SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Twitter publishes dump of accounts tied to Russian, Iranian influence campaigns
Twitter has released a data store of posts from 3,841 accounts that have been identified as being connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the Russian "troll factory" that used Twitter and Facebook to conduct an "influence campaign" aimed at causing political turmoil during the 2016 US presidential election as well as undermining the political process in other countries, including Germany and Ukraine. The company has also released another set of data connected to 770 accounts believed to be connected with an Iranian influence campaign.
Totaling over 360 gigabytes—including more than 10 million tweets and associated metadata, and over 2 million images, animated GIFs, videos and Periscope streams—the data store provides a picture of how state-sponsored agencies have used the Twitter platform. Some of the content dates back as far as 2009.
In a post announcing the release, Twitter Legal, Policy and Trust & Safety lead Vijaya Gadde and Twitter's head of Site Integrity Yoel Roth wrote that Twitter was providing the data "with the goal of encouraging open research and investigation of [state-sponsored influence and information campaigns] from researchers and academics around the world."
The archive of the IRA's tweet metadata alone is 5.4GB of comma-separated data when expanded. In many cases, the user ID and screen name of many accounts—those with fewer than 5,000 followers—have been concealed with hash values to "reduce the potential negative impact on real or compromised accounts," a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement on the data archive. The hash values still allow individual accounts to be analyzed without exposing the actual names associated with them.
[...] Gadde and Roth noted that Twitter expects these sorts of campaigns to continue and said that Twitter's Site Integrity team will "continue to proactively combat nefarious attempts to undermine the integrity of Twitter, while partnering with civil society, government, our industry peers, and researchers to improve our collective understanding of coordinated attempts to interfere in the public conversation."
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 23 2018, @04:37AM (7 children)
Citation needed. The only ones I have heard of actually made credible threats of violence. That is the important difference, the Left can (sometimes) be banned for actual illegal activity or direct threats of same while the Right gets purged simply for believing the wrong things. Or purged for just not adopting $current_year religious beliefs fast enough.
Lemme make it more concrete. Try to imagine a belief on the Left side of the political spectrum, the possession of which will get one banned from social media, barred from polite society or fired from a job. Not being caught DOING things, not threatening violence on a specific individual, simply for being thought to hold the belief or stating such a belief. For example, Van Jones is not ashamed of his membership in the Communist Party, he has never repented of this, he still holds exactly the same beliefs he held when he was a direct action organizer for them. He works for CNN and worked in the Obama Administration until enough political outcry forced him out. So we see that being openly against our form of government MIGHT get you bounced from working in our government but CNN has zero issues and he suffers little social opprobrium, certainly not from anyone on the Left.
I could make this a "Wall of Text" post just listing a few samples of people on the Right that have been unpersoned, for life, for having an incorrect view. And any one of them can be used at any time to force anyone else on the Right to do a "ritual denouncement" lest they be unpersoned for failure to denounce strongly enough. Seen anyone on the Left have to "ritually denounce" actual terrorists like Bill Ayers? Raving lunatics like Louis Farrakan?
If you still don't see the difference, well that is on you.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday October 23 2018, @05:51AM (6 children)
@rheaganhunt (for getting Trump supporters to be refused service at Applebees)
@CultOfDusty (this guy was pro-Bernie, then rage quitted to Trump after Bernie was cheated, but then backed out after he looked into Trumps policies. I THINK he got banned because of his animal rescue activities)
@Demotimvator (actually got other lefties and righties banned. Got banned, and noone can work out why. Created another account and was banned again)
@dickcoughlan (leftie making a "rape joke", which was actually a joke about rape jokes... but apparently that was too meta).
@TJKirtTheAmazingAtheist (another satirical joke ban)
@TheronMyer (trans activist ... unsure of reason for ban)
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 23 2018, @05:48PM (5 children)
Ok, lets see how you did. You went to a search and found "Left wingers banned from twitter for dumb reasons" on YouTube. They listed the first three of your examples in the same order. I assume the same level of effort went into locating the other three. But lets give em a look. Specifically said I was looking for people banned for what they say / think, not actions in the "real world." Dropping two for that reason. From your description two more got caught in the frenzy to banhammer the Right. TheronMyer is an "Anti-SJW activist" (first hit on the Duck) so was banned for being seen as Right, just being gay or trans does NOT make one automatically Left. If these are the best examples easily found it confirms my point, there is no "too far left" point that will get people banhammered simply for taking the position but with @Jack becoming ever more frenzied in his desperation to influence the upcoming election shitpoasting by anyone is probably ill advised for now because his AI ain't too bright.
Compare those examples to sitting United States Congressmen and candidates for Federal elected office being shadowbanned on twitter. Do you think banning political officeholders and candidates for political office, in an election year, might possibly be intended to influence the outcome of an election? Whether @Jack will, should or could banhammer President Trump is a running conversation, discussed in civilized, polite society as an open question. Try to wrap your head around the implications on free speech in this country that we are having that conversation.
