🧵1/ This thread is about a trend advocating for preventing Omar al-Bashir, wanted for crimes against humanity, from being sent to the ICC. It's a fantastic example of how artificially amplified and manipulated trends pretend to be grassroots sentiment #Disinformation#Sudan
2/ firstly, this shouldn't be taken lightly. The warrants against al-Bashir include the worst charges, from extermination, torture, and intentional targeting of civilians. Up to 500,000 are thought to have been killed as a result of the Darfur genocide (although figures vary).
3/ The trend translates as 'Surrending al-Bashir is an insult to Sudan'. It started trending on the evening of the 11th August. Then, @sabqorg an Arabic newspaper, ran a story about the trend saying it reflected 'popular (Gulf) outrage' about al-Bashir's plight #disinformation
4/ But is it really a reflection of popular outrage? Let's look in more detail at the hashtag. This analysis involves around 11,000 interactions taken from 11th-13th August involving around 7600 unique Twitter accounts. #disinformation#ICC#Sudan
5/ Firstly, who are the big influencers on the hashtag. Well it, seems they are the following, s_hm2030, a_albander, cressfiles, mjathlani, faljubairi, monther72, 5aldi Those who follow my threads may recognize these names. They are prominent on many dodgy gulf trends
6/ Now maybe many of those sharing this opinion genuinely believe it, though the narrative seems to be generally the same. It's a breach of state sovereignty and 'true Arabs' should reject this Western imposition of law/rules. In other words, Bashir should face justice in Sudan
7/ But can this same group of influencers, who often engage in fake trends, and many of whom recently weighed in on the Tunisia issue - really be misinterpreted as a good barometer for Arab public opinion? Well the manipulation present would indicate - no -Read on #disinformation
8/ The network graph below shows areas of manipulation (circled in red). These areas indicate clusters of fake accounts boosting the hashtag. They are defined by sockpuppet accounts all using the same app (Twitter Web App) to automatically RT a specific account #disinformation
9/ For example, The following community are accounts retweeting ANOTHER hacked verified account, this one belongs to @LeighEBuchanan the editor for @Inc magazine (who have over 2 million Twitter followers). It's been hacked by some mobile phone vendor in Saudi. Drop 'em a line!
11/ This cluster is similar, hundreds of sockpuppets retweeting marketing accounts advertising things like massages - also with Saudi whatsapp numbers. Check out the @TheChadSakada for a massage, and some Omar al-Bashir Spam! Total sockpuppets in the cluster, around 529. #disinfo
12/ Similarly, in this cluster there are around 144 sockpuppet accounts. Shout out to @steveknott020 whose interests include selling phones and Omar al-Bashir spam
13/ This is an interesting cluster, as it's embedded within the main network and retweeting what appears to be a real verified account mjathlani. I estimate this cluster to include between 300-358 sockpuppets. They mostly RT the same accounts and tweet generic content #disinfo
14/ So the TL;DR is that there around 1029 sockpuppets boosting the trend advocating not surrending al-Bashir to the ICC. It is unclear how many of these boosted trends are done by opportunistic marketing agencies, or they are enlisted to boost a trend. Some clearly are RT
15/ certain messages in a way that appears to be to increase the prominence of the hashtag. Generally though, the same group of influencers we often see on disinfo trends appear to be very prominent. The Cressfiles account is an interesting one. A related incarnation
16/ Cresstove was suspended by Twitter soon after it was active in a big disinformation campaign. Anyway, While @sabqorg report this as public opinion, at least 14% are sockpuppets, and I'll wager this trend reflects top-down policy (even if many agree). #disinformation
• • •
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