Profile picture
Nick Monroe @nickmon1112
, 93 tweets, 34 min read Read on Twitter
This bullshit politically charged and biased to all hell report about right-wing YouTubers is a thing you can read…
Complete with a creepy as fuck map
The agenda of "Alternative Influence Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" author, Rebecca Lewis, is to kickstart a new media blitz for deplatforming right-wing YouTubers under the ominous "EXTREMISM" brush.

Keep the author's intentions in mind as you read the report.
ON TOP OF THAT, the author of the report bleached her Twitter account clean.

Because she's *totally* for accountability. (Not.)
The Guardian has already published their piece pushing the report. The impression they want to give readers is that Rebecca's report is gospel and totally flawless.
But it's no coincidence the Guardian piece shows off the report's map.

You might as well draw CROSS HAIRS on each of the people named here. A BIG NEON SIGN that says "THIS is the Alex Jones. YOU MUST BAN THEM!"
Listen up, Becky. You're free to erase all your old tweets like skeletons in a closet as much as you'd like.

...But if you did that to hide your political leanings? You dun goofed. Considering you're pretty much an open book when it comes to that.
I'm willing to be straight-up with my personal biases, Rebecca. I try and be reasonable with everything I talk about here. But I'm a bit pissed off. Not just at the fact you target innocent people and paint them with the "EXTREMISM" boogeyman brush.

I had other shit to do today.
Tim @Timcast Pool (mentioned in the "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" report by Rebecca Lewis) makes a statement about himself being mentioned.

That statement being the report is PRETTY BLOODY MISLEADING w/ regards to his political leanings.
Now. WHY would @Timcast be upset about this report?

"Political Extremists Are Using YouTube to Monetize Their Toxic Ideas"

What you're seeing here is a Leftist media narrative push.
JUST in case you've been living under a rock and don't understand how

this report = an attack on the livelihoods of right-wing YouTubers

What's going to happen:
1.) More media pieces propping it up
2.) shifting that overton window
3.) Lobbying Google to take the channels down
"That's how this works," Jared Holt told me at the end of last month.
"Hi @beccalew, your @datasociety report is absolute garbage and bordering on defamation." -- statement by @RubinReport regarding the "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" report.
You gotta understand that NOW is one of those times where standing one's ground is necessary.

If there's no pushback against this report? If you treat this with indifference? That's giving them a permission slip to keep tightening that noose around what's deemed "Acceptable."
This ISN’T just some “e-celeb cult of personality” crap going on. Don’t you see?

It’s an active attack against the natural political balance of our society. An effort to fuck up YOUR world. MY world. OUR world.

It’s your fight too.
And this "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" report from Rebecca Lewis is ALREADY making the rounds with the MSM.

See for yourself. A Reporter at @CNBCTech.

She likes the report's suggestion on how to attack YouTube channel monetization.
Here we got Ryan Broderick. Deputy Global News Director @Buzzfeed.

His job is to basically decide what counts as newsworthy.

And call it a hunch 🤔, but my gut tells me he's keen on the whole "EXTREMISM EPIDEMIC SWEEPS YOUTUBE" type of narrative.
Lemme explain the trick here:
When you see some snazzy, super serious looking report titled MEDIA MANIPULATION AND DISINFORMATION ONLINE, there's this subconscious default motion of trust that the author of such a thing is NOT manipulating you w/ disinformation.

That's the ruse.
^ "Researchers" like Rebecca Lewis know that people will trust a political hatchet job if it's packaged the right way. She's betting on gullibility.

(^^ photo header from AN EARLIER report by Rebecca Lewis from back in November 2015)…
The MSM would cry foul, squawk like a flock of angry geese, and cry HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN if anyone DARED to do research on the Left in the same methodology and capacity as Rebecca Lewis.
So. I linked the "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" report at the top of the thread. But I'll link it again.

Because I'm gonna go through and discuss the contents of it.…
Now. I was on the fence as to whether or not I wanted to bother. I decided to give the first ten pages a peek to see if something stood out about it,

Sure enough. Something did. It hit me LIKE A TRUCK. And it became clear to me that I NEED to go over this damn report.
"what steps could be taken to temper the harmful political effects" it says on page 7.

"Harmful political effects."

