13 ms·
Twitter Suspends 300k Accounts Tied to Terrorism in 2017
- ohsnapman 9y agoSaw a lot of speculation about what ISIS does or does not do without actual links. Here are a few good ones I've seen in the past: https://www.wired.com/2015/11/isis-opsec-encryption-manuals-reveal-terrorist-group-security-protocols/ https://www.wired.com/2015/11/isis-opsec-encryption-manuals-... This podcast was pretty good. ISIS were using a Turkish Dropbox like service to move files ... except the service was actually based in France, something a whois on the domain could have easily detected. Fighters have also geotagged tweets/instagram/Facebook posts, which led to a drone strike: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/62-decoders/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/62-decoders/ So ... they're both more sophisticated than you think when it comes to opsec. And less sophisticated than you think when it comes to opsec.
- Iv 9y ago> So ... they're both more sophisticated than you think when it comes to opsec. And less sophisticated than you think when it comes to opsec. A lot of their recruits are people in their 20s or even teens from various countries including western ones. They are basically regular users that try to learn opsec as they do. And the youth from most muslim countries also use smartphones and most of the services we use too. ISIS used to be more sophisticated in terms of opsec when their officers were mostly former officers from Saddam but since then it feels like either the drone strikes managed to decapitate their hierarchy or that there were internal purges to promote the truly ideologically crazies. Also, when an operation is said to have succeed thanks to opsec, always remember that it can be a way to cover an internal humint source.
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoI believe its called Schroedinger's Opsec.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago[deleted]
- kakarot 9y agoCare to elaborate?
- katastic 9y agoI'm more interested in why it took them this long, while they're perfectly fine suspending accounts that are politically opposing to their worldview. How are political dissenters more dangerous than actual terrorists?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- traitormonkey 9y agoand by dissenters you mean you nazi redneck scum - well there is no difference.
- ceejayoz 9y agoThey've been suspending terror accounts for years.
- icebraining 9y agoIt hasn't, it says clearly in the article that they've been suspending these accounts at least since 2015.
- matt4077 9y agoOne man's political dissenter is another's terrorist :) More seriously, this is obviously a textbook example of a cognitive bias: There is absolutely no possibility that the number of specific people being blocked for hate speech in the US you are likely to read about come anywhere close to these 300,000.
- grandalf 9y agoThe word "terrorism" is a PR word intended to marginalize whatever group it is applied to. As a tactic, terrorism describes the infliction of civilian casualties meant to create a disproportionate climate of fear. By this definition, drones used in warfare are a form of terrorism. In today's world we are not fighting wars in the traditional sense of defending ourselves against aggression. Since there is no obvious threat, the people will not support a pragmatic war of aggression meant to help install US hegemony in oil rich (or otherwise geopolitically important) regions of the world. So our planners are left with the need to create a moralistic crusade and to marginalize and dehumanize the adversary so that Americans will not care when we find out that many of them (and their civilians) were slaughtered or forced to live in poverty/squalor. It starts with the framing of the adversary as helpless against an illegitimate regime. The people are framed as victims of their own failure to end up with a better regime, and the moralistic idea of nation building and bringing in democracy is introduced. Then, the regime is asked to give up power. When it refuses, as all regimes would, the US pretends it has a moral justification to use force against people and infrastructure. There is the heavy implication that a greater purpose exists, such as democracy or women's rights, or stopping the torture policies of the regime, etc. But in fact no plan exists other than to remove the regime from power. Never before has there been a more hollow policy/intellectual movement than the idea of nation building. Meanwhile, the US has typically funded various militant groups that oppose the regime, and now those groups are no longer needed. Some decide to seek power in the newly existing power vacuum. They will be branded as terrorists arbitrarily to suit the needs of the US PR campaign. The word terrorism is used to characterize a person or a set of beliefs or an organization as unworthy of respect and unworthy of humane treatment. Yet in the US we fail to recognize our drone strikes as the same tactic as suicide bombings, while we create untold pain and suffering abroad. Both of our major political parties strongly support the endless war and the endless killing and destruction of the political adversaries abroad who dare to try to control their own destinies and the destinies of their region. Twitter clearly supports this too, and feels obligated to help eradicate the first amendment as much as possible in its own small way, even if it can't actually revoke the amendment.
- lawl 9y agoFirst they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Who defines what is considered terrorism and what isn't? Once censorship infrastructure is in place, it will get abused.
- Scirra_Tom 9y agoSo you're speaking out for the terrorists? I'm struggling to see the point of that quote.
- dublinben 9y agoAre these users committing acts of terrorism 140 characters at a time via the Internet?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eanzenberg 9y agoYes.
- i_cant_speel 9y agoThey're attracting them to other forms of communication where they can be further radicalized.
- lawl 9y agoYes, I believe even terrorists should be able to say whatever they want. I'd actually prefer them shitposting on twitter rather than killing people.
- Scirra_Tom 9y agoI disagree that everyone should have a platform to say anything. Allowing hatred and violence can normalise it. Also, if someone got on a soapbox outside your house and starting preaching violence I don't think you'd be celebrating the exercising of their rights - you'd probably call the police.
