I've noticed a sharp spike in activity from people ostensibly on the far left this week.
There have been a few commonalities:
1) They don't follow me but show up in threads
2) They don't follow many (if any) people who I follow or follow me
3) They're posts aim to provoke
1/
There have been a few commonalities:
1) They don't follow me but show up in threads
2) They don't follow many (if any) people who I follow or follow me
3) They're posts aim to provoke
1/
4) They allege they're extremely progressive
5) Their profile pics are either a man or an image - virtually none claim to be women
6) They don't show up in my mentions - meaning, they don't have a verified email address
2/
5) Their profile pics are either a man or an image - virtually none claim to be women
6) They don't show up in my mentions - meaning, they don't have a verified email address
2/
None of the above means they aren't actual people having actual conversations.
...and they're definitely not bots. They pass a bot-check and speak good English.
3/
...and they're definitely not bots. They pass a bot-check and speak good English.
3/
There's one thing I've learned (quite happily) over the past year through my own mentions and interactions though:
"Rose Twitter" - meaning people who use a rose emoji in their handle to identify as Dem Socialists - are generally reasonable, rational, good ppl.
4/
"Rose Twitter" - meaning people who use a rose emoji in their handle to identify as Dem Socialists - are generally reasonable, rational, good ppl.
4/
The raging loons are either rare or fake.
We all got played by Russia. Some feel for disinformation. Some fell for the baiting of fake accounts to provoke division.
I will be the first to admit I was influenced by the rhetoric of what were purported to be far left accounts.
5/
We all got played by Russia. Some feel for disinformation. Some fell for the baiting of fake accounts to provoke division.
I will be the first to admit I was influenced by the rhetoric of what were purported to be far left accounts.
5/
That wasn't an accident. That was the goal. Villainizing the other side fractures coalitions.
With that said, that effort seems to be ramping up again... and this time, it has some legacy baggage to work with.
6/
With that said, that effort seems to be ramping up again... and this time, it has some legacy baggage to work with.
6/
People tainted by that effort last time (and unaware that it was synthetic rather than organic) are already predisposed to slide back into a highly tribalistic war stance against allies on the left.
That's a problem.
7/
That's a problem.
7/
At this point, it's impossible to tell whether a highly aggressive, antagonistic poster is an aggrieved human or a professional actor.
At the end of the day, it makes no difference which they are.
I think we need to shut down aggressive provocateurs.
8/
At the end of the day, it makes no difference which they are.
I think we need to shut down aggressive provocateurs.
8/
Seems like we all gotta make a conscious effort to not feed the flames when someone wants to fire-start...
On my end, that's going to mean either ignoring or blocking. Selectively blocking deliberate arsonists is an imperfect process but gotta do it.
We can't repeat 2016.
<end>
On my end, that's going to mean either ignoring or blocking. Selectively blocking deliberate arsonists is an imperfect process but gotta do it.
We can't repeat 2016.
<end>
