Interesting analysis on social media about Meghan

[Why2why]

Interesting analysis but who could be paying for this concerted effort? It’s suggested that not only is it coordinated but the people doing it are paid to do so.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ellievhall/bot-sentinel-meghan-markle-prince-harry-twitter

Many, perhaps most, people who like to tweet potentially-offensive opinions do so from alt accounts. The findings are interesting, but it doesn't look like there was much of an effort to compare it to the Twitterverse's treatment of other controversial figures. Are there more anti-Sussex accounts than, say, anti-Trump accounts? Anti-BoJo accounts? I think the pregnancy-faking theory is a crazy conspiracy, but I don't see how some unnamed nefarious person paying a few dedicated Twitter trolls to say mean things about Sussexes is any less of one. If social media had existed in the 90s in its current form, there would have been at least as many anti-Camilla, anti-Charles, and possibly even anti-Diana accounts.

I think it was always clear that there is a coordinated smear against H&M. Some powerful people have much to gain from their demise. Papers make so much money that paying bots to get the public into a frenzy is worth it, infact, it drives more traffic and makes them more money. It works, you just have to have a quick look at the numbers who watch negative youtube videos of H&M. The tabloids themselves even had separate tags named MM.

What was different about H&M is that since they are not world leaders in any form, they were not influencing anyone's life with their decisions. So few people in general should have had any strong feelings towards them, but the media made sure from their commentary that this becomes the case.

That article is depressing and rather gives a lie to the line often trotted out on here: 'why are they complaining, we welcomed Meghan with open arms, until [insert petty grip about bump touching, 'whinging', made up shit about tiaras etc here]'. It reflects badly on the Royal Family in my opinion that they did not explictly address this and offer public support in the face of social media trolling. It does seem like they were a handy human shield.

@PurpleOkapi

Many, perhaps most, people who like to tweet potentially-offensive opinions do so from alt accounts. The findings are interesting, but it doesn't look like there was much of an effort to compare it to the Twitterverse's treatment of other controversial figures. Are there more anti-Sussex accounts than, say, anti-Trump accounts? Anti-BoJo accounts? I think the pregnancy-faking theory is a crazy conspiracy, but I don't see how some unnamed nefarious person paying a few dedicated Twitter trolls to say mean things about Sussexes is any less of one. If social media had existed in the 90s in its current form, there would have been at least as many anti-Camilla, anti-Charles, and possibly even anti-Diana accounts.

Whataboutery seems irrelevant here. Why is this comparison relevant?

The fact is this is unacceptable and horrifying regardless I f what might have, could have, etc.

My auto type is a mess.

The last part should have said: regardless of what might have, could have happened in such and such situation with such and such person.

Fascinating article in a very bad way, @Why2why.

Here is the Independent's take on it.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-markle-online-hate-twitter-b1946252.html

Have you actually read the article in detail Purple? It just wasn't a few posts on Twitter, it was on a massive scale unknown of before, with many of them manipulating Twitter and flying under the radar. 55 accounts reaching tens of millions of users and spreading their hate outside of Twitter to IG, youtube and blogs. Saying that Diana or Camilla might've had the same is completely irrelevant

Why2Why I'm doing your link again, because it didn't work for me, but I had seen the article.

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/bot-sentinel-meghan-markle-prince-harry-twitter

Yes, of course I read it. Without knowing how common that sort of thing is for other polarizing celebrities, it's impossible to form a reasoned opinion about whether it's organized, or who's behind it if it is. I know several people who have single-issue alt or satire accounts, and they frequently retweet content from other similar accounts that aren't theirs. I don't think it's so hard to believe that 55 or 83 or however many different people hate them enough to do this as a hobby. That's not really very many.

@PurpleOkapi

Yes, of course I read it. Without knowing how common that sort of thing is for other polarizing celebrities, it's impossible to form a reasoned opinion about whether it's organized, or who's behind it if it is. I know several people who have single-issue alt or satire accounts, and they frequently retweet content from other similar accounts that aren't theirs. I don't think it's so hard to believe that 55 or 83 or however many different people hate them enough to do this as a hobby. That's not really very many.

This. I was actually really surprised to read that it was only 55 accounts found to be doing this. I thought it would have been far more.

It's not about how many, it's about the reach, estimated at 17million given their followers.

I'm amazed you can dismiss it when it's stated it's on a level not seen before.
Well, it is Harry & Meghan so not surprising

Wow. Fascinating and horrifying article.

Stand outs for me:

– It's human-run accounts not a botnet but nonetheless extremely prolific.

– That the identified net consists of just 55 primary accounts which seed material and 28 secondary accounts which retweet it – and after that it may just be unrelated accounts picking up the material and choosing to amplify. But that this is very effective.

– That the investigator started looking into the network because of it being proactive in attacking him.

the impetus for the investigation came after he shared a positive tweet about the Sussexes that resulted in him personally receiving hateful messages from anti-Meghan accounts.

When Bouzy tweeted that Bot Sentinel would be launching an investigation into anti-Sussex accounts on Twitter, he became the target of a full-fledged harassment campaign unlike anything he or his team had experienced before, he told BuzzFeed News.

While every investigation pursued by the company garners hate tweets and sometimes even death threats, he said, the targeted harassment from anti-Meghan accounts was “different” and “personal.”

Bouzy said that accounts spammed his timeline and mass-reported him to Twitter (encouraging their followers to do so as well), all while sharing false allegations about him and Bot Sentinel in an attempt to preemptively discredit the report’s findings.

Yes exactly, Rousette. It's the number of organic followers being fed by the small, organised network at the core.