This report is posturing itself as an arbiter of ideas that are deemed "right" and "wrong." That all these YouTube channels should be labeled "problematic."
On Page 31, Rebecca Lewis has the AUDACITY to slander @BrittPettibone and @Martin_Sellner 's relationship, and insinuate it's some sort of POLITICAL PLOY.

I have to directly ask you @beccalew , who on EARTH do you think you are?

Attacking LOVE? This is absolutely disgusting.
I'm someone who doesn't make a habit of participation in "outrage culture," @beccalew . But in this dehumanization of something that is WHOLESOME AND GOOD, smearing LOVE?

Yeah I'm pissed off at you for that. I have no words to describe how angry that kind of an attack makes me.
That's the only direct gripe I have to share with you, @beccalew. I won't be tagging you beyond this point.

And after I'm done talking about your report I'm going to do my best to pretend someone as hateful as you doesn't even exist.
Anyway. Sorry for skipping around, but I thought highlighting some of the initial.... points of interest from the get-go would be helpful.
Rebecca Lewis decides to start with the Sargon / Richard Spencer debate, highlighting how much social media buzz and audience attention it got.

That in itself? Fine, whatever.

But halfway down the page she cherry-picks ONE comment as a representation of a broader opinion.
> "More broadly, commenters"
followed by
> "one commenter wrote."

They COULD'VE and SHOULD'VE given more examples there. Especially since we're still in the introduction of the report and she's trying to establish overall points.
So a main point of contention is this WAY TOO BROAD definition for the "Alternative Influence Network." (see left)

Because in the page right after establishing that, Rebecca starts carelessly mixing the elements of SOME as indicative of an ALL. (see right)
It's worth pointing out these red boxes, with excerpts of text.

Whenever you see those it's a hint as to what ideas the author wants the reader to take away from their writing.

(Many of the MSM journobloggers in a hurry will probably read ONLY those. In a time saving effort.)
Page 6. "Influence is not created in a vaccum."
Page 11. Shows a map that is essentially a VACCUM of PARTIAL channels on ONE social network.

It comes off as "these specific channels on YouTube are talking about right-wing ideas and we need to punish them."
And I'm gonna humor Rebecca here and say making the squares different sizes and the lines different colors is HELPFUL stuff. Somewhat.

But it's not enough to assuage the discrepancy I pointed out in the previous tweet.
And on that note this is in particular where tweets like these that people are sending me tend to fit into the discussion. It's an important point not just in the sense of the report's map itself, but the overall debate. 🤔
If you exclude radical left-wing ideology from discussion about radical right-wing ideology, you are not giving the full picture.

And I'm going off Rebecca's OWN DEFINITION here that lays out how right-wingers have a mutual contempt for progressives.
The bottom line being:

the MERE FACT that there's not a similarly constructed map for LEFT-WING ideology in the same vein as there is for RIGHT-WING folks, highlights the fundamental flaw of the argument Rebecca is trying to make in this report.
Even in titling it "Alternative Influence Network," you can see the severity of the mistake here.

Such a title could (and should) apply to left-wing ideology.

By not doing that they're failing to deliver on the "we wanna make the world safe from radicalization" front.
Anyone who says their goal is "STOPPING TEH WORLD FROM EXTREMISMS" who FAILS to acknowledge left-wing radical anti-fa groups in that equation?

Is not doing a very good job.
So @Timcast makes a good point and I wanna make sure I clarify before continuing.
And lemme just fix the picture.

There. Fixed. ^__^. (I hope. Fuck, politics are tricky.)
I'm actually in luck because page 12 is an awesome segue that both demonstrates what I mean by that caveat mentioned above, while at the same time getting this thread back on course.

Page 12 is the most elaborate display of "guilt by association" fallacy I've ever seen.
^ I fail to understand why any of the channels in this "Map" are in any way THEMSELVES SPECIFICALLY responsible for what their AUDIENCE's political leanings and viewing choices are.

(Yes! That does sound bananas. But that's what this report is trying to say here!)
I'll try and illustrate what page 12 in the report is saying.

According to the report, the end result of this hypothetical scenario is @benshapiro 's fault.
While my example may seem blunt and a bit silly:
Weigh it against what the report itself says on page 13. Was the above example I gave too far off the mark of what Rebecca Lewis is trying to say?

