Home » Brexit

Tag: Brexit

Behind the hashtag: Who’s tweeting about #SurrenderAct ?

If you’ve been following the latest news about Brexit, then you’ve probably heard about the so-called ‘Surrender Act’.

It’s Boris Johnson’s way of describing the Benn Act, passed by Parliament earlier this month to prevent No-Deal Brexit. This compels Johnson to seek an extension to Article 50 if he can’t reach a deal with the EU by October 19, 2019.

Johnson’s supporters didn’t approve of this legislation. They claimed that the Act would ‘undermine’ Britain’s negotiating power with the EU.

#SurrenderAct immediately started trending on Twitter. But who exactly was tweeting it? I jumped into the analytics to find out.

When did the hashtag start?

When analysing a hashtag, I usually begin by checking when it was first tweeted, and by whom. #SurrenderAct was first used by an account that really didn’t want to look like a bot…

Below we see a sharp spike in activity around the hashtag. It was tweeted over 3000 times over 12 hours (mainly during the UK night time).

So who else is tweeting about #SurrenderAct? Below are the top 10 most active hashtag users. In the rest of this post, I’ll put these accounts under the microscope.

Bot, cyborg, or organic human?

You’re probably wondering how many of these accounts are bots. Time for a quick reminder about what bots can (and can’t) do on Twitter. They’re pieces of code designed to amplify a particular hashtag, user or keyword. DFR Lab has a useful guide for spotting automated accounts.

The most obvious indicator of ‘bot-ness’ is high levels of activity, i.e. non-human tweeting patterns. Other top indicators are anonymity: e.g. no photo, or a generic one, a non-specific (usually political) bio, and a vague location, e.g. ‘England’, and amplification: only retweeting or liking other people’s tweets – i.e. boosting their messages in a quick and low-effort way.

Bots are less effective in human-to-human engagement, such as arguing with other Twitter users. That’s more likely to be human operators (or cyborgs, which mix bots with humans).

So, if boosting #SurrenderAct was the main purpose of these accounts, then we’d expect to find evidence of typical bot-like behaviours.

Let’s take a look at three interesting accounts within the top 10.

1. The Hyper-Prolific Tweeter

This account is new to Twitter, having joined in March this year. It has no photo (only the typical ‘egg’) and no bio. Definitely low effort.

But its rate of tweeting is impressive! During a short space of time, ‘christine’ has achieved a rate of over 1000 tweets per day.

Researchers cite a number of different benchmarks for identifying ‘bot-ness’. The Oxford Internet Institute says it’s an average of 50 tweets per day. DFR Lab is more generous. It claims that 72 tweets per day would be suspicious, and over 144 would be ‘highly suspicious’.

Remember too, that retweeting is faster and lower effort than creating replies or original tweets.

As shown above, ‘christine’ is going full bot. 100% of the account’s activity is retweets, all from the Twitter for iPhone app.

2. The Latent Islamophobe

‘Sue Reap’ is at number eight among those who most tweeted #SurrenderAct. There’s some interesting things going on with this account. Its bio is peppered with Tommy Robinson references and hashtags.

The account joined Twitter over seven years ago. But a couple of quick advanced searches shows that it didn’t tweet anything for most of 2012 or 2013.

Or, perhaps it did, but those tweets got deleted…It’s not easy to know.

Suddenly, ‘Susan’ springs into action in late 2013/early 2014 with a flurry of anti-Muslim tweets.

We can see that this account has a suspiciously high activity rate, producing 126.88 tweets per day, of which 22% is replies.

This rate puts the account close to the DFR Lab’s ‘highly suspicious’ bracket of 144 tweets per day.

So has ‘Susan’ given up on Tommy?

Not in the slightest. He’s still foremost in her mind, right up there with leaving the EU. It’s practically an obsession.

3. The ‘true-blue’ Brexiteer

This account is likely to be ‘organic’, i.e. a normal human user. It’s become quite Brexity in recent years, but still within the realms of normal human behaviour.

‘Pat’ was an early adopter of Twitter, joining in 2009, possibly when he/she was 55 (guessing from the handle). That would put them in their mid-60s now; the typical Brexit voter demographic.

