1/ 🧵Just did a network analysis of the "far right thugs unite" hashtag. It largely seems to be a simulated scandal/outrage to promote the Reform Party and Nigel Farage and - while also being an attack on Keir Starmer.
2) The campaign is ostensibly a reaction to Starmer saying that the recent riots have been conducted by a 'tiny minority' of 'thugs'. He has also blamed the far right, although he never used the term 'far right thugs'. In fact, as we'll see later, this term was used by Farage.
3/ Starmer is the largest node in the network as many people are tagging him to express solidarity with the 'far right'. This is based on the false accusation that Starmer somehow called 'ordinary brits' far right thugs - which he didn't. #disinformation
4/ Weirdly now, it's led to people claiming to be in solidarity with the 'far right'. Indeed, the narrative almost seems to be trying to normalise the term 'far right', and make it synonymous with 'average Reform voter'
5/ An analysis of the biographies of the accounts tweeting on the hashtag reveals something interesting. Most are pro-Reform accounts. The most common biographical term is in fact 'Reform'. (Woke is there but only in the context of 'anti-woke'
6/ The first known example of the trend came from a pro Reform account, who pasted a weird message that looks like a network-building attempt, "Apparently I’m a ‘Far Right Thug’ I want to follow fellow ‘Far Right Thuggish’ ordinary UK citizens Please, like, repost and follow❤️"
7/ The same account also mentioned something that seemed like the underlying message of this campaign "anyone centrist is a mindless far right thug, apparently". Again, it seems like an attempt to create the idea that Starmer was calling ordinary citizens far right thugs
8/ Another bizarre element to this is that the majority of the content on the hashtag in terms of impressions is copy and paste. The copy and paste messages constitute 66% of all impressions.
9/ What's weird, it's not clear who told them to copy and paste.Why do people not just retweet. Is it normal behaviour to automatically copy and paste a message and post it? These copy and paste message got lots of impressions, despite the accounts not having that many followers
10/ Another interesting element is that the account with the most impressions on this hashtag is ReformUK member, @TalkTV Host, and former employee of Cambridge Analytica's parent company SCL Group @ThatAlexWoman (Alexandra Philips)
11/ Again this sequencing of tweets shows how many of those getting lots of impressions were simply copy and pasting the same content. Here you can see the green dot, which is Alexandra Philips.
12/ Another Reform element of this campaign was that although @nigel_Farage did not tweet the hashtag, his video directed at Keir Starmer was one of the most important nodes within the network.
13/ In the video Farage falsely suggests that Starmer is blaming everything on the far right 'His Conclusion, is very simple, it's all the Far Right'. He goes on to justify the existence of the far right as a response to fear, discomfort and unease shared by 'tens of millions'
14/ Ironically, Farage also uses the term 'far right thugs' in this. But ultimately Farage is attempting to suggest Starmer is branding non-violent right-leaning voters as 'far right thugs' - which Starmer did not do. It's effectively an anti-Starmer disinfo campaign designed
15/ to falsely create a grievance and scandal. The copy and paste tweets, and huge engagement, look like an organized campaign. It's also an attempt to reposition those who support or endorse the violence as victims of a labour smear.
16/ If I didn't know better I would say this is a crafted campaign designed to help ReformUK deflect from the right-wing nature of the current violence by trying to reframe it as a Labour failure and Starmer attack on 'White British' values.
- Not all bad though - Someone created Starmer in a pride Abaya and Hijab. Deranged.
Also strange accounts like this. Joined in May 2023 but only 5 spammy TEMU tweets and then a tweet about "far right thugs unite" with what looks like an AI generated headshot #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