Sunday, October 15, 2017

Facebook And Twitter Under Fire Over Claims That They Are Impeding The Russian Probe

Tom McCarthy, The Guardian: How Russia used social media to divide Americans

Russian trolls and bots focused on controversial topics in an effort to stoke political division on an enormous scale – and it hasn’t stopped, experts say.

For the past year, the world has reeled over escalating reports of how Russia “hacked” the 2016 US presidential election, by stealing emails from Democrats, attacking voter registration lists and voting machines and running a social media shell game.

Such is the focus on Russian meddling that congressional investigators are increasingly aggressive in asking the big tech companies to account for how their platforms became the staging grounds for an attack on American democracy. Early next month that scrutiny will intensify, with executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter formally invited to appear before the House intelligence committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Regular readers of this blog now that I am very skeptical when it comes to these allegations. To begin .... the idea that Russia was successful in dismantling America’s democratic system with only $100,000 in Facebook ads .... while not even discussing the US election .... is a stretch for me. Doubly so for the ad money that they also spent on Twitter, Google, and (I could only guess) on Bing. I am also skeptical of the claim that these Russian-backed sites had their content shared billions of times ....

.... The data Albright obtained using CrowdTangle showed that the Russians' reach far exceeded the number of Facebook users they were able to access with advertisements alone — content including memes, links, and other miscellaneous postings was shared over 340 million times between the six accounts.

The other 464 accounts closed by Facebook have not yet been made public. If they are, an analysis of their combined posts would likely reveal that their content was shared an estimated billions of times during the election.


There are 2.1 billion users/accounts on Facebook .... sharing approximately 5 billion pieces of content daily (see here for Facebook stats). The idea that (at most) a few hundred sites generated a good percentage of this traffic during the election period is (to me) a ridiculous claim when one takes the time to truly understand how huge the social media universe is .... especially during an election cycle. Also .... to put it bluntly .... sites that generate this alleged volume of traffic would be worth an enormous amount of money and would have raised red flags everywhere .... but this blog followed the election very closely and there were no red flags raised .... just criticisms that these sites were around spewing a message that many did not like.

But skepticism aside, I still want a full and transparent investigation on this case. Social media is a useful tool to transmit and publicize a political message .... so I do not only want to know what exactly the Russians did, but I also what to know what everyone else did. And if it is true that spending a few hundred thousand dollars in advertising and putting together a few social media sites can influence a U.S. Presidential election .... we can only assume that in the next election cycle every campaign is going to put their money into social media to produce the same results. Hmmmm .... if true I see a golden business opportunity here. Maybe I should buy some Twitter and Facebook shares 6 months before the next election while shorting tranditional media like TV broadcasters and newspapers .... after-all .... if these allegations are true why put your advertising money into a medium that no longer works.

Update: The knives are out for Facebook .... What Facebook Did to American Democracy (Alexis C. Madrigal, The Atlantic).

More News On Claims That Facebook And Twitter have Impeded The Russian Probe

Facebook takes down data and thousands of posts, obscuring reach of Russian disinformation -- Washington Post
Facebook scrubbed potentially damning Russia data before researchers could analyze it further -- Business Insider
Russia-Backed Facebook Page Colored with Hot-Button Phrases -- CBS San Francisco Bay Area
Facebook & Twitter Deleted Crucial Data as Senate Begins Probe into Russia's Involvement in 2016 Election -- Wccftech
Twitter deleted data potentially crucial to Russia probes -- Politico
Tech giant Twitter DELETED massive number of accounts and tweets linked to Russia in move sure to cause fury in Congress -- Daily Mail

9 comments:

jorace said...

Kind of nice not having Jay here smugly flipping his shit over you not believing that 500 twitter accounts swung the election.

James said...

Potential (maybe) Massive (maybe) they're all singing this song:
https://youtu.be/rQzlzH5wymc

Unknown said...

WNU,

You are denier!

"Albright’s data encompasses six Facebook pages previously linked by media investigations to Russia." -Guardian article

Albright analyzed 6 pages. This is twice (2X) as much data as Michael Mann analyzed. Mr. Mann analyzed 3 tree populations and his analysis is considered 'settled science'.

I mean really are you anti-science?

/sarc off

"Study reveals that Mann’s Bristlecone pine trees may not be good “treemometers” after all"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/14/study-reveals-that-manns-bristlecone-pine-trees-may-not-be-good-treemometers-after-all/

Unknown said...

Jonathan Albright is the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism. ...

He holds an MS from the University of Oregon’s SOJC and a PhD from The University of Auckland.


So basically Mr. Albright has no education.

https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/

SOJC = School of Journalism and Communication

PS Mr. Albright's work made into Fortune Magazine as well.

Anonymous said...

He is unfortutely back but is a little bit nicer in his comments (probobly because of the moderation installed).

Unknown said...

Is Michael Mann wrong?


"If you see a wide tree ring, you can safely conclude the tree had a good year. If you see narrow rings you can conclude a poor growth year. But was that poor year a product of an unfavorable temperature range alone? Or was it due to lack of moisture or lack of sunlight or both? Not having local records for those, how would you know?

It seems to me that dendroclimatology has a lot of uncertainty"

Remember "Liebig’s Law of the Minimum", when it comes to the hockey stick.

Is Jonathan Albright wrong?

After all he did analytics on a 6 Facebook pages!

Anonymous said...

moderation needed for chief snarker

Unknown said...

Anon dislikes sarcasm with political analysis.

Where else to go, when culprits get away with stuff day-in & day-out for years.

Culprits like Bill Clinton, Hillary, Harvey Weinstein, the fake Indian Elizabeth Warren, etc.


Did you know that 'pale face' Elizabeth Warren, who has a certifiably Na Dene name, was the 1st woman of color at Harvard Law. That is liberal logic for you.

If you don't like the pics linked below you can always look at Fred's Yamnaya babes.

‘Fauxcahontas’ Plot Thickens: Fordham Law Review Called Elizabeth Warren Harvard Law’s ‘First Woman of Color’

www.theblaze.com/news/2012/05/16/fauxcahontas-plot-thickens-fordham-law-review-named-elizabeth-warren-first-woman-of-color/


www.pacificpundit.com/2016/06/26/fauxcahontas-elizabeth-warren-wants-22-min-wage-pays-interns-zero/

www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4be8rw/elizabeth_fauxcahontas_warren/

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2882352/posts

Unknown said...

Anon,

Maybe you could cool down by engaging in some ethnic cooking?

www.theblaze.com/news/2012/05/16/fauxcahontas-plot-thickens-fordham-law-review-named-elizabeth-warren-first-woman-of-color/


How about some Pow Wow Chow? It is what liberals eat so they won't be so white bread!