Twitter's Birdwatch - Promoting and Controlling Its Narrative

Just in case you missed it, here is a recent announcement from Twitter, the self-appointed "Guardian of Truth" on the internet:

 

...and here:

Here is Twitter's reasoning behind the need for Birdwatch:

  

"People come to Twitter to stay informed, and they want credible information to help them do so. We apply labels and add context to Tweets, but we don't want to limit efforts to circumstances where something breaks our rules or receives widespread public attention. We also want to broaden the range of voices that are part of tackling this problem, and we believe a community-driven approach can help. That’s why today we’re introducing Birdwatch, a pilot in the US of a new community-driven approach to help address misleading information on Twitter."

 

A "community-based approach'?  What could go wrong, especially when Twitter controls the platform!

Here's more information on Birdwatch which is currently available in the United States (unless you happen to have a VPN with a server in the U.S.):

 

"Birdwatch allows people to identify information in Tweets they believe is misleading and write notes that provide informative context. We believe this approach has the potential to respond quickly when misleading information spreads, adding context that people trust and find valuable. Eventually we aim to make notes visible directly on Tweets for the global Twitter audience, when there is consensus from a broad and diverse set of contributors.

 

In this first phase of the pilot, notes will only be visible on a separate Birdwatch site. On this site, pilot participants can also rate the helpfulness of notes added by other contributors. These notes are being intentionally kept separate from Twitter for now, while we build Birdwatch and gain confidence that it produces context people find helpful and appropriate. Additionally, notes will not have an effect on the way people see Tweets or our system recommendations."

 

As Twitter notes, let's all build Birdwatch together:

"To date, we have conducted more than 100 qualitative interviews with individuals across the political spectrum who use Twitter, and we received broad general support for Birdwatch. In particular, people valued notes being in the community’s voice (rather than that of Twitter or a central authority) and appreciated that notes provided useful context to help them better understand and evaluate a Tweet (rather than focusing on labeling content as  “true” or “false”). Our goal is to build Birdwatch in the open, and have it shaped by the Twitter community.

To that end, we’re also taking significant steps to make Birdwatch transparent: 

All data contributed to Birdwatch will be publicly available and downloadable in TSV files 

As we develop algorithms that power Birdwatch — such as reputation and consensus systems — we aim to publish that code publicly in the Birdwatch Guide. The initial ranking system for Birdwatch is already available here. 

We hope this will enable experts, researchers, and the public to analyze or audit Birdwatch, identifying opportunities or flaws that can help us more quickly build an effective community-driven solution."

  

If you want to sign up for Birdwatch pilot program, here is what you'll need:

"To participate in the pilot, accounts must have:

 

Verified phone and email

 

This makes it more likely that participants are real people instead of bots or adversary actors.

 

A trusted U.S.-based phone carrier

 

Intended to reduce the use of artificially created or virtual phone numbers

 

Two-factor authentication enabled

 

Intended to reduce the chance of malicious attempts to hijack participant’s accounts.

 

No recent notice of Twitter Rules violations

 

Intended to reduce the likelihood of abusive contributions."

 

Here is how Twitter will manage the admissions process for Birdwatch:

 

"The pilot will start small and grow over time. Our goal is to admit applicants on a rolling, periodic basis. We will admit all participants who meet the required criteria, but if we have more applicants than pilot slots, we will randomly admit accounts, prioritizing accounts that are likely to participate due to having been recently active on Twitter, and those that tend to follow and engage with different tweets than existing participants do — so as to reduce the likelihood that participants would be predominantly from one ideology, background, or interest space."

  Here is a screen capture showing the "Join the Birdwatch pilot on the Twitter website:

 

My guess is that Twitter is just using Birdwatch as another means of promoting and controlling its own narrative and scrubbing its platform of any tweets that don't follow its limited worldview on key issues...but then I could be wrong....but I somehow doubt it.

Censorship and Twitter's Version of the Truth

Given that we could all use a good laugh, here is a recent tweet from Twitter Public Policy:

 

...and following that tweet, we have this:

 

...and this:

 

Let's go back and take a look at what Twitter had to say about the internet and freedom of speech in May 2020:

 

Here is an additional quote from Ms. Meche, Twitter's Vice President, Global Public Policy and Philanthropy (my bold):

 

"Twitter's mission is to serve the public conversation. We are committed to protecting freedom of expression, while encouraging healthy and productive public conversations. Having access to the free and open Internet is a right that many have come to see as essential. It is a right that’s increasingly inseparable from free expression, self-determination, and self-actualization. 