Not quite Roussette. What it says is that when Bot Sentinel announced it would be investigating, (after Chris Bouzy, the CEO had for some reason re-tweeted a positive tweet about the Sussexes) the level of abuse he and his company then received was like he had never experienced before.

“Bouzy said that although he was aware of the campaign against Meghan before this report, the impetus for the investigation came after he shared a positive tweet about the Sussexes that resulted in him personally receiving hateful messages from anti-Meghan accounts.

When Bouzy tweeted that Bot Sentinel would be launching an investigation into anti-Sussex accounts on Twitter, he became the target of a full-fledged harassment campaign unlike anything he or his team had experienced before, he told BuzzFeed News.”

Obviously, an orchestrated attack on anyone on Twitter is deplorable, but I’m sure it happens to lots of others besides Harry and Meghan.

The aggression of the core accounts is notable too. Not just defensively when they know they're being investigated, but before that.

Obviously aggression on Twitter is hardly unusual in itself: it's the lack of obvious motive that he points to as notable.

Herewith the actual Bot Sentinel report, which is quite short:

botsentinel.com/reports/documents/duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/report-10-26-2021.pdf

@PurpleOkapi

Yes, of course I read it. Without knowing how common that sort of thing is for other polarizing celebrities, it's impossible to form a reasoned opinion about whether it's organized, or who's behind it if it is. I know several people who have single-issue alt or satire accounts, and they frequently retweet content from other similar accounts that aren't theirs. I don't think it's so hard to believe that 55 or 83 or however many different people hate them enough to do this as a hobby. That's not really very many.

You clearly want to miss the point.

It’s not that this isn’t happening to others. The point is the scale, expertise, unclear motive and that it appears to be the job, paid job of these people to do this. Also that this is match by them pushing positive content on Kate and William.

Can you point to another example where this one s happening to someone else.

Truth be told, this isn’t surprising. It was clear, without the report by BotS that something shady was going on with the concerted British media attack on Meghan and Harry. It was just too extreme and unreasonable. It is just good to see the evidence that confirms what every decent person suspected.

Eventually, the truth will come out about the person, persons or institutions behind this. The problem with people who engage in shady activities is that they eventually sell each other out. Even Thomas Markle let out that he was paid to help scupper Meghan and Harry’s wedding.

@Why2why

I'm not missing the point. Unlike Bot Sentinel, I don't purport to do this for a living, nor do I have the resources to comb through Twitter to keep track of which celebrities have how many negative accounts. It's their job to verify that the Sussexes are being treated differently than other comparable figures before making that assertion publicly, which as far as I can tell, they haven't done.

They (and you) are assuming - based on absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell - that it's not possible for a controversial figure to have a double-digit number of dedicated haters who follow each other and routinely retweet each other's content. They're also assuming, also based on nothing, that accounts run by individuals rather than bots can't intentionally skirt close to the line on bans, and take steps to avoid bans like temporarily deactivating or hiding accounts. If you're going to make that claim, then it's on you to explain why there can't simply be 50+ people who really hate the Sussexes, have too much time on their hands, and like to waste it on Twitter. Absent some kind of evidence for that, the assertion that it must be an organized for some nefarious purpose is nothing more than the same sort of conspiracy theory that often criticize the anti-Sussex crowd for spouting.

@PurpleOkapi, what precisely is your point? Whether it is organised or not, it is unprecedented the level of hate and misinformation for no discernible justifiable reason.

In any case, they have evidence that it is organised. For example, they tracked what happens to other accounts and general activity when one account is shut down. What they observed suggests it isn’t just unique and disconnected individuals.

But time is a wonderful thing. Things will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Just finished a long night of preparations for tomorrow and it’s well past my bedtime. I don’t suppose any of the royal family including Meghan and Harry are discussing me as I am them.

@PurpleOkapi, but isn't the point that Bot Sentinel do do this for a living and they have identified that the activity is (i) unusual and (ii) suspicious? What reason do they have for coming to those conclusions? They, presumably, don't have any skin in the game?

OP, I agree with you, the whole thing is utterly bizarre and I would love to know who is behind it.

There's also reports that M&H are employing human bots to promote them and get negative comments removed.

I have seen some nasty shit regarding them, but I've also seen nasty shit from those who defend them.

There's no need for nasty shit whatever opinion you hold.

The orchestrated hatred from various sources against MM has been obvious. Except to those who suck it in and troll her or whatever usually female celebrity they're told to, all over the internet.🤷‍♀️

@amusedtodeath1

There's also reports that M&H are employing human bots to promote them and get negative comments removed.

I have seen some nasty shit regarding them, but I've also seen nasty shit from those who defend them.

There's no need for nasty shit whatever opinion you hold.

Agree

There's also reports that M&H are employing human bots to promote them and get negative comments removed.

Reports by who?

@Menstrualcycledisplayteam

If you read the article carefully, though, it doesn't actually say that. It says they've seen it before, but that this is different because H&M aren't political figures. Ok, that's true, though I think the Amber Heard situation is pretty close to H&M's. Has Bot Sentinel done that sort of deep analysis where they looked this hard at the 'anti-fans' of other non-political figures? It doesn't say whether they have or not, and I don't see any reason to assume it. If they haven't looked for it anywhere else, then of course they haven't seen it anywhere else. In the absence of any real basis for comparison, 55 accounts who like to retweet each other's content about a particular celebrity shouldn't be assumed to be anything more than 55 individuals who really should get a different hobby.

I don't care enough to find the tweets where they're complaining about not getting paid, or worrying about their Christmas Bonus.

Gossip is that H&M have been told that they're too controversial to be a good investment to promote businesses/products, so they're desperately trying to prove its a small organised group who are responsible for all the negative attention. It won't work.

I'm not on twitter, I don't do social media, but I still have doubts about their motivation.