"Things are bad because people with different political views talk to each other."
"By connecting to and interacting with one another through YouTube videos, influencers with mainstream audiences lend their credibility to openly white nationalist and other extremist content creators." - says pg. 14.

I highlighted where in particular, so you can easily see it.
So page 16 here?

Check out the second paragraph. It talks about the AIN channels, and paints them in a "they're seizing power and manipulating the young people!!" type of way.

And in the third paragraph? Rebecca is talking about the PUBLIC like its a separate entity from AIN.
Everyone in this "AIN" is NOT playing the role of a Pied Piper to a dumb and unsuspecting audience.

This report is insinuating that. (how? the underlying notion of audience stupidity DEFINES that separation the report is trying to put in place, between AIN and the audience)
"These influencers explicitly reject the trappings of institutional prestige, adherence to objectivity and neutrality"
A few pages back Rebecca pointed at how Dave Rubin stepped outside of that personal bubble of his beliefs and viewpoints. Ya know. INTERACTING.
Lemme put it this way:

you can't in one breath punish people for interacting with folks on other parts of the political spectrum,

and in the next breath imply that THOSE SAME PEOPLE act in a hivemind mentality where they only see the world in a preferred political light.
If you enjoyed this thread so far, feel free to send some $$$ as thanks via Paypal.

I work for the people. And this Paypal arrangement lets me be free to discuss what folks want to hear and learn about. Without the red tape bullshit.
;__; money is cool but I friggin LOVE these nice messages people send sometimes. (thank you m8)
🙂thank you.
If you want a *recent* example of how it's SUPPOSED to be done? (in terms of treatment of politically charged subject matter) , read Jennifer Golbeck's 2018 paper on Online Harassment. Its done SO MUCH better, relatively speaking.…
"How so? Why is Golbeck's paper superior to the Rebecca Lewis one?"

There's SIGNIFICANTLY LESS room for doubt when it comes Golbeck's data collection methods that the paper analyzes. They take the time to explain it in meticulous amount of detail.
Compare that ^ to Rebecca Lewis.

The approach they take in data collection leaves much in ambiguity.

And for what's (supposed to be) a serious academic sort of report? You can't be having that.
I totally hope someone out there steals this idea: compare and contrast of both papers. I think such a task can be done and it'd be interesting. I'd do it myself but I'm only one dude and there's only so many hours in a day.……
Here's what @RoamingMil had to say about being mentioned in this "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" piece.
"they largely reject traditional modes of news media credibility, such as institutional reputation and the ideal of objectivity"

....I can actually provide a counterexample. Of traditional news media choosing to deprioritize objectivity.
The "Journalism and Women Symposium" (JAWS) workshop is a yearly gathering of female journalists in the MSM sphere. Their programming includes open discussion and workshoping on how to do away with journalistic objectivity.

See this thread for more.
^ I recommend checking it out because, as it applies to the discussion of the report by Rebecca Lewis, it significantly undermines the propped up sense of (non-existent) integrity in the MSM.

She's proven to be full of shit.
Rebecca Lewis goes for the "@RubinReport is connected to Koch Brothers" approach to try and undermine his work.

So, it's only fair people know about the financial ties that Data & Society organization has with George Soros.

If that's the angle Becky is going with, so be it.
"The political influencers of the AIN consistently project the idea that nonprogressives are “persecuted against” because of their beliefs. " - Rebecca Lewis

"platform 👏bans👏work👏" - Rebecca Lewis
And right on schedule we have the media blitz pushing that bullshit study. First up we have a puff piece via WIRED
Next in the “let’s push this agenda against alternative media” blitz is Fast Company.
Daily Beast’s piece on the report labels alternative media sphere as a “radicalization factory.” (And they want you to take them seriously 🤔)
And Salon.

You can see IN THIS VERY THREAD a coordinated effort by mainstream media outlets to censor and silence opposing viewpoints.

They are using this report as a jumping off point. To frame things as a PROBLEM YouTube “MUST” solve.
"Some political influencers have tied this “social underdog” position to the idea that YouTube is attempting to “de-platform” them" - Rebecca Lewis

"platform 👏bans👏work👏" - Rebecca Lewis
"their messaging can be difficult to assess through traditional journalistic tactics like fact-checking."

