🧵 [Thread] 1/ This thread is about some attempts to manipulate the Arabic hashtag "boycott elections". The trend refers to upcoming Shura council elections in Qatar. It's currently the number one trend in Qatar. There is clear manipulation + outside influence. Read on>
2/ First, while the topic of Shura elections has generated much debate, it is clearly going to be an issue of international scrutiny. So at these times looking at social media commentary and manipulation will be key, especially with democratic backsliding in the region #Qatar
3/ It's not a big hashtag. Only around 300 interactions from around 250 unique accounts. However, the most retweeted account is a digital marketing account that literally offers trend promoting services. > noof30304. 100 RTs and 40 likes cost 10 Riyals! This account
4/ This marketing account accounts for 116 RTs and 47 likes on the hashtag, already a large proportion. We should probably assume that those RTs are also from fake accounts 9 (at least initially because real accounts will RT when the tweet become more prominent).
5/ Here's one of the accounts retweeting the marketing accounts > @JimmyRuff77 - Yeah I am pretty sure this Jimmy Ruff is not really following Qatar's Shura elections... Same with Becky Mills....
6/ What's more, the most 'influential' account on the hashtag is EdyCohen an Israeli account who has tweeted disinformation about Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood before. He is often in lock step with Emirate influencer account. Edy has around 4300000 followers.
7/ Edy is spreading information about women not being able to participate in elections. Not quite clear what he is talking about, since women can run for the Shura council. A lot of retweets from Emirate and Saudi accounts by the looks of it... #Qatar
8/ It's also worth noting some of the tweets aren't actually about Qatar, but Lebanon and Iraq...
9/ A lot of the signal boosting also comes from accounts that are criticising the trend as supposed to supporting it...
9/ Another influential node is an apparently Emirate account called Emarate_Shield who is again accusing the Qatar government of being Muslim Brotherhood terrorists. Incidentally, the Emarate_Shield account was very influential on a hashtag about Tunisia a few days ago...
10/ One of the accounts kuwarimud is again spreading disinformation saying the election is for men only and not women. The account 'royal qatar' replies seems to be saying women aren't suitable for leadership, presumably this is to make Qataris look more misogynistic?
11/ Anyway that's enough for now. While there are many genuine discussions, including praise and criticism of the upcoming elections, this is not one. This trend is clearly misleading, mostly dominated by disinformation, paid spambots, non-Qataris (UAE/Saudi) and an Israeli
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ 🧵This graph shows X posts by impressions in the first six hours after the Magdeburg attack. Specifically these are posts falsely attributing the attack to an Islamist terror attack or a Syrian, or using it as an opportunity to attack immigration or muslims #disinformation
2/ The usual suspects are there - that is, the anti-Islam disinfluencers (routine spreaders of disinformation). As you can see, one of the most widely viewed is @visegrad24 - who shared at least 6 posts falsely claiming the attacker was an Islamist
3/ The posts falsely claiming that the attacker was a Muslim or Islamist gained at least 38,000,000 views. False claims that he was Syrian resulted in around 8.4million views (remember this is just an approx 6 hour period).
🧵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.