3 ms·
It's clear from the article that these are the former. A sentence from the beginning of the article: > Today’s removals mark nearly one year of Twitter’s eff
by striking 7y ago
It's clear from the article that these are the former.
A sentence from the beginning of the article:
> Today’s removals mark nearly one year of Twitter’s efforts to identify and remove accounts that are spreading political misinformation for the purposes of changing public sentiment — something that has wide-ranging impact beyond simply being annoyed on social media, including not least democratic processes like voting in elections or referendums.
The list of countries later is also hard to miss.
- excursionist 7y agoI don't see anything in the snippet you reference that makes it clear that these are bots being banned.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dymk 7y agoFTA: > Saudi Arabia’s state-run media apparatus were found to be “engaged in coordinated efforts to amplify messaging that was beneficial to the Saudi government.” The person you're responding to didn't say anything about bots. These are state-funded efforts to manipulate the platform.
- striking 7y agoI wonder at what point we're allowed to accuse people of having not read the article.
- excursionist 7y agoWhat is the methodology for determining that an account is part of a state-funded manipulation campaign? Also, is 'state-funded' necessarily worse than 'privately-funded'? How does twitter know who funds an account? Twitter has a history of banning people simply because their opinions are unpopular, so these claims don't hold much weight.