🤣It's cute Rebecca believes MSM still gives a damn about fact checking.
In the past 48 hrs, the New York Times had to issue a SIGNIFICANT correction to one of their pieces.
And there's certainly more than that one example. The New York Times has had a bunch of "oopsie" mistakes recently.

I could go on about that. But it'd derail.

So if you wanna see more MSM fumbling around in the dark, here's a thread about CNN doing that.…
"Many political influencers of the AIN frame political issues in terms of personal
stories. These stories operate as ideological testimonials akin to product testimonials in advertising."

Rebecca Lewis thinks people's personal experiences are marketing ploys. That's fucked up.
It's one hell of a spin to assert that these AIN YouTubers being open about their feelings and past experiences is a BAD thing.

What the hell were folks like @RubinReport SUPPOSED to do, Rebecca? Lie to the public? Is that what you want? What alternatives are available here?

"These testimonials fundamentally deny systemic oppression of vulnerable populations by positioning oppression and victimhood as a choice that can be overcome"

Oh Becky you REALLY grasping for them far straws now. Oooohhh boy.
Just. Just take a second and read this paragraph here. I don't even need to add anything. it speaks for itself.
Over here on page 29 is another gem.

"Often told through highly detailed and personal narratives, these testimonials cannot be fact-checked because they speak to “lived experiences.” At the same time, they support larger narratives of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry"
Let's all just take a moment to reflect on what Rebecca Lewis is saying.
> "these testimonials cannot be fact-checked"

"These YouTubers are TALKING. About... POLITICAL ISSUES."

"And. AND. ANNND ---- YouTube's algorithm system REFLECTS that by HAVING THE VIDEOS SHOW UP IN THEIR SEARCH."

"It also means that, when viewers actually engage with the content, they see it framed as lighthearted, entertaining, rebellious, and fun"

People... having FUN ?!?!?!? 🤯 THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS 🙄.... and totally the main point of pretty much EVERYTHING people are going for online.
In all seriousness it's absolute bollocks for Rebecca Lewis to even bring up the notion of "PEOPLE ARE HAVING FUN OH NO WE GOTTA STOP THEM."

FUN is seriously baked into the heart of YouTube as a website. It may come as a shock. But people prefer to enjoy themselves online.
Anyone that praised this report is pretty much guaranteed to either have not read it or see it as a tool for pushing their own agendas
Rebecca Lewis mentions @RubinReport/@StefanMolyneux interview, specifically race and IQ.

"By letting him speak without providing a legitimate and robust counterargument, Rubin provides a free platform for white supremacist
ideology on his channel."

What IS that counterargument?
Based on the logic laid out by Rebecca Lewis herself? She TOO is providing "a free platform for white supremacist ideology" in very own report!

Because I don't see Rebecca laying out any sort of "legitimate and robust counterargument" either.
Well fam I'm finally on page 44. The conclusion portion. That was a slog of a read.

But even so, the paper is too brief in key critical areas where more elaboration and explanation were vital. (that's the point of a long-form research paper, btw. Taking time to explain FULLY)
Allow me to translate the paragraph circled in red.

"This is YouTube's fault and they need to demonetize these channels because (even though they're following the site's rules) I find their views to be problematic ."
Rebecca Lewis says YouTube "should not only assess what channels say in their content, but also who they host and what their guests say. In a media environment consisting of networked influencers, YouTube must respond with policies that account for influence and amplification"
Appendix A lists channels within the "AIN Network" and gives brief descriptions about them.

TOTALLY sufficient in providing enough details to fully encompass each of these channels. Many of which have done HUNDREDS of videos.

(I'm being sarcastic. Her effort is lackluster.)
"The following Appendix introduces the influencers who are explicitly named in this report; it does not include all of the influencers analyzed in this research, nor all of those listed in the data visualization in Fig. 1"

That's lazy.
I put more effort into this damn thread.
Appendix B is also a piss poor excuse for an Appendix. It does NOTHING to explain which members of the AIN network have stronger connections than others.

I guess that's that.

God that was awful.
Well. That's the end of this thread. I hope you all got the chance to learn something today, at least.

If you want to help me out so I can continue to do stuff like this in the future?
your $$$ support via PayPal would be wonderful ^__^! Thank you.
"Media Is Smearing Me And People Like Joe Rogan as Far-Right" by @Timcast
Aye aye
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Nick Monroe
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert is as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!