According to
the Australian Parliament website:
On 21 September 2016,
the Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon Scott Ryan, asked the Committee
to inquire into and report on all aspects of the 2016 Federal Election and
related matters.
The Committee is
conducting a review of cyber manipulation of elections, specifically
considering:
the
extent to which social media bots may have targeted Australian voters and
political discourse in the past;
the
likely sources of social media manipulation within Australia and
internationally;
way
to address the spread of deliberately false news online during elections; and
measures
to improve the media literacy of Australian voters.
This simple
statement appears to have sent Liberal Senator
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells out into the twitterverse hunting the Jabberwocky.
What she actually
found was the Twitter accounts of a
number of ordinary Australians commenting on politics and life as well as one
group account involved in political activism.
To all of
whom she ascribed dark ulterior motives, asking “Who has either the inclination or
the resources to, in the main, retweet 240 times a day, year upon year?”
A sentiment
which made this Twitter user chortle knowing how easy it is to rack up tweets.
This was the
senator in full flight……
Excerpt Australian Senate Hansard,
15 November 2018:
Senator
FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (19:14):
Tonight I again wish to examine
how political influence campaigns are being run using multiple Twitter
accounts. I recently informed the Senate about the activities of Sleeping Giants Oz, an
anonymous, politically motivated Twitter campaign, imported from the US,
whose heavy reliance on unverifiable Twitter accounts makes its actual size
deceptive. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is currently
looking at cybermanipulation of elections, including considering the extent to
which social media bots may have targeted Australian voters and political
discourse in the past; the likely sources of social media manipulation within
Australia and internationally; and ways to address the spread of deliberately
false news online during elections.
A
submission to JSCEM from Digital Industry Group Inc, which includes
representatives from Facebook, Twitter and Google, concludes:
Fortunately, the
experience of DIGI members and the use of their platforms in Australia, to date
there is no evidence to suggest that election manipulation has been a
widespread problem in Australia as it has been in the U.S.
Similarly a
submission from Twitter says:
During
the 2016 election, we were not made aware of any activity related to the
suppression or interference with the exercise of voting rights in Australia.
These reassurances seem at odds with a recent report in The Australian that
Twitter accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency, the infamous Russian
troll factory, have spread politically charged posts about Australian politics,
including the 2