At the beginning, ‘Pat’ tweeted everyday comments about garden parties and Michael Jackson. There was no sign of anything political.

In April 2016, when the referendum had been announced, ‘Pat’ was tweeting happily about normal things: celebrities, photography and TV shows.

But come May, as Britain inched closer to the date of the referendum, Pat’s political side suddenly became apparent. Out came the pro-Brexit tweets.

Despite this, the account is still within the realms of being normal. An activity rate of 33 tweets per day is nowhere near ‘botness’. What’s more, the 82% of replies shows that this account engages a lot with other users, rather than simply retweeting things blindly. This is not typical ‘bot’ behaviour.

It’s likely to be a typical older Brexit voter who has become somewhat radicalised by the debate’s tribal nature (it’s not just Brexit voters; but happens to both sides).

These accounts form just a tiny sample of the millions of accounts out there engaging with political content.

Key takeaway: Don’t just assume everyone is a bot; instead think critically before jumping to conclusions.

A Tale Of Two Leaders: Facebook, Astroturfing, And Social Proof

There’s something odd about the Prime Minister’s Facebook page.

Underneath every post, especially those about Brexit, are hundreds of responses. This isn’t unusual for the page of a public figure, but the style of the responses didn’t ring true.

They are all very similar; short utterances of praise for Boris Johnson, repeating words and phrases such as ‘brilliant’, ‘fantastic’, and ‘support Boris 100%’. Each comment is festooned with Facebook’s emojis, mainly representing positive sentiments of ‘like’, ‘love’ and ‘laugh’.

This behaviour feels odd. I’m not denying that a lot of genuine people do support Johnson, but it’s suspicious for so many to consistently comment on his posts in this distinctive and repetitive fashion.

Screenshot of Boris Johnson’s Facebook page, with a selection of comments about Brexit.

Let’s contrast this with the page of his predecessor, Theresa May, specifically her Brexit-related posts. Here we see a very different scenario.

Responses to May’s posts tend to be a lot more varied, in content, tone and length. Some disagree with her. Others support her. But most are expressed in more depth and sophistication of language than the short repetitive replies on Johnson’s.

In short, the responses on May’s page look far more likely to be ‘organic’ (i.e. produced by real people behaving naturally) than the majority of those on Johnson’s. It’s possible that Johnson’s page is using artificial amplification techniques, which may include fake followers.

Screenshot of Theresa May’s Facebook page showing a sample of typical comments about Brexit. Note the contrast with Johnson’s page.

Facebook locks its data down tight, so it’s hard to run further analysis to determine for certain whether the Johnson supporters are part of an organised campaign.

But we can draw from previous examples. Donald Trump used fake Facebook followers during the US presidential campaign. Researchers discovered that over half of the followers on his page came from countries known as hubs for Facebook ‘like farms’.

These ‘farms’ are often found in developing nations such as the Philippines and India, where the dollar stretches a long way. They offer customers the opportunity to buy fake Facebook likes to create the impression of popular support.

As well as likes, customers can purchase fake engagement, usually in the form of comments. This may explain the unusual commenting activity on Johnson’s page.

For political purposes, this type of artificial campaign is an important tool, because it generates the illusion of grassroots support for a particular figure or issue. It even has a name: astroturfing.

Illusion becomes reality when the fake engagement intersects with genuine users, who are more likely to engage with seemingly popular posts thanks to the effect of ‘social proof’ – a psychological phenomenon where people tend to follow the actions of the masses.

This can be leveraged to great effect in social media environments, where user attention spans are low, knee-jerk reactions are prevalent, and ‘likes’ are an addictive form of currency.

Tracking A Brexit Influence Campaign: #BritainIndependence

The atmosphere in Britain is becoming increasingly heated as October 31st inches ever closer. This is the date when the country will leave the European Union — if all goes to plan for Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party. Right now the political stakes are higher than ever.

Parliament has tried to protect the country from the potential catastrophe that may result from leaving without a deal. In the nick of time before prorogation, they passed a last-minute bill into law, designed to compel Johnson to seek an extension, if he can’t reach a suitable deal with the EU by the end of October.

