Information operations directed at Hong Kong

1. dqpb ◴[20 Aug 19 00:44 UTC] No.20742968[source]▶

>>20742566 (TP) #

It might seem like that if you don't read the article.

If you did read the article, you would see this:

> All the accounts have been suspended for a range of violations of our platform manipulation policies, which we define as:

- Spam

- Coordinated activity

- Fake accounts

- Attributed activity

- Ban evasion

replies(1): >>20746086 #

2. woutr_be ◴[20 Aug 19 02:12 UTC] No.20743315[source]▶

>>20742566 (TP) #

I think it depends, pro-China camp uses bots to share fake news, or out of context articles. While pro-Democracy are just individuals sharing posts where the truth is bend in their favour.
I do find it surprising that the pro-Democracy camp is allowed to share the same post / image, but when pro-China does it, they're all marked as bots or "50cents". It's their way to delegitimise the posts.

3. diNgUrAndI ◴[20 Aug 19 12:23 UTC] No.20746086[source]▶

>>20742968 #

There aren't always clear definitions of these types of accounts.
Hypothetically, one ordinary twitter account saw the posts / GIFs / words that are close to the version they like, and retweet them. When the number of accounts is large, do you ban them all? When you remove the tweet, the real users retweeting the content loses the content and feels the platform is unfair. You bear the risk of banning real users.
Also, how would you judge a post is inauthentic? You look at the content! Judging by the posting pattern alone is arguably not enough. This is why Twitter's claim that banning is not based on content is questionable.