- traitormonkey 9y agoThey could go another 500k tied to the Terrorist In Chief.
- chrissnell 9y agoI understand why Twitter might not want ISIS accounts on their service but from a national security standpoint, it seems better to have the communication happening on a U.S.-based service like Twitter than some darknet or crypto-centric app.
- volkk 9y agoMy guess is that the real comms already do happen outside of Twitter, and that Twitter is simply a recruitment platform/loudspeaker
- make3 9y agoIndeed. I would be very surprised if any real planning happened on twitter DMs. That would be unbelievably stupid, with the NSA stuff now being so well known
- module0000 9y agoIt's a great way to plant false plans. You don't have to carry them out unless the threat was never mitigated(if it wasn't taken seriously, then you can carry it out for 2x damage: part being the attack itself, the second part being that "they knew and did nothing!").
- jimnotgym 9y agoI just hope that one day they will do something about the bot accounts. They seem able to have an effect on political discourse, and therefore present a clear danger to democracy. Many are also completely obvious and would be trivial to round up.
- 5_minutes 9y agoI wish they would release also some of these good usernames that have been abused or used by scammers. Or at least something like: if the account didn't post a tweet in like, say, 5 years... notify the owner it's up for expiry. Some house cleaning, how hard can it be.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y agoTwitter has 300 million active users. So .1% of Twitter accounts were linked to terrorism, and they just purged 1/1000th of the active accounts on their system. I am shocked what a big percentage that is. That is a huge move by them.
- BoorishBears 9y agoNot to downplay the move, but by their own admission, many of them were banned before they even tweeted once. I'd bet most of them don't fall under MAU
- Xeoncross 9y ago> The company is balancing a commitment to free speech against pressure from policymakers who want to see social media companies do more to fight extremism and hate speech. Big issue for today. Both 'free speech' extremes are bad. No two people can agree on a "perfect" middle ground though.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoThere's no way they audited 300,000 accounts and got conclusive results about all of them. I wonder how many innocent accounts were swept up in this?
- sushid 9y agoThe article EXPLICITLY states: > Of those, roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools So yes, your hunch is right, but it's also mentioned in the article.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoMissed that, thanks. Great to know that robots are running our censorship tools now!
- i_cant_speel 9y agoWhat is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? You aren't going to keep up with them without automated tools.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago>What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? Yes
- i_cant_speel 9y agoWell than I would say automated detection is the better of the two options.
- pjc50 9y ago"Robots" have run our "censorship" tools for two decades of spam-fighting. Even on the decentralised USENET platform, back when one third of traffic was spam and one third was spam cancels.
- 9y ago
- Semiapies 9y ago"roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools" I wonder how high the false positive rate is.
- luxuryballs 9y ago#NotAllTweeters
- maxerickson 9y agoRead more replies
- Semiapies 9y agoReply more usefully. There's been precious little real information ventured on the topic since I commented, and there was none before I did.
- maxerickson 9y agoSorry, it was a reference to Twitter hiding some content behind a button that says "Read more replies". There is some chance that the bans and content suppression are using the same information.
- eanzenberg 9y agoMore interested in the false negatives (what wasn't found)
- Semiapies 9y agoWhy? Actual terrorist activity is rare. People being harassed, detained, etc. in the name of fighting terrorism, not so much.
- frandroid 9y ago> Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent Fascinating... Just based on the username and the user's self-description?
- creaghpatr 9y agoProbably who they follow/who they are followed by.
- sushid 9y agoObviously not. You can fingerprint a user/device with a lot of information from your browser. You can detect obvious things like browser, IP address, OS, but also more unique details like battery level, screen size, etc.
- frandroid 9y agoI understand that, but an IP address doesn't make an account an ISIS account. An ISIS supporter might also be a Galatasaray SK supporter...
- module0000 9y agoRadical anything on Twitter/Facebook/mainstream-whatever is a honey pot. Stick your hand in and watch the suburbans roll up.
- droithomme 9y agoWow that's a lot of "terrorists". Will there be prosecutions against these 300,000 terrorists where the evidence they are terrorists is presented in court to be evaluated through a legal process?
- aerodog 9y agoDoes that include White Terrorism or just Brown Terrorism?
- jhack 9y agoI saw one account that threatened to exterminate tens of millions of people today. I reported the post but somehow I doubt Twitter will do anything about it.
- averagewall 9y agoUnless it was made by a powerful country, that wouldn't be a credible threat so it wouldn't matter. If it was 10's of people, it might be taken more seriously and you should report it to the police anyway, not just Twitter.
- yosito 9y agoTwitter really ought to do something about Sybil attacks. In fact, they could probably fix their monetization strategy at the same time; start charging users some small fee in exchange for having their identity verified. Non verified accounts can't be retweeted or they have some caps on the number of public views they can get, or interactions they can have with accounts that don't follow them, etc. Now that I think about it, this could solve their spam and harassment problems too.