3 ms·
Having read the report, I think this is an interesting but rather weak analysis. Detection of inauthentic behavior is very hard and fraught with false positive
by uniqueuid 5y ago
Having read the report, I think this is an interesting but rather weak analysis.
Detection of inauthentic behavior is very hard and fraught with false positives, so it's really important to be very transparent in the methods.
That said, the numbers are not too small, they do have some interviews with participants and Twitter seems to have removed some accounts - all these lend the report some credibility.
- mc32 5y agoMozilla and Twitter are US concerns. What is it their business how politics are conducted in other countries? What’s the difference between Mozilla and United Fruit when it comes to political interference? They both were are agitating for their PoV and not concerned with local mores. They both have foreign agendas. One could argue United fruit advanced agriculture and provided jobs whereas Mozilla gets involved but provides no jobs to locals. Yes United fruit engaged in bad behavior but Mozilla should not get a pass either for interfering in foreign affairs.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ceilingcorner 5y agoAbsolutely no difference. Just imperialism recontextualized for a new century with new profits to be made.
- orangepurple 5y agoTwitter removes accounts at the whim of specious evidence. The removal does not make the evidence more credible.
- uniqueuid 5y agoAgreed. But if they (at some point) include it in an official report on inauthentic behavior, then that's added credibility.
- _djo_ 5y agoSource? In all our experience monitoring disinformation accounts in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria we have found Twitter to be extraordinarily slow and reluctant to remove accounts. It certainly isn't doing any proactive monitoring that I can see.