It is time to regulate Big Social.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday October 23 2018, @10:46PM (4 children)
Are you kidding? Unfair accusations of racism and sexism don't "belong" to the right - this is the standard attack of centrist democrats to both the left and the right. Most of the genuine left (not the donor/career seeking left) sees SJ as a distraction from the real issues eg. Bernie Sanders was attacked for being anti-woman and anti-semitic because he concentrated on economic issues, and only saw SJ through an economic lense. The "Bernie wing" of the democrats, commentators, and Bernie leftists generally are also smeared, and some are banned from social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook for parodying and pointing out how SJ is used. The "Bernie bro" term first coined during the Democratic primary was meant to connote racisism and sexism through the crime of concentrating on economics and foreign policy. Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinsky, Jarmarl Thomas, The Humanist Report etc... have hammered on about this cynical use of "social justice" against leftists. One of those is a black man and another is gay. There are plenty of others - I just picked those because I'm more familiar with them.
The real threat the centrists see is that the Bernie wing will ally on certain issues with the right. An obscure blogger from my country suggested a left/right alliance on certain issues, and was howled down by Democrat centrists across the internet completely disproportionate to her reach, and as a result she became much more popular. If you want some mild entertainment look up "Caitlyn Johnstone" and watch the foaming.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday October 24 2018, @12:50AM (3 children)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news bro, but I don't decide where the official Left/Right line is and neither do you. The Twitter Trust and Safety Council apparently does though and they decree anyone who doesn't move when the Powers That Be declare $current_year demands the renunciation of previously inviolate positions and the adoption of their reverse is now on the Right and thus banworthy.
Welcome to the Right pal, in case you were wondering that officially makes you a ebil Nazi too. Ask around, somebody can lend you an armband for identification until your jackboots come in. Getting lots of new recruits this way, folks that thought they were basic bitch lefties suddenly being declared horrible people. Drifting Right as they realize they have no home on the Left anymore unless they embrace madness. You might think I'm joking but remember Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, is famous for saying he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. Sounds like your position. Saying, "But... But I agree with every position of 2008 Obama, I can't be a Nazi!" just means you are now considered to be a moderate Nazi by the SJWs. And a crybaby. So suck it up buttercup, go buy a MAGA cap and lets get on with defeating those people. Then we can politely argue about policy.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday October 24 2018, @03:55AM (2 children)
Psssh... there's no left wing in US politics by the democratic leaderships own admission. I believe DINO is the term (ie. Democrats in Name Only). They're happy to boast their right wing credentials to anyone who will listen. Obama is an "80's moderate republican" in his own words, and during Hillarys campaign the dems moved even further to the right. Chuck Schumer intimated the plan in an interview - the democrats were pushing further right so they could corner the republicans on the far right which would spook republican centrists into voting democrat. This happened in 1996 when paleoconservatives scared the electorate into voting Bill into his second term. Schumer put it this way - for every progressive the democrats lose in moving further right they'd gain two moderate republicans concerned about their own party. The SJW attacks to the left in this context are obviously cynical. It's understandable how the electorate chewed off its own arm by voting Trump because they were trapped with Hillary otherwise. At least Trump lied some economic populist lies - Hillary wouldn't even do that. Real leftists (as defined by political science) are trying a simultaneous third party/independant effort and grassroots takeover of the democrats. Time will tell if they do any good.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:35AM (1 child)
Hate to break it to you guys, but there's no left wing in US politics by the democratic leaderships own admission. I believe DINO is the term (ie. Democrats in Name Only). They're happy to boast their right wing credentials to anyone who will listen. Obama is an "80's moderate republican" in his own words, and during Hillarys campaign the dems moved even further to the right. Chuck Schumer intimated the plan in an interview - the democrats were pushing further right so they could corner the republicans on the far right which would spook republican centrists into voting democrat. They hoped it would be a 1996 do-over when paleoconservatives scared the electorate into voting Bill into his second term. Schumer put it this way - for every progressive the democrats lose in moving further right they'd gain two moderate republicans concerned about their own party. The SJW attacks TO THE LEFT in this context are obviously cynical - firstly with Bernie during the primary (sexist! anti-semite!!), and now with the "Bernie bros" being deplatformed - apparently 75% of deplatforming is done to lefties according to a study Kyle Kulinsky recently cited. It's completely understandable how the electorate chewed off its own arm by voting Trump because they were trapped with DINO Hillary otherwise. At least Trump lied some economic populist lies - Hillary wouldn't even do that. A progressive takeover of the democrats is doomed as the DNC chair can declare any progressive candidate "not in good standing" according to a new rule recently passed. The only hope is that a third party effort gets enough traction that such a move risks them losing their base to the new third party.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:46AM
oops.... this was meant for another forum... ;)