[Data Thread] I haven't done a British politics thread in a while, but was curious about public anger towards @MattHancock ! What follows is a thread analyzing those who've tweeted at Hancock since beginning of June. #sackmatt#thematterisnotclosed
2) First, I scraped around 23,361 tweets. As you can see, there is a big spike in tweets to @matthancock on 25th June, when news of his kiss properly broke. (nb: The scraping method doesn't include all tweets, and tends to favour more recent tweets from what I can tell)
3) Since the same people probably tweet at @matthancock a lot, I removed duplicate tweeters using an algorithm. This resulted in around 15,175 unique users tweeting at Hancock. As you can see, the pattern of tweets is roughly the same #sackmatt
4) I did a corpus analysis of these tweets, analysing them for the most common word. Interestingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the most common word was 'resign'. (I am excluding matthancock and https as they are just account data). 11% (1591)of 15175 tweets from unique accounts
5) used the term resign. And if there was any doubt, the context for using the term resign was almost always a demand that he resign. That's a lot of people asking Hancock to resign #SackMatt#TheMatterIsNotClosed#matthancock#matthanock
6) If you analyse the progression of tweets today and tomorrow, you can see there is an increased percentage today of people calling for @matthancock to resign - possibly due to continued anger, perhaps due to the video of the kiss being released. If we assume the data scraped
7) disperses error evenly then we can assume a greater percentage of people are demanding that Hancock resign today than yesterday (certainly on Twitter - even though we have a bit less data today). 24 % of tweets at Hancock today call for him to resign, compared to 16% yesterday
8) It would be interesting to keep tracking this trend, to see the extent to which public anger at Matt Hancock rises and eventually falls. In theory sustained or increasing anger may lead to his resignation, and it would be interesting to see what the threshold is.
9) I may add some network analysis later but that's it for now. To some up, the major mood to Hancock today is a demand to resign. This trend is increasing, and might continue to increase if public attention remains fixed and captured by the issue! #sackmatt
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵1/ I analysed the headline and lead paragraph of 536 English news articles including the terms "Maccabi" + "Amsterdam" and classified them using Claude 3.5 Sonnet to determine how many framed Israelis as victims or non-Israelis as primary victims (as well as both).
2/ The results are fairly striking. 65% of articles frame Israelis as the victim, while only 5% frame Non-Israelis as victims. 24% are neutral while 9% framed both groups as victims. Quite clear the media emphasised violence as anti-Israeli and antisemitic, especially early on
3/ There isn't much evidence too of corrective framing at this point, although a small increase in neutral framing a week after the incident. Israeli victimhood was categorised as emphasis of violence initiated by non-Israelis, and focus on anti-Israeli or antisemitic violence
🧵 1/ Part of understanding what is going on in Amsterdam is also to understand the coordinated anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant campaigns run with huge amounts of money targeting Europe. Here's a short private Eye article about an investigation I did with @SohanDsouza
2/ Here's a write-up by @karamballes on the campaign in @BylineTimes "Disinformation Campaign on Social Media Reached More Than 40 Million People – but Meta ‘Alarmingly’ Hasn't Revealed the Culprits' bylinetimes.com/2024/08/30/qat…
@karamballes @BylineTimes 3/ ...How a covert influence campaign helped Europe’s far right
Our findings about the shadowy multi-platform operation attacking Qatar and stoking Islamophobia to further its far-right agenda in Europe and beyond call for immediate action. aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/…
🧵🚨1/ This is nuts. After mysteriously deleting a package covering the Amsterdam protests, Sky News have put up a new version. The new version completely changes the thrust to emphasise that the violence was antisemitic. See the opening screenshot change below
2/Even the tweet accompanying the video has changed. It has explicitly shifted from mentioning anti-Arab slogans to removing the phrase "anti-Arab" and using antisemitism. It also removes mention of vandalism by Israeli fans. An extremely clear editorial shift!
3/ They have also inserted into the video, right after the opening footage of Dutch Prime Minister condemning antisemitsm. This was not in the original video.
1/ If you break down the BBC's live reporting of what happened in Amsterdam, you can see the disproportionate attention it pays to Maccabi fans and Israelis as victims, with far less attention paid to the actions of Maccabi fans. Here are the sources interviewed.
2/ In terms of mentions of Arab, Dutch or other Ajax fans, there is very little emphasis on Arab safety, with the majority of coverage focused on Maccabi fans as victims. There are vox pops with fans, but very little interaction with non-Maccabi people.
3/ The language used to describe the attacks on the Maccabi fans is also much stronger, ranging from pogroms to brutal and shocking. Similar terms aren't use for the anti-Arab racism.
🚨1/ This New York Times piece is wild. Let's go through it.
Firstly, the lede is an emphasis that attacks in Amsterdam were based on antisemitism, yet it cites no evidence of this, but DOES cite evidence of anti-Arab chants.
2/ The claims of antisemitism are based primarily on the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, who tweeted that the attacks were antisemitic. Note - the Dutch Prime Minister didn't call out anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian racism from Maccabi fans.
3/ The piece links to an Amsterdam police statement to talk about the violence - although the police statement doesn't mention anything about antisemitism.
🧵 'At least 1,800 bots on the social media site X are promoting the controversial choice of Azerbaijan, a major oil and gas producer, to host next month’s ...#COP29, according to a new analysis shared exclusively with The Washington Post".
2/ The analysis by Marc Owen Jones, an expert on disinformation at @NUQatar, focused on roughly 2,800 X accounts that collectively sent around 10,800 tweets, retweets and replies about the conference between Oct. 17 and Oct. 24.
3/ Detection
73% of all accounts active in sample created in the space of 3 quarters in 2024.
Conservative estimates suggest 66% (1876) accounts in the sample are fake (bots) based on activity over the past week