Tag Archives: Botometer

It is time

That is something we often hear, yet I haven’t said these words for almost ever. You see, news media is now realising that the Russians are closer to losing the war that ever. For this I think it is time that we go back to (the beginning) February 24th 2022. This set it all in motion and we were given “The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was accompanied by practices of information warfare, yet existing evidence is largely anecdotal while large-scale empirical evidence is lacking. Here, we analyze the spread of pro-Russian support on social media. For this, we collected messages from Twitter with pro-Russian support. Our findings suggest that pro-Russian messages received 251,000 retweets and thereby reached around 14.4 million users” these are the opening words of Dominique Geissler, Dominik Bär, Nicolas Pröllochs & Stefan Feuerriegel. We are then given “A widespread concern is that practices of modern warfare in form of large-scale Russian propaganda campaigns are used to shape the narrative around the war, yet corresponding research is still nascent. On the one hand, the Russian government enforced new legislation exerting power over traditional media outlets to persuade citizens to support the war. As a result, domestic media outlets are forced to adopt the official narrative. On the other hand, Russian propaganda has been suspected to influence other countries outside Russia, in particular, by using social media to promote hostility against the West

The funny part is that as far as I have seen, the western media largely ignored this setting and the consequences of that setting. This paper was published in 2023 (at https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00414-5) and was readily available. But the western media at large, always happy to cater to clicks and being the bitch of the digital dollar left it standing as it was. They also give us the settings that they used (particularly the numbers involving ‘#1standwithruss1a’ (I changed two digits as not to ‘support’ Russia) and that gives us that The Atlantic (at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/russian-propaganda-zelensky-information-war/629475/) gives us the story by Carl Miller. There was a much larger setting to the Putin war and as I see it, the media left left it alone. I reckon the revenue that the digital dollars gave them was preferred against informing the people in what dangers they were. These four also looked into the Botometer and several other methods, relying on verifications by Prolific. The results are pretty horrific “We applied further filtering rules to select only messages where the content was pro-Russian (see Methods). Overall, this yielded messages. The messages further generated nearly 1 million likes. To measure the global exposure to pro-Russian messages, we estimated the overall readership based on the number of unique users that followed authors of pro-Russian messages in our dataset, amounting to 14.4 million users.” As I see it, Twitter is big business and they (of course) partially relied on these ‘bots’ to spice up advertisements. 

As such Russia had taken out all stops to present their ‘winning’ war. The Guardian reported on February 27th 2022 ‘‘Don’t call it a war’ – propaganda filters the truth about Ukraine on Russian media’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/propaganda-filters-truth-ukraine-war-russian-media) there we see “Kremlin clamps down on Facebook and threatens to muzzle outspoken independent news outlets” with the supporting text “the Russian government has taken extraordinary steps by throttling Facebook and threatening to shut independent media outlets such as TV Rain and the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, which published an edition in Russian and Ukrainian this week with the banner headline “Russia is bombing Ukraine”” and that is merely the tip of the iceberg. The larger setting becomes that people like Weird Duk (a Dutch Telegraph reporter) was, as I personally see it ‘filtering’ the anti-Russian news away. The setting we were given by Ukrainian writer and analyst Mykola Riabchuk was ‘Wierd Duk’s silence on Ukraine is deafening’ with the implicated “What is strikingly missing in Duk’s deliberations is Ukraine, and the silence is deafening. Omissions can be as important in rhetorical strategies as words. In his article any reference to the war, to its victims and culprits, would immediately put in question his central argument: that the West shares equal responsibility for the crisis with Russia” That is the larger setting. I am happy that at this point I don’t work for the AIVD, because in a few months they will have their hands full. You see, the Dutch will be experiencing a setting (not unlike) that dwarves the Dutch hunt of NSB agents (and operatives). And in Dutch media land there will be a culling of these people. I reckon that this will happen in Belgium, Germany, France the UK and Canada too. And all these people will cry like little bitches on the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the freedom to expose the ‘facts’ as they saw it. But one-sided reporting makes that harder and a lot more finicky for them to keep up. Partially I am curious what will happen to Thierry Baudet, massively pro-Russian. He is the founder and leader of the far-right Forum for Democracy (FvD). Baudet is opposed to the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. Together with GeenStijl and the Burgercomité EU association, Forum for Democracy was one of the behind the campaign to collect the signatures required for the 2016 Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum. Why this is important is that during the campaign, Baudet at multiple occasions spread fake news, including false reports of purported crimes by the Ukrainian military, and associated himself with pro-Russian activist Vladimir Kornilov. A setting that seemingly connects to the entire social media warfare by Russia.

