a 35-year-old who recently shut down a company he founded. “I’m speculating with mostly instinct and 10 minutes of research.”

He says he’s up for the year…so far.

Write to Ben Raab at ben.raab@wsj.com

TEL AVIV—The families of Israeli hostages held in Gaza led nationwide protests and a strike calling for their loved ones to be freed and for an end to the war in Gaza, a sign of growing domestic pressure to wrap up the fighting even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he plans to expand it.

Protesters blocked big highways across the country on Sunday morning—the start of the working week in Israel—as part of demonstrations that will take place in more than 300 different locations and are expected to draw hundreds of thousands of Israelis, according to organizers. Major Israeli universities and some businesses and tech companies said they would strike for the day in support of the families.

The day of protests comes as Netanyahu announced earlier this month that Israel would take over Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are believed to be sheltering and where some Israeli hostages are thought to be held. That decision has drawn broad international condemnation as well as domestic opposition, with polls showing that close to 80% of Israelis, including right-wingers, support ending the war in exchange for the remaining hostages held in Gaza.

The pressure has so far failed to move Netanyahu. His critics say that he is prolonging the almost two-year-long war for his own political survival, an allegation he denies.

“The Prime Minister can bring one deal to return all the hostages and end the war, and he also has the backing of the people for that,” said Noam Peri, the daughter of deceased hostage Chaim Peri, during a press conference on Sunday morning. “But he chooses to expand it, in a decision that is a death sentence for the hostages who are dying in the tunnels.”

Netanyahu’s government depends on the support of far-right lawmakers who oppose ending the war and call for re-establishing Jewish settlements in Gaza. Lawmakers from Netanyahu’s coalition sharply criticized Sunday’s demonstrations.

“The riots in support of Hamas have begun,” said Likud party lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky in a post on X.

The war in Gaza has killed over 61,000 people, according to Palestinian health authorities, which don’t say how many were combatants, and has left swaths of the strip in ruins. The enclave faces a dire humanitarian crisis, including widespread hunger.

In a sign of preparation for an invasion of Gaza City, the Israeli military unit charged with humanitarian coordination, called COGAT, said Saturday that it would begin to transfer tents and shelter equipment into Gaza. It said the equipment was required to evacuate the population south, a step Israel said it would take before the military operation began.

Write to Anat Peled at anat.peled@wsj.com

Demonstrators across Israel called on Sunday for an end to the Gaza war and a deal to release hostages still held by militants, a push sharply criticised by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies.

The protests come more than a week after Israel’s security cabinet approved plans to capture Gaza City, 22 months into a war that has created dire humanitarian conditions in the Palestinian territory.

The war was triggered by Palestinian militant group Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, during which 251 people were taken hostage.

Forty-nine captives remain in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead.

A huge Israeli flag covered with portraits of the remaining captives was unfurled in Tel Aviv’s so-called Hostage Square — which has been a focal point for protests throughout the war.

“This is probably the last minute we have to save the hostages,” demonstrator Ofir Penso, 50, told AFP as thousands gathered in downtown Tel Aviv ahead of a night of protests.

“Israelis are not all alike. There is a substantial part… that opposes the official policy,” he added amid the crowd of protesters, some of them carrying flags emblazoned with “681”, the number of days hostages have been held in Gaza.

Demonstrators also blocked roads, including the highway connecting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem where they set tyres on fire, according to Israeli media footage.

The police said more than 30 protesters were arrested for disturbing public order.

Organisers also called for a general strike on Sunday — the first day of the working week in Israel.

Nentanyahu slammed the protesters, saying their actions “not only harden Hamas’s position and draw out the release of our hostages, but also ensure that the horrors of October 7 will reoccur”.

– ‘Shut down the country’ –

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum campaign group said protesters would “shut down the country today (Sunday) with one clear call: Bring back the 50 hostages, end the war”.

Their tally includes a soldier killed in a 2014 war whose remains are held by Hamas.

Recent videos released by Hamas and its ally Islamic Jihad showing two weak and emaciated captives have heightened concern for the fate of the hostages.

“If we don’t bring them back now -– we will lose them forever,” the forum said.

Egypt said in recent days mediators were leading a renewed push to secure a 60-day truce deal that would include hostages being released, after the last round of talks in Qatar ended without a breakthrough.

Some Israeli government members who oppose any deal with Hamas slammed Sunday’s demonstrations.

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich decried “a perverse and harmful campaign that plays into the hands of Hamas” and calls for “surrender”.

Benny Gantz, an opposition leader, condemned the government “attacking the families of the hostages” while “bearing responsibility for the captivity of their children by Hamas for nearly two years”.

AFPTV footage showed protesters at a rally in Beeri, a kibbutz near the Gaza border that was one of the hardest-hit communities in the Hamas attack, and Israeli media reported protests in numerous locations across the country.

– Famine warnings –

The Israeli plans to expand the war into Gaza City and nearby refugee camps have sparked an international outcry as well as domestic opposition.

Chief of staff Lieutenant General Eya Zamir said on Sunday that the military was “approving the plan for the next phase of the war”.

“We will maintain the momentum of Operation ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ while focusing on Gaza City. We will continue to strike until the decisive defeat of Hamas,” he said, referring to a major offensive launched in May.

In response Hamas said the plans would result in “a new wave of extermination and mass displacement”.