Johnson has already lost multiple times in Parliament, despite his efforts to prorogue it for an unusually long time. Last week, a Scottish court ruled that this prorogation was unlawful. This week, the case goes to the English Supreme Court, where it will be challenged.

#BritainIndependence

In this highly-charged environment, Twitter has provided a constant source of lively political debate around Brexit. Many issues are bubbling up at present, some more relevant than others, but here I want to explore a particularly interesting hashtag.

#BritainIndependence has been popping up a lot lately. The first thing to do is to find out when it was first used, and who first used it. The hashtag came fairly late to the game, on September 9, via a user called ‘Trevor’, whose screen name is stuffed with pro-Brexit hashtags.

Signalling ingroup identity

A quick glance at Trevor’s bio is revealing. First, the bio is a strong indicator of self-professed identity on Twitter. In Trevor’s case, it contains words that reflect traditional values: conservative, nationalist, family-oriented, words such as ‘Christian’, ‘white’, ‘loyal British subject’, and ‘married’.

This creates a sense of group identity, designed to give Trevor’s profile immediate appeal to others who identify with similar values – i.e. signalling that he is part of an ingroup. In this case, the ingroup is pro-Brexit Twitter users.

The references to popular British football teams (Arsenal and Rangers), is likely designed to portray the account as belonging to a genuine working-class British citizen – another effort at signalling ingroup identity.

But the cultural references feel jumbled: Arsenal is an English team, while Rangers is a Scottish team. That plus the random mention of Northern Ireland means this bio doesn’t quite ring true. In fact, it feels like someone playing at being a Brit, perhaps for nefarious reasons.

What’s more, ‘neighbor’ is spelled in US English. No genuine speaker of British English would use US spelling; especially a man who seems so deeply committed to British patriotism. Clue, Trevor is likely not the grassroots British man that he pretends to be.

We could dig much deeper into Trevor’s account, especially his past tweet history. His account is devoted to tweeting about Brexit, even though it was created in September 2015, before Brexit existed. It would be interesting to see what Trevor was tweeting about between then and June 2016, but that’s a topic for another post…

Hashtag activity

Next up, let’s take a look at how Twitter users have been interacting with the #BritainIndependence hashtag, since ‘Trevor’ coined it on September 9th (coincidentally, just in time for the prorogation of Parliament).

All of the most retweeted tweets on the #BritainIndependence hashtag come from users with heavily pro-Brexit screen names (and usernames like @Brexit4me and @Feck_the_EU), suggesting one-topic accounts that exist simply for the purpose of engaging with Brexit-related discussions.

Retweets have two main functions, 1) they spread a message across Twitter, 2) they create validation for the message via social proof (i.e. if other people have engaged with this tweet, then it must be worth engaging with).

Liking (or favouriting) tweets reinforces the sense of social proof, while also increasing the likelihood of the tweet being seen in other users’ feeds.

The below tweets contain strong evidence of typical adversarial narratives, designed to promote a sense of tribalism, i.e. “us vs them”.

Examples include:

  • ‘Unelected judges’ and ‘hijacked by extremists’ (fits into narrative of the EU/Remain supporters being ‘anti-democratic’)
  • ‘Tattooed Eastern European thug’, and ‘brutal rape’ (fits into narrative of foreigners and ‘The Other’ as being threatening, especially to women)
  • ‘Me, just a patriot’ (supports the narrative of pro-Brexit voters as being especially patriotic. This is a similar notion to that conveyed by Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again (#MAGA’), which coincidentally appears in many of the user bios tweeting the #BritainIndependence hashtag.

Clearly, the #BritainIndependence hashtag exists to stoke further divides between the two sides in the Brexit debate, while creating the illusion of widespread support for the pro-Leave side. It’s highly likely that the hashtag was initialised for that very purpose, as the nature of ‘Trevor’s’ account suggests.

Furthermore, it’s telling that this hashtag coincides with several significant real-life events in the Brexit timeline that could threaten the pro-Brexit side, including the beginning of (unlawful) prorogation and the case going to the Supreme Court.

