🧵1/ There is some confusion going on around the strike in Rafah. This is largely due to awful IDF instructions. In a video on 22nd May IDF spokesman @AvichayAdraee told people that Zones 2371, 2373, 2360 were safe. I have highlighted this below.
2/ The source of the confusion lies in the fact that the image of the highlighted map in @AvichayAdraee's video DOES NOT match the text. The image initially does not include zones 2371, 2373, 2360 yet the text explicitly states they are safe.
3/ However the location of the strike has been reported to be both 2371 and 2372. Existing geolocation by @m_osint and Al Jazeera suggests it was in 2372, not 2371. Zone 2372 was not explicitly mentioned by the IDF. However...
4/ In the animation on the map in @AvichayAdraee 's video, the 'zoom' effect means that that the animation of the yellow safe zone expand to look like its including surrounding areas. You can see how it expands to include a number of areas, including 2372.
5/ There are other confusing elements. if you look at the map on the official IDF map, the safe zones are not contiguous with the boundaries of the highlighted safe zone area. This level of imprecision in life or death matters is bound to create confusion for displaced people.
6/ So this is what the map would look like if the text in Avichee's video was included in the highlights. As you can see, the safe zone expands significantly. Given the IDF's own imprecision with borders, it is reasonable to expect a civilian to feel that border zones are safe
7/ Another important aspect is the proximity of the strike to the UN warehouses. People often collect near UN warehouses due to sense of protection and proximity to aid. Remember - if this was a mosque, the IDF would consider this 'next to'.
8/ In addition to poor maps, the confusion is also compounded by the fact that humanitarian zones and fighting zones (red) also have non-defined zones. What is a zone if it's not yellow and not red?
9/ Even sitting here with time to reflect it's confusing, could you imagine what it's like being a starving and traumatised Palestinian?
10/ Anyway, quibbling about the exact zones also masks the point that regardless of where the attack took place, it involved mass killing of civilians that is impossible to justify.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Macron Cocaine Thread/ - The first 10 hours of the @EmmanuelMacron @Keir_Starmer @ZelenskyyUa Cocaine disinformation.
Seemed to be promoted initially by a few dubious accounts like @Veritiste @SitgesFranck @99percentyouth @SilentlySirs @goddeketal
#disinformation
2/ Before being boosted by the right-wing ecosystem and conspiracy accounts e.g. @DineshDSouza @RealAlexJones @CollinRugg. No serious journalists reported this story (because it's absurd). Nonetheless, those tweeting in the first 10 hours generated over 103 million views on X!
3/ The boosting of the info by Putin's envoy Kirill Dmitriev was via Alex Jones, who as the above timeline shows - wasn't the first to put it out on X - but the most widely viewed.
🚨1/ Fake News Alert: A number of accounts are spreading false information that a church in #Wales was burned down by two Pakistan migrants/muslims. There are other narratives, but this is the dominant one. It is false but has obtained millions of views. some data> #disinfo
2/ It is true that a church did burn down. It was set alight by two local teenagers. The South Wales police have tweeted that other rumours circulating are false - they are of course talking about the false info about the ethnicity of the attackers (right).
3/ The most shared claim comes from 'RadioEuropes'. This is a 'Dysinfluencer' account - an account that repeatedly spreads false and malicious information - in this case xenophobic and anti-Muslim content. You can see its false tweet garnered over 3.6 million views
1/ THREAD: On populist gaslighting and the war on truth-tellers 🧵
2/ Something concerning is happening in our information ecosystem: populists aren't just spreading misinfo, they're systematically trying to undermine the very concept of verifiable truth
3/ When fact-checkers or experts present evidence contradicting false claims, they get labeled as "elitist manipulators" or 'censors' - effectively inverting reality
🧵 THREAD: Meta's disturbing new "free speech" announcement is a masterclass in how platforms enable digital harm under the guise of freedom 1/9 theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Meta announces it's getting rid of factcheckers & "restrictions" on gender/immigration content. This isn't about free speech - it's about platforming hate & disinformation under the guise of "mainstream discourse" 2/9
Key red flags: ❗️❗️❗️
Moving content teams to Texas "for less bias" (read: political motivation)
Replacing factcheckers with "community notes"
Framing basic content moderation as "censorship" 3/9
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