According to an Army Radio report, the plan includes residents of Gaza City being evacuated before troops encircled and seize the city, beginning “in the coming weeks”.

Tens of thousands of reserve soldiers would be called up for the mission, the report added.

Israel on Saturday said it was preparing “to move the population from combat zones to the southern Gaza Strip for their protection”.

UN-backed experts have warned of widespread famine unfolding in the territory, where Israel has drastically curtailed the amount of humanitarian aid it allows in.

Gaza’s civil defence agency said Israeli fire on Sunday killed at least seven Palestinians waiting to collect food aid near two sites.

Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures.

Israel’s offensive has killed more than 61,944 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to figures from the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza which the United Nations considers reliable.

bur-ds/csp/

Reformers take too much credit for reform. So often, good happens when upper classes collide in self-interest but ostensibly for a good cause. As we will get to see once again when the Supreme Court decides the fate of stray dogs in the National Capital Region.

Awaiting the order are two warring sides. One group of people believes that stray dogs belong on the streets, with humans, free and fed by their lovers. The other group seems to despise stray dogs but I think their real bone to pick is with dog-lovers. They want the dogs removed from the roads, and for this they have discovered a sudden and uncharacteristic love for India’s poor, who are the primary victims of dog bites as they are fully exposed to Indian street life.

Also Read: Indian sophistication on stray dogs can be confusing

Most civilian wars in societies across the world are between these two kinds of people.

Those who stand for values, who have moral clarity on the matter because they will face no consequences, and who are thus able to say all the right things, which are easy to defend on camera.

And the other side that is practical, and wants to live in a convenient way and for which they know that some values need to be compromised. They cannot easily argue their moral ambiguity in public and have to deploy the plight of the poor.

But what they believe in is usually what many people say privately. They want stray dogs gone but do not want to be directly responsible for that because they don’t want to pay a price for it in the afterlife. The second group might well be most of India. The first makes most of the noise.

Also Read: The mean streets are no happy home for stray dogs

The stray dog issue has appeared in Indian courts for years, with the victories mostly going the way of stray dogs. But a few days ago, a Supreme Court bench on its own accord took up the matter of the dangers of stray dogs, especially deaths from rabies, and ruled that all strays, probably a million, in the National Capital Region must be taken off the roads and put in shelters, which do not exist today in sufficient numbers.

The problem is that if stray dogs do have a right to life, then they belong on the roads. As in, they are not meant to be in shelters with hundreds of other dogs—that would be a brutally feral world. Another bench heard an appeal and, at the time of writing this piece, was yet to announce its decision.

Also Read: Manu Joseph: Can anything save Indians from miserable urban lives?

By the standards of conflicts in Indian middle-class society, this is one with useful consequences for the poor. Usually, Indians waste a lot of emotion on useless things, by which I mean issues that will not improve the abysmal quality of life in India.

The issue is morally complex. Guardians of stray dogs deny the scale of the problem. They say the numbers of dog bites and rabies deaths are exaggerated, and that stray dogs don’t attack without reason. But this is unlikely to be the view of most Indians. Dogs are a danger, especially to children, disabled and the old. Like people, they are endearing when powerless. But, at the slightest whiff of an upper hand, as in the presence of a scared child, they are beasts.

Also, Indians have died from dog bites despite being administered the anti-rabies vaccine. This could be because of the inconsistent refrigeration of vaccines. So, if you are a person who has to walk home down narrow lanes, especially at night, or go on a bike, there is a real fear of death upon the sight of half a dozen dogs sitting peacefully at a road junction. It really is not about the chances of dog bite, but about the miasma of a reasonable fear.

Seen this way, stray dogs don’t belong on the roads. But then, seen from the point of view of dogs, they belong out in the open. To an extent, they have better lives than house pets that are locked up most of the time and whose only luxury is that they are fed well. I have seen house dogs moan in envy, perhaps, at stray dogs.

Also Read: What protects us from being stabbed in our own homes?

The government has failed to do the humane thing to reduce the population of strays—sterilization. In any case, sterilization works best for pets, or on a small scale, and not for a city-wide reduction of the canine population.

Besides, the government can barely fix roads; we cannot expect it to do difficult things, like finding humane ways to keep the number of urban dogs down. This leaves us with inhumane solutions, like dumping them all in something that we call a ‘shelter’ for our own comfort.

As of now, stray dogs are protected by exemplary laws. This has angered people. I feel many developed a greater anger for stray dogs chiefly because of their annoyance with the moral swag of some animal activists.

Usually, when a moral idea irritates people, only politicians speak for them. So, in the past few days, politicians have raged against dogs. Some, like Rahul Gandhi, had the courage to take a political risk and say that “voiceless souls” are “not the problems to be erased.” He said, “Blanket removals are cruel, short-sighted, and strip us of compassion. We can ensure public safety and animal welfare go hand in hand.”

But there is no such solution, especially a short-term solution. In any moral debate, it would be very lazy not to factor in the incompetence of Indian local government officials. Sterilization is, therefore, just not practical.

I feel that nothing will come of this issue immediately because India rarely solves its difficult problems. So the dogs are safe for now. And the core of the problem will continue—the poor will pay a price as one segment of the country’s elite fight for the meaning of being human.

The author is a journalist, novelist and screenwriter. His latest book is ‘Why the Poor Don’t Kill Us.’