🧵1/I have done an analysis of those responding to #NazaninZaghariRatcliffe's interview, specifically focusing on those calling her an 'ungrateful cow' for not showing enough deference or gratitude to the UK government. The Brexit partisanship on the topic is startling. Read on!
2/ First up. Accusations that Nazanin was 'ungrateful' started surfacing following her press conference that went viral on Twitter yesterday. She was calm and assertive, as was her husband Richard. Watch the video here
3/ I analysed around 14,000 tweets involving around 8600 unique accounts. I downloaded tweets that included the hashtag "send her back" and "ungrateful cow" and the keywords "Nazanin and ungrateful". (horrendous I know). The below network graph of tweets was generated
4/ Now bear in mind such searches return tweets hating on Nazanin as well as those supporting her/ criticizing the haters. As the graph below shows, there are two distinct clusters, 1 and 2.
Cluster 1 are those defending Nazanin
Cluster 2 are those criticizing Nazanin
5/ Now what can we say about each group. Well, if we analyse the bios of group 2, the haters, we find that the third most common descriptor is Brexit. If we check the concordance, they are pro-Brexit. Woke comes in 6th! (as in, anti-woke) EU is mentioned in 12, (as in anti-EU).
6/ Brexiteer and conservative come in 11th and 12. Back Boris is also in 15th. So a very distinctly pro-Brexit and conservative community are generally the ones labelling Nazanin as ungrateful on Twitter.
What about group 1? Well let's see...
7/ FBPE (Follow back pro EU) is in 4th place, with 'socialist' in 5th. Brexit is 6th, but concordance shows it's all pro-EU. 'Johnson Out' is in 7th place. So those defending Nazanin are indeed, more likely to to be pro-EU and left-leaning!
8/ As for the 'ungrateful cow' crowd. Here are a few of the most influential people on the hashtag accusing Nazanin of being an 'ungrateful cow'. Note the gratuitous use of caps, misogyny, and general unpleasantness. #NazaninZaghariRatcliffe
9/ So there you have it, proof that hating on a newly released hostage of the Iranian regime - who also happens to be a female person of colour, who has missed 6 years of their life and daughter growing up & endured hellish jail conditions - is more a right-wing Twitter past time
10/ Also proof that those who are pro-EU and left-leaning tend to be the ones exhibiting more empathy in the case of Nazanin. How many of those people are real is a different question, & one that I will not try to answer right now. Twitter is awash with anonymous generic accounts
11/ Some may ask about the cluster in the middle - well it's @JuliaHB1 - who actually features in the middle of the map between the two communities. While saying that Nazanin 'moaned', Julia also did say she would have punched someone if she was Nazanin.
special thanks to @rosieniven for bringing this issue to my attention!
12/ I will update keywords later but interesting to see who else is involved. Brexit campaign-funder and Putin apologist @Arron_banks has been joining the pile on casting aspersions on #NazaninZaghariRatcliffe - and getting a lot of engagement
13/ Update: Dunno if it's because of this thread but one of the largest infuencers of the anti Nazanin discourse was suspended in the past few hours #NazaninZaghariRatcliffe
14/ For those asking how I did this analysis. I downloaded the tweets using import function on NodeXL, exported that to a GEXF file, and then visualised it using Gephi. AntConc was used for corpus analysis. Of course there is a little more to it but they're the main bases.
15/ For anyone asking about clusters and communities (colours). The algorithm sorts out clusters based on connected edges (the lines, which represent tweets,RTs, replies etc). So what this graph indicates is polarisation, a lack of interaction across opposing communities on the
topic. Essentially it reflects how Twitter interactions across this particular issue reflect partisan echo Chambers. it's also important to bear in mind most twitter discussions consist of RTs. So most interactions within a sample are retweets
• • •
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