📢🧵[Thread] 1/ Here is a thread on the #DoNotComply hashtag, a Twitter trend that started yesterday in reaction to the UK's response to the new Covid19 variant #Omicron. Essentially it is people rejecting the mandatory wearing of masks in public. I will highlight some nuggets...
2/ First up, I analysed around 17,500 tweets, replies, & retweets on the #donotcomply hashtag. The sample range is the last 24 hours. I did a network analysis to determine a few things, most importantly, identifying the most influential proponents of the 'do not comply' hashtag
3/ There is clear evidence of polarisation. There are two distinct clusters. On the right there is a large group of accounts generally condoning the #donotcomply hashtag. The group on the left is disappointed at the group on the right (pun kind of intended...you'll see why)
4/ So who are the largest supporters of #donotcomply? Well the most influential by far is @LozzaFox , actor and @thereclaimparty leader. He does not wish to comply, and endorses mass civil disobedience. He also seems mad.
5/ Other top influencers on the do not comply hashtag include @jamesfwells@MattGubba@leehurstcomic . One of my favourites is @HumanRights4UK (the state of that account!) A lot of the influential accounts also are kind of anonymous, which is obviously suspicious. #Omicron
7/ Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, the polarisation looks highly partisan. An analysis of the bios of those promoting #donotcomply reveals they are mostly right wing nationalists. The top words include indicators Trump, MAGA, conservative, god, country #omicron
8/ Conversely, most of those pushing back against #donotcomply appear to having indicators of being left/progressive/liberal. Among the most common words in the bios are BLM (black lives matter), FBPE (pro EU), socialist, johnsonout (UK PM). This correlates with studies that
9/ that also suggest republicans are more likely to embrace anti vaccine disinformation than democrats, for example. Not exactly the same but related. journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
10/ So we can update the network graph to show how the polarisation is reflected on Twitter. This polarization shows in network analysis because the two communities (left and right) tend not to interact with each other and so form separate communities. #donotcomply#Omicron
11/ Some other high profile verified accounts endorsing undermining the public health message include UB40's @MattHoyOfficial debunked nutritionist @GillianMcKeith , GBNews Presenter @ToniaBuxton + many more . No eminent researchers or scientists of course. Go figure.
12/ The TLDR is those supporting the #donotcomply with mask wearing are not scientists, and generally right-wing/conservative types. There is push back from left/progressive types, but very little interaction between the two. The echo chamber is strong! Thanks for reading :)
13/ Small update 1) Some have asked about the orange blob on the map - this is George Gammon (😬). See screenshot 2) I used NodeXl and gephi for the visualisations 3) I didn't mean to imply those condemning the hashtag are scientists, merely that they're following the science!
• • •
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.