‘Twitter Files’ Show More Groups Used Hamilton 68’s Bogus Methodology To Sell The Russia Hoax

Twitter was requested by the Federal Government and think tanks that it finances to ban tens of thousands users. This was based upon bogus analysis which said the accounts were pushing. “foreign disinformation,” The latest edition of “Twitter Files” reveals.

Matt Taibbi is an independent journalist. revealed These are just a few of the many fraudulent activities. Hamilton 68 dashboardThree other groups, or more, pushed for faulty “foreign disinformation” Models include the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and the Atlantic Council’s Forensic Research Lab. scandal-plagued New Knowledge, Group, raising questions about the breadth, depth, and complexity of the tangled Censorship Complex web.

Global Engagement Center

Global Engagement Center, an interagency centre housed at the State Department was created in 2016 to lead federal efforts against what it calls “the famine”. “disinformation.” The Global Engagement Center has made many previous announcements. appearances In the “Twitter Files,” Last week’s leak of Twitter internal communications revealed a larger scandal: The Global Engagement Center “ecosystem” A method to detect disinformation from abroad was used. “laughable” “crockAccording to Twitter experts, ”

Global Engagement Center was tasked with identifying allegedly foreign disinformation accounts. hashtags Connections. “If you retweet a news source linked to Russia, you become Russia-linked,” One tweet executive scoffed, adding: “Does not exactly resonate as a sound research approach.”

Others emails The team at Twitter was puzzled by the absurd arguments offered by the Global Engagement Center to help with censorship requests. The Global Engagement Center suggested that a large number of tweets could be interpreted as bots. This was connected to the fact that it also supports censorship requests. “yellow vest” movement in France with being a Russia-aligned account, and concluded that pro-China accounts were Russia-linked — except anti-China sentiments expressed in Italy were considered Russia-connected as well. The Global Engagement Center saw “a surge in accounts that agreed with Moscow-aligned narratives” As meaning “Moscow controlled.”

Global Engagement Center accusations Foreign disinformation “unverified” And “can’t be replicated by either external academics or by Twitter — so they aren’t operating with the greatest of credibility when they make pronouncements about accounts/widespread disinfo,” Read another email sent by Twitter to employees.

“Anyone can make unsubstantiated allegations, and if they release their” data, “they will likely get laughed out of the room by real researchers,” This is what the Twitter team thought of the “evidence” The Global Engagement Center propagates foreign disinformation.

Hamilton 68’s Methods: Did it Follow It?

J.M. was the Global Engagement Center’s contractor from June 2017 to June 2017. Bergera Hamilton 68 dashboard which purportedly tracks Russian disinformation. Taibbi stressed however that Berger was not a point. “did GEC have any input or involvement whatsoever with the Hamilton dashboard.”

Although the Hamilton 68 dashboard wasn’t created by the Global Engagement Center, it’s still an important part. Berger’s collaboration with the Global Engagement Center is another example.

That is why creating Hamilton 68, Alliance for Securing Democracy “employed social network analytical techniques largely developed by J.M. Berger and Jonathon Morgan,” The dashboard was then activated. outed Berger’s involvement with the State Department can be seen as an act of deceit. Was Berger influenced by the flawed methodology used in Hamilton 68 with the Global Engagement Center.

Hamilton’s New Knowledge is New Knowledge 68

Morgan’s collaboration with Berger on the Hamilton 68 Dashboard Fault causes further inquiries about a disinformation document prepared by “New Knowledge,” Morgan’s cybersecurity company, which was founded in 2015 and made an appearance on Thursday. “Twitter Files.”

A team called the New Knowledge, which is led by a supposed “disinformation” experts — Renee DiResta, the then-director of research at New Knowledge, and Jonathan Albright, an academic out of Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism — prepared a 101-page report For the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, which purported to disclose “the scope of Russia’s efforts during the 2016 election to cause discord among American citizens and sway the election.”

Morgan claimed New Knowledge “deployed” It “technology in collaboration with Clint Watts, J.M. Berger, and Andrew Weisburd for the Securing Democracy Project’s Hamilton68 dashboard.” It begs the question, “Was New Knowledge’s Report to the Senate Intelligence Committee another Hamilton 68 disinformation sham?”