But why are so many of the top posting accounts so similar, with their bios stuffed with tribal keywords ? And why are so many of them blatantly US-centric, or with such obvious cultural errors (such as the spelling of ‘favorite’)?

This could indicate an organised social media manipulation campaign aiming to create the illusion of widespread support for the pro-Brexit side while deepening social and political divisions at a critical juncture for the country.

As October 31 inches closer, the discussion is certain to get even more heated – and we’re sure to see lots of interesting social media activity.

I’ll post further analyses here between now and October 31.

Fake armies: A field guide to astroturfing

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions.”

― Edward L. Bernays

It sounds so Orwellian; the world’s opinions shaped by vast armies of bots, or by paid groups of teenagers in Macedonia. But far from being a 1984 nightmare come to life, this scenario has become reality; and not just in authoritarian states. Technology is now used to drown out the voices of real people, creating an alternate reality where fake opinions rule and the zeitgeist is based on myths.

What exactly is astroturfing?

Astroturfing is where paid groups or automated technologies (‘bots’) fool the public into believing that certain opinions are more popular or widespread than in reality. It’s used in many arenas, from political campaigning to Amazon reviews. With the increasing influence of social media it’s difficult to tell fake from fact. Astroturfing is especially likely to happen whenever the interests of big business come into conflict with those of the public, for example climate change and big oil, or lung cancer and tobacco companies. To challenge scientifically proven fact should be an impossible endeavour, as surely nothing is more sacred than fact? But in a world led by fake news and paid opinion, the word of experts has been cheapened. In fact, many people no longer trust experts at all. This was demonstrated to devastating effect this year during the EU referendum in the UK, and the presidential elections in the United States.

When did astroturfing begin?

Astroturfing is not a phenomenon of the digital age. It’s been going on since before social media began. Back in the days of print newspapers, so-called ‘concerned residents’ would send a barrage of letters to the editor, especially around election times, to protest against certain policies or candidates. Now that newspapers have gone online the armies of astroturfers have headed to the nearest obvious outlet: the comment sections. From there, it’s an easy step to create multiple identities and start posting comments. Forums are another prime target for astroturfers, along with blogs and of course, social media. Have you ever felt a sense of despair when reading the comments under a newspaper article posted on Facebook? They seem to bring out the worst of human nature, but some of them could be astroturfers. In our low moments, when we feel the world is doomed to a constant cycle of bigotry, xenophobia and fear, perhaps we’d do well to remind ourselves that the rabid anti-Muslim or anti-foreigner comments online could simply be the work of some bot army.

What’s the role of technology?

As technology advances further, astroturfing gets more sophisticated. Russia has a particular talent for harnessing the power of fake opinion on a massive scale, using something called ‘persona management software’. This software creates bot armies that use fake IP addresses to hide their location, along with generating authentic-looking ‘aged’ profiles. There’s almost no way to tell bot from human – and that’s where the real danger lies. Fake opinion en masse can have alarming results; shifting the social and political mood and whipping people up into hysteria over issues minor or even non-existent.

Thanks to the online echo chambers that we live in these days, fake opinion can spread with ease once sown. It becomes further reinforced and legitimised by ongoing social sharing and discussion. Most social media users get their news from within a bubble, as algorithms do their utmost to show only the updates that the user is most likely to engage with. This means there’s less chance of people being shown opinions that challenge their existing worldview. That’s a recipe for disaster – and it’s one that we’ve only just begun to understand the significance of.

What are the implications?

Politics in 2016 is fishy business. In particular, the Trump election campaign is extremely suspicious. There have been claims that Russia used its cyber warfare prowess to interfere in the US elections; in the end putting Trump in command of the country. Notably, Russia has been accused of using its hackers to access Wikileaks to produce a leak of thousands of incriminating emails supposedly sent by Hillary Clinton. This move eroded public trust in Clinton and narrowed the gap between candidates by double digits. Again, like astroturfing, this technique is not new. Orchestrating the right conditions to encourage people to act in a certain way has been used for decades. The father of propaganda, Edward Bernays, used it to great effect in the early 20th century, to sell pianos and bacon, and cause regime change in Guatemala.