 

Our right to access news, connection, and medical information on the open Internet is more vital than ever during this pandemic. For some, it may be existential. It acts as a distribution channel for the most up-to-date information on how to prevent the spread of the virus; a directory that points us to the services we need to stay healthy; and a place where we can gather with friends and family. And with our economies reliant on digital technologies and connectivity, an open Internet is a foundational pillar on which recovery must be built. 

 

Shutdowns can only impede this progress, unnecessarily walling off targeted communities and entire populations. We have also seen a worrying trend towards regulatory action that could see instances of shutdowns increase further. Some of this is motivated by an urgent need to tackle COVID-19 in any way possible — some isn’t — but the long-term result could be an Internet that is less open, less free, and less empowering for all....

 

These campaigns and global initiatives would not have been possible without the global, open, and interconnected Internet. Today, to support this critical movement, we're encouraging people around the world to make their voices heard by using #KeepItOn." 

Is it just me or does all of this seem rather ironic given this announcement from Twitter Safety following the Capitol Hill events of early January 2021:

 

That's right, "keep it on" and "make your voice heard" at least until your technocratic overlords decide otherwise.  If Twitter is an example of internet/Big Tech freedom of expression and a bastion of democracy, then we are all in big, big trouble.

Go ahead and laugh, it's good for us all....unless, of course, Twitter says that it isn't and censors the "laughter at our expense is good for you" narrative.

Donald Trump, Twitter and the American Technocracy

This has just happened:

 

...and, according to Twitter's Blog, this is why:

 

All of that, despite some rather odd events on Capitol Hill including this where Capitol Hill police seem to be opening barricades for demonstrators:

 

The American technotyrants are alive and well and living in their own little enclaves from which they hope to shut down any discussions that do not subscribe to their limited, self-serving narrative.  Who is to say when or for what reason they will shut any of us down because our opinions are not theirs?

Censorship is alive and well and living in our post-truth technocracy.

 

As an aside, if you want to send a message to the social media companies that have been heavily censoring their products over the past year, in particular, stop clicking on the advertisements that they present you with.  That is the source of nearly all of their ungodly profits.

How Twitter is Censoring the COVID-19 Vaccine Narrative

On December 16, 2020, this appeared on Twitter's blog:

 

 

This isn't the first time that Twitter has attempted to steer the COVID-19 in its preferred direction as shown here:

 

So, how is Twitter going to "set the vaccine record straight"?  Here is what is going to encourage Twitter to censor Tweets:

  

"Moving forward and beginning next week, we are expanding the policy and may require people to remove Tweets which advance harmful false or misleading narratives about COVID-19 vaccinations, including: 

1.) False claims that suggest immunizations and vaccines are used to intentionally cause harm to or control populations, including statements about vaccines that invoke a deliberate conspiracy;

2.) False claims which have been widely debunked about the adverse impacts or effects of receiving vaccinations; or

3.) False claims that COVID-19 is not real or not serious, and therefore that vaccinations are unnecessary.

Starting in early 2021, we may label or place a warning on Tweets that advance unsubstantiated rumors, disputed claims, as well as incomplete or out-of-context information about vaccines. Tweets that are labeled under this expanded guidance may link to authoritative public health information or the Twitter Rules to provide people with additional context and authoritative information about COVID-19."

Here's how Twitter plans to do it:

 

"Using a combination of technology and human review, we will begin enforcing this updated policy on December 21, and expanding our actions during the following weeks. We will enforce this policy in close consultation with local, national and global public health authorities around the world, and will strive to be iterative and transparent in our approach. We remained focused on helping people find credible health information, verifying public health experts, and updating our policies in an iterative and transparent approach."

  

Actually, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter has been a gold mine of information, providing the Twitterverse with information that is not being disseminated by the government-controlled mainstream media like this:

 

 

This move by Twittter should concern all of us as governments roll out COVID-19 vaccines which appear, at this point in time, to be resulting in some fairly serious and unexpected side effects.

  

The executive teams of the world's most-used social media platforms seem to be unaware of the unintended consequences of their censorship.  By trying to control the narrative through heavy-handed tactics, they have unleashed the "Streisand effect", causing people to seek out information that they might not otherwise have cared to research.  In another example, YouTube's very heavy censorship of what it deems to be "unacceptable content" has resulted in the creation of websites like "Newtube" which has attracted a whole new class of YouTube refugees:

 

....and increased usage of video hosting sites like "Bitchute" by those who dare to stand against the official COVID-19, government-mandated narrative.

Perhaps we will all be lucky and some enterprising person or group of people will create an alternative to Twitter and put another technocrat in his place:

It is becoming increasingly clear that we are under social control headed like lemmings to the COVID-19 vaccine "sea" by the technocrats in charge of our online pastimes.  If the technocracy really wants us to be vaccinated, they need to let us speak freely, not censor us and not force their own ill-informed opinions on us (and that means you Bill Gates).