So as we take tally:

We see that after three years the Russians are down almost one million soldiers and they still are nowhere near a victory. I would like to start an autograph collections on confiscating the entire Hermitage collection to hand over to the Ukraine for reparations that was done by over 7,400 missiles and 3,900 Shahed drone strikes against Ukraine. And when President Putin has to hand over that collection, he will start feeling the sting of starting a war he had no business of starting. 

And when some people say that this is merely speculation, consider that the media collected this evidence for publication, even the pro-Russian media did that and now as the pebbles are in boiling water, these weak minded people (traitor is seemingly too harsh a word) will need to set their tally to a new horizon, because Russia is no longer clearly winning and the moment President Putin sees that the game is up, he will cut loose all connections he had to social media and pro-Russian reporters, and as such the lives of people like Wierd Duk and Thierry Baudet will become massively complicated and they will hand over any name they can to get clear of the blast zones, where they are the target. The Dutch might remember that setting during the manhunts they had in 1945-1947.

A nice sidestep is the interrogation of Max Blokzijl the radio reporter of the NSB, yet the freedom of the press didn’t stop him being put in front of a firing squad in September 1945, as such I wonder how people like Wierd Duk think they will do. They might get some support form the 60,163 members that the FvD has, but the Netherlands has roughly 18,000,000 people, not really a majority seeing that he would hope for. And lynching in 1945 was not unheard of. So here are two people that might apply for a high life insurance, but only with the death by natural causes  clause in place.

And the Netherlands is not the only place that will face this. I reckon that the bombings of Olenegorsk air base in Murmansk and the Belaya air base in Irkutsk might have something to do with that. 

So have a great day and consider what you think is the right move, who should you support and I am not saying that you need to be an outspoken supporter in whatever direction you take. Because sometimes, certain choices are harder than you think. But the media gets no sympathy, they were paid to do a certain thing and they decided on other actions and that will scar them for life as they have been part of the ‘Digital Solution’ for years.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Is it intentional ignorance?

I saw an article yesterday. It was ‘Doubts cast over Elon Musk’s Twitter bot claims’. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62571733) was seemingly eager to attack Elon Musk’s side, but the same media has not now or ever asked serious and critical questions on the Twitter side. But lets start here, those who read my articles know I have had a larger issue with Twitter for a long time. Don’t get me wrong, I like Twitter. I like it a lot more than Facebook. As such I have issues. If it isn’t with their new bully tactics of suggestion topics, without switching that nuisance off in the profile setting, then it would be with the attitude they take on fake accounts, as well as the delusional stage that it does not go beyond 5%. People I have been in contact with and THEY have data shows it to be well over 40%. I personally found 40% high, but they have data and they have data on Russian trolls and fake accounts pushing Russian ‘needs’ regarding the Ukrainian war to be in the thousands of trolls each of them using a massive amounts of click farm numbers. And it does not matter whether Twitter deactivates these accounts. The trolls have more and new methods of creating thousands more each minute. It shows in the first that the 5% Twitter claimed is bogus, more important it shows my initial thoughts that if it can be proven that it is well over double, we have a situation that Twitter has been overvaluing itself for a very long time. The data that places like Trollrensics has, shows this to have been the case for over 5 years, long before the Elon Musk events started. 

But back to the article. There we see “Botometer – an online tool that tracks spam and fake accounts – was used by Mr Musk in a countersuit against Twitter. Using the tool, Mr Musk’s team estimated that 33% of “visible accounts” on the social media platform were “false or spam accounts”.” OK, that is one side to go. I would personally advice Elon to take a step out of his circle and talk to Trollrensics. You see, they have been monitoring and recording events on the Ukrainian war (as well as Russian trolls) for a long time. Now consider that there should be some overlap. But take two circles (like below) we see the two solutions, the overlap is speculative on how much they overlap. 

They are different solutions for different options. As such the overlap cannot be 100%, in theory the second image could exist, but we can prove that, or better stated Elon Musk could prove this. You see, when the two lists of accounts are set together, Twitter has a problem, if image one is true, Twitter’s problem increases by well over 100%, it also blasts the 5% claim out of the water. 

If image 2 is true, Twitter has optionally a smaller issue, but Trollrensics has numbers stating over 40% of all accounts are fake, if so it will be a list supporting the case of Elon Musk, and well over 5%, Twitter will have a hard time opposing that much data.