Having Trump in power is very much in Russia’s interests. Trump is inexperienced in politics, especially foreign policy, making him very much open to manipulation from afar. He has a reputation for being greedy, meaning he can be easily bought. He has already said publicly that he favours anon-interventionist military policy abroad. For the Kremlin, a Trump presidency is Russia’s very own puppet in the White House. It’s the Cold War revisited, with Russia scoring a massive coup against the US. Only this time Russia has technology on its side, propelling its influence all the way into the corridors of American power. The Soviets couldn’t have hoped for anything like it.

Controlling the zeitgeist via propaganda and astroturfing has reached new heights in this fundamentally connected age where the concept of ‘post-truth’ is rapidly gaining currency. That’s a serious concern; it makes a mockery of democracy and free speech, destroying the validity of the internet as a forum for useful online debate. Soon we won’t know what’s bot and what’s not. In this post-truth, Trump-tainted era, one could well argue that is already the case.

Teeth and claws

Cloudy weather allows for clearer thinking, so it is said, while sunshine ‘dulls the mind’ to risk and thoughtfulness’. If that’s truly the case, my thoughts should have been crystal during these last months. But mostly, they are full of constant musings on what a wild place the world has become.

There are four days left until the US election. Media hysteria surrounding the candidates has risen to fever pitch; with tales of deleted emails vying for dominance with those of sexual harassment (can’t think which could be worse…) Old family friends have emerged as die-hard supporters of those who purvey the latter, much to my great dismay.

Meanwhile, a glimmer of light appeared yesterday on this side of the Atlantic, as the UK’s high court ruled that Parliament must vote to trigger Article 50. This ruling is a small victory for those who just months ago watched in dismay as the future of their country was hijacked by the masses voting for false promises. We watched while the pound plummeted. We watched while other EU member states ganged up against us. And we watched while the hard-won British reputation for tolerance openness and pluralism was smashed apart in a matter of days.

On a wider scale, the world is moving in a worrying direction. Driven by fear, people are retreating to the familiar, afraid to interact with the ‘other’ in case something bad happens to them. Refugees are potential suicide bombers; immigrants will steal our jobs. We can witness the rise of Trump’s alt-right in America reflecting the Brexit mentality in Britain, and the Europe-wide rejection of refugees inextricably linked to the rise of ‘acceptable’ far-right parties, such as Marine Le Pen’s Front Nationale in France. This culture of hate is growing teeth and claws.

In Turkey, the political situation has sunk to new lows with last night’s arrest of members of the elected opposition party HDP, headed by the charismatic Selahattin Demirtas. The pro-Kurd HDP supports the rights of Turkey’s Kurdish minority, along with being a vocal advocate for those of women, LGBT and workers. The MPs have been accused (predictably) of crimes ‘relating to terrorist propaganda’, which could mean absolutely anything (or could even be made up). Nevertheless, it sounds a death knell for any semblance of democracy in Turkey.

Social media in Turkey has been blocked, including WhatsApp, the country remains under a state of emergency, and it seems the powers-that-be will stop at nothing in their quest to stamp out any dissent and retain power indefinitely. What’s more, Turkey’s recent invasion of Mosul has drawn the ire of ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi, who has urged his followers to wage ‘all-out war’ against Turkey. The future of the country looks grim, to say the least.

But fortunately, not all people move in fearful herds. Examples can still be found of grassroots initiatives that promote tolerance, justice and humanity. The Devon town of Great Torrington responded to a hateful anti-refugee Facebook page by creating its own “Refugees ARE welcome in Devon” page, which has attracted a lot of positive engagement. In a similar vein, but Syrian-run, From Syria with Love is a charity that travels around the UK giving talks on the Syrian situation and encouraging donations in support of refugees. So far, much of its feedback has been positive.

There are many more like this, but the mainstream media prefers to focus on news that holds the requisite shock value, painting a picture of a divided and hateful world. Over the coming weeks and months I shall be keeping my eyes open for examples of people working hard to promote basic humanity over the constant parade of hatred and fear. Through that, perhaps I can retain some modicum of hope.