Twitter also published internal communications last Wednesday that revealed the tech giant questions the competence of the players. A reporter from the New York Times asked Twitter why it hadn’t hired. “independent researchers” Like DiResta and Albright and Morgan, Morgan was the one who retorted. “The word ‘researcher’ has taken on a very broad meaning.”

Atlantic Council Forensic Research Lab

Twitter executive called it misinformation. “cottage industry,” The Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Council had been involved in the disinformation enterprise before. knownThe latest version of the “Twitter Files” It is now clear that DFRLab (Digital Forensic Research Lab) pushed for censorship requests on the basis of bogus research.

An analyst for the DFRLab sent a tweet in June 2021 to Twitter, claiming his researchers were suspect “around 40k twitter accounts” This is “engaging in inauthentic behavior … and Hindu nationalism more broadly.” Twitter also received a spreadsheet containing the accounts. According to the DFRLab, those accounts of 40,000 are likely to have been compromised. “paid employees or possibly volunteers” India’s Bharatiya Janata Party.

“But the list was full of ordinary Americans, many with no connection to India,” Taibbi stressed. Yoel Roth (at the time, Twitter’s head of safety and trust), confirmed that he was indeed correct in an email. “spot-checked a number of these accounts, and virtually all appear to be real people.”

Although the Atlantic Council says it hasn’t published the document, “former researcher’s” The 40,000 accounts were analyzed. “because we lacked confidence in its findings,” Given the Atlantic Council’s relationships with the Election Integrity Partnership, and the Global Disinformation Index, the fact that their lab sent Twitter inaccurate research to them raises further questions.

During the 2020 elections, the Election Integrity Partnership of which the Atlantic Council belonged was able to send censorship requests for alleged disinformation to Twitter. Is the Atlantic Council able to provide similar claims, unsupported, of disinformation about the 2020 election for the Election Integrity Partnership? Was the Election Integrity Partnership able to pass these censorship requests onto Twitter? Twitter responded by blocking those accounts.

The DFRLab of the Atlantic Council also has a connection with the Global Disinformation Index. This index was created recently. outed publication of a blacklist that advertisers targeted conservative outlets. This lab founder Ben Nimmo is a former Atlantic Council senior fellow and now Global Lead at Meta served As an advisor panel member of the Global Disinformation Index. Conducting its “research,” Is the Global Disinformation Index based on any of the flawed techniques or methodologies used by the DFRLab

The Atlantic Council is also connected to both the State Department (with the former) and the Global Engagement Center (with the latter). funding The DFRLab. Graham Brookie was the Atlantic Council director. He denied that there were any labs. “uses tax money to track Americans, saying its GEC grants have ‘an exclusively international focus.'”

Although cash can be fungible, Americans must also be aware of the wide range of disinformation that is being circulated about disinformation. Four players now make up the total. Censorship Complex — the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, the Global Engagement Center, New Knowledge, and the Alliance for Securing Democracy’s Hamilton 68 dashboard — are shown to have spread false charges of foreign disinformation. Roth suggested that this number could be much greater. clear It was revealed in an email that last week by the author, “It is not!” “technologically possible to accurately identify potential Russian fingerprints on Twitter accounts through our public-facing” system.

However, the government promoted censorship through think tanks funded by government directly. This was based on fake analyses of outsiders that claimed accounts were being pushed. “foreign disinformation.” So, disinformation about disinformation was the basis of a cottage business.

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist’s senior law correspondent is Margot. National Review Online, Aleteia and Townhall.com are also contributors to Cleveland. She has been published in USA Today and Wall Street Journal. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. After graduating from Notre Dame Law School, Cleveland served nearly 25 years in the capacity of a law clerk to a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals federal appellate judge. Cleveland was a full-time professor at a university. She now teaches adjunct classes. Cleveland, a mother of a child with cystic-fibrosis and a homeschooling stay-at-home mom writes frequently about culture. Cleveland can be found on Twitter as @ProfMJCleveland Cleveland’s private views may be expressed here.