Twitter and Shadow Banning - Controlling the Narrative

Twitter, one of the world's leading social media networks, has implemented new terms in its Terms of Service agreement which will take effect on January 1, 2020.   While users are required to click to accept these terms in order to continue to use Twitter, it is highly unlikely that any of them will actually read through the entire 34 page document, thereby missing a key change to Twitter's modus operandi.

Let's start with some background on shadow banning.  Shadow banning is a technique used by social networks to block a user's content on social media sites in a way that the user doesn't know that they have been banned.  Shadow banning does not prevent the user from posting new content that can be viewed by their current followers but it does prevent content from appearing on anyone else's feed.  By shadow banning, social networks can suppress content that does not follow their narrative, a practice that has become particularly prevalent and pertinent in the post-2016 election period.

Now, being thankful that the internet never forgets anything, let's go back in time to see what Twitter had to say about the practice of shadow banning.  On July 26, 2019, this was posted on Twitter's blog:

Note the first paragraph:

"People are asking us if we shadow ban.  We do not."

The third paragraph opens with a repetition "We do not shadow ban."  Twitter also claims that it  most certainly "...does not shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology" and that its users will always be able to see the tweets from accounts that they follow.

Now, let's go to the present.  Current Twitter users have agreed to the following current Terms of Service (TOS), a that all users must digitally sign to use Twitter.  Let's focus on Section 4 Using the Services:

Note that this TOS is effective only until December 31, 2019

Twitter has recently added this banner to their Terms of Service page:

Let's look at the new version of Twitters TOS, particularly Section 4:

You will notice the following addition (highlighted and in bold):

"We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you.

Note that this TOS is effective on January 2, 2020.

And, just in case you happen to believe that Twitter would never shadow ban, here is an investigation by Project Veritas where it recorded a former Twitter Software Engineer stating the following:

“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

And in case you don't think that Twitter is vindictive, here's what occurred in late November 2019:

It certainly would appear that Twitter has done a 180 degree turnaround on its pledge to not shadow ban users that offend its sensibilities.  The technological tyrants are at it again; we are living on the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to censorship of narratives that do not follow those of the companies that drive the majority of the world's media.

We live in a post-truth world where a handful of companies control the narrative.

Twitter and the Truth About Hong Kong's Protest Movement

The ongoing protests in Hong Kong are not necessarily what they appear to be.  The protestors are using a very organized military-style approach to battling riot police and the Chinese side is using disinformation if Twitter is to be believed.  In this posting, I want to take a look at how Twitter is fighting back against the Hong Kong protest narrative that it does not wish to promote.

The Chinese side of this protest is fighting back against the Hong Kong protest movement by allegedly using Twitter.  According to an announcement by Twitter, one of the world's leading social platforms was forced to take actions against a "significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong".  In this case, Twitter suspended a total of 936 accounts which it believed were originating from inside the People's Republic of China even though the originators of the accounts would have used a VPN to access Twitter since it is banned in China. 

Here is the announcement:

Here is an example of a violation of Twitter's terms of service by "Dream News":

Here is what Twitter had to say about its banning of the accounts:

"Covert, manipulative behaviors have no place on our service — they violate the fundamental principles on which our company is built. As we have said before, it is clear that information operations and coordinated inauthentic behavior will not cease. These deceptive strategies have been around for far longer than Twitter has existed. They adapt and change as the geopolitical terrain evolves worldwide and as new technologies emerge. For our part, we are committed to understanding and combating how bad-faith actors use our services.

Today we are adding archives containing complete Tweet and user information for the 936 accounts we’ve disclosed to our archive of information operations — the largest of its kind in the industry.

We will continue to be vigilant, learning from this network and proactively enforcing our policies to serve the public conversation. We hope that by being transparent and open we will empower further learning and public understanding of these nefarious tactics."  (my bolds)

The use of the word "nefarious" in this context may be a bit of an overstatement given that we all know that governments around the world (including those in the West) are using social media platforms to propagandize all of us.

Let's take a quick look at Twitter's rules for "Authenticity":

Notice that you cannot use Twitter's services to "artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behaviour that manipulates or disrupts people's experience on Twitter".  Apparently, in Twitter's reality, there is no room for discussion when it comes to the protests in Hong Kong - the only acceptable narrative is that China (one of the world's two "bad guys", a distinction that it shares with Russia) is somehow at fault and that any tweets to the contrary contravene its rules for "Authenticity".

The ongoing protests in Hong Kong are not necessarily what they appear to be.  We can pretty much assure ourselves that the United States/Washington and its vilification of all things Chinese  is involved in funding, training or organizing the pro-democracy demonstrations.  In this post-truth era, it is almost impossible to suss out the truth on this (or any other) series of events and the actions by Twitter are increasingly making it difficult for anyone to discern both sides of the story.

Washington and Social Media Platforms - A Tool for Propagandizing

Updated August 2018

Since mid-2016, we've hear endless stories about how those sneaky Russians managed to surreptitiously invade the United States and influence the 2016 presidential election in favour of their preferred candidate, Donald Trump.  According to a who's who of social media outlets including but not limited to Twitter and Facebook, Russians and their bots managed to convince Americans to vote for Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton who, as we know, is relatively unpopular with Vladimir Putin given her alleged interference in the Russian elections of 2011:

Thanks to Twitter's blog, we now have some idea of what Russian propaganda Tweets influenced American voters in 2016 and ended up helping Ms. Clinton lose the election:

Twitter states that they have emailed notifications to 677,775 people from the United States who either followed, retweeted or liked one of the tweets from one of the accounts that Twitter has identified as being "...potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russia government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency or IRA."  In total, Twitter has identified 3814 IRA-linked accounts that posted 175,993 Tweets during the ten week period preceding the 2016 election with approximately 8.4 percent of those Tweets being election related.  Given that, according to Twitter's 2016 annual report, they had 319 million average Monthly Active Users (MAUs) in the fourth quarter of 2016 as shown here:

...we can see just how successful the Russians were with their measly 3814 Twitter accounts which accounts for 0.001percent of total monthly users in Q4 2016.

With this in mind and given that the Russians have allegedly created fake social media accounts to fool gullible voters, I want to take a look back in time when the United States took similar actions to convince the global village of its agenda.  Let's start with this from the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website from June 22, 2010:

The United States Air Force was looking for a company to develop software that would allow 50 users the ability to create 10 fake personas (aka sock puppets) each; these personas must appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and interact through various social media platforms.  Each of these personas must appear to be legitimate and must also be culturally and geographically consistent.  Operators should be able to switch from persona to persona at the same work station.  It is believed that this contract was awarded as part of the U.S. military's Operation Earnest Voice, a tool originally designed to wage psychological warfare against Islamic terrorists.  This contract was ultimately granted to a California-based company, Ntrepid which has the following mission:

"People, Focus, and Passion describe what enables Ntrepid to make products of magnitude. With the right people, obsessive focus, and a passion for the work to be delivered, it is possible to do what others cannot."

Yes indeed.

Let's move forward in time.  Here is a look at the first two pages of House Resolution (H.R. 5730 aka the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012) from the 112th Congress which amended the United States Information and Education Exchange Act of 1948 to "...authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United Starts intended primarily for foreign audiences and for other purposes":

On the second page of the Act, you will notice that, under the Act, funds were being authorized to:

"...provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication." (my bold) 

While the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 only reached the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, you can see that at least some members of Congress were not adverse to using social media to influence the outside world.  In fact, this was the second attempt by members of Congress to pass this type of legislation as shown here:

In 2010, H.R. 5729 had 23 cosponsors from the House.

Let's close this posting with an excerpt from a recent posting written by Samidh Chakrabarti, Product Manager, Civil Engagement at Facebook, on the Facebook Newsroom website regarding the impact of social media on democracy:

"Let’s start with the elephant in the room. Around the US 2016 election, Russian entities set up and promoted fake Pages on Facebook to influence public sentiment — essentially using social media as an information weapon.

Although we didn’t know it at the time, we discovered that these Russian actors created 80,000 posts that reached around 126 million people in the US over a two-year period. This kind of activity goes against everything we stand for. It’s abhorrent to us that a nation-state used our platform to wage a cyberwar intended to divide society. This was a new kind of threat that we couldn’t easily predict, but we should have done better.

Now we’re making up for lost time. The Russian interference worked in part by promoting inauthentic Pages, so we’re working to make politics on Facebook more transparent. We’re making it possible to visit an advertiser’s Page and see the ads they’re currently running. We’ll soon also require organizations running election-related ads to confirm their identities so we can show viewers of their ads who exactly paid for them. Finally, we’ll archive electoral ads and make them searchable to enhance accountability."

Facebook's answer to the problem?

"If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad. At its best, it allows us to express ourselves and take action. At its worst, it allows people to spread misinformation and corrode democracy.

I wish I could guarantee that the positives are destined to outweigh the negatives, but I can’t. That’s why we have a moral duty to understand how these technologies are being used and what can be done to make communities like Facebook as representative, civil and trustworthy as possible." (my bold)

This begs the question; do Facebook, Twitter and other purveyors of social media platforms plan to weed out the type of U.S. government interference in the online world as we've seen in this posting?  As we all know, it's a fine line between information, propaganda and election interference.