Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
6/6/2024, 1:37:19 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
616d
29. Factcheck and Botcheck were two related companies begun by a pair of Berkeley students named Rohan Phadte and Ash Bhat, whom Wired praised as the College Kids who “will do what Twitter won’t”:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
616d
28. Twitter then received a letter from Mother Jones, asking them to confirm research by https://factcheck.me/, which labeled #WalkAway “38% bot activity” and asked “what Twitter is trying to do to curb this kind of unhealthy user activity.” The firm did work w/the DNC.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
616d
27. Tired of saying no to influential politicians, one Twitter official urged they “confirm” the requests, saying: “We would love to be able to confirm this and land a positive example of our partnership to silence the… critiques” about refusing too many removal demands.
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
616d
26. Attention bred more complaints. On October 11th, Twitter received a “massive” spreadsheet of 38,000 suspected inauthentic accounts from ther Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), including #Walkaway
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
616d
25. Steven Colbert did a #WalkAway bit: “Russian trolls make things trend!” His source? A Daily Dot article relying on Hamilton 68, showing Straka over a headline: “Russian trolls on Twitter pose as ex-Democrats for #WalkAway movement.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
616d
24. No sooner did Twitter decide not to push back than CNN, on July 17, 2018, released a new story, citing Hamilton 68 to call #WalkAway “pure propaganda, a psychological operation.” By then, #Walkaway had over 100,000 real members.

The statement and accompanying images discuss the reliability and methodology of tools used to identify bot activity on social media, specifically in the context of political discourse. The tone is critical, suggesting that the methodologies of Hamilton 68 and Botcheck are flawed and that journalists are capitalizing on these tools to create a media frenzy. This constitutes public discourse as it engages with issues of media integrity, political manipulation, and the role of social media in public debate.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to do no harm by pointing out flaws in methodologies that could mislead the public, thus adhering to this principle. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on the methodologies rather than personal attacks, adhering to this principle. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the flaws in the tools used to identify bot activity, which can lead to more informed public discourse, thus adhering to this principle. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism of the methodologies used, rather than personal attacks, adhering to this principle. [+1]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its platform to better inform society about the potential flaws in widely used tools, thus adhering to this principle. [+1]