And now we see in the article a strange event. With “However, Botometer creator and maintainer, Kaicheng Yang, said the figure “doesn’t mean anything”. Mr Yang questioned the methodology used by Mr Musk’s team, and told the BBC they had not approached him before using the tool. 

Mr Musk is currently in dispute with Twitter, after trying to pull out of a deal to purchase the company for $44bn (£36.6bn).” The readers will wonder what is going on, but no fear the BBC did its homework and we see that a little further below with “Botometer is a tool that uses several indicators, like when and how often an account tweets and the content of the posts, to create a bot “score” out of five. A score of zero indicates a Twitter account is unlikely to be a bot, and a five suggests that it is unlikely to be a human. However, researchers say the tool does not give a definitive answer as to whether or not an account is a bot. “In order to estimate the prevalence [of bots] you need to choose a threshold to cut the score,” says Mr Yang.” Now to me this makes sense, but there is a hidden trap. The numbers tend to be less reliable when a hybrid model exists. Let me try to make an image as below.

The hybrid system has three parts. The core (the foundation of that troll system) but it connects to real accounts. The accounts are real, tools like Qanon or whatever tool out there exists to gain coin and perhaps hoping that they are the false prophets that they once hope to become. Trolls and hackers give them a nice little tag and now the troll core has one real account that links to a whole range of people and click farms to like by the thousands and as this hybrid model can go more than one level deep and  consists of an unnamed amount of groups, Botometer and Twitter tools are (speculatively) in a mess, they now can no longer really decide on how real these groups are, and if the troll is intelligent and makes a slightly different message for each group, it can continue almost unabated. Still the Botometer is methodically sound to get the stupid accounts found and there are a whole range of them. Hundreds of thousands of limited click farm accounts, they should be found decently easily. And there I think is Elon Musk, he found the simple ones and he comes to 30%. The stage is real and the fact that is open to debate and moreover starts question the Twitter side of thinks is important. The article has more “Clayton Davis, a data scientist who worked on the project, says the system uses machine learning, and factors like tweet regularity and linguistic variability, as well as other telltale signs of robotic behaviour.” I agree with Clayton and there is also a larger issue. ‘Tweet regularity’ is real but debatable. You see it depends on interaction and time stations. A person has a shifting set. The person who looks at a tweet at 03:00 and retweets it because it is a friend, is different from the same person who is in the office at 11:00 and sees the same or a different tweet. There are more sides to that person, dynamic qualities and I wonder if a learning machine can learn (read: be taught) this. Not telling it cannot, I merely wonder and that makes it harder, than the time zones shift for the travelling person. All elements that can play a role. So when we get “In 2017, the group of academics behind the tool published a paper that estimated that between 9% and 15% of active Twitter accounts were bots.” Which is interesting for me as I considered the number to be around 20%, still that makes it 400% larger than Twitter’s claim, so Twitter does have a problem. And then the gem of the BBC article comes into play. With “Some bot experts claim Twitter has a vested interest in undercounting fake accounts. “Twitter has slightly conflicting priorities,” says Mr Davis. “On the one hand, they care about credibility. They want people to think that the engagements are real on Twitter. But they also care about having high user numbers.”

The vast majority of Twitter’s revenue comes from advertising, and the more daily active users it has, the more it can charge advertisers.” Or as I would state it, there is your Dorsey factor and that part shows both that Twitter is in deep trouble and also that Elon Musk was right all along. There is still a larger debate on how large that stage is, but if proof can be shown that the fake accounts exceed 9%-11% Elon Musk wins and Twitter gets to have a large problem. What I said all along, Twitter is bound to lose this and the media supporting Twitter for their own needs are likely to lose credibility by the day at that point.

A stage that was out in the open and has been for a few years. It was my view and the view of several I knew and now that we are proven correctly, I wonder under which rock the media will hide. The law sees intentional ignorance as a right, a legal station where we are allowed to keep ourselves ignorant, but should the media be allowed that very same thing? I will let you ponder that side of the equation, because it will come out in the open. In the mean time I will consider a few idea’s on Neom and the line bubble to the surface. Perhaps I should have a conversation with Saudi Arabia’s consul general in Sydney, Mashare Ben Naheet. If I am correct it might be worth a few million to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and I could use the money (I need to pay my bar bill sooner then I would like). 

The problems of old age, they come into play at the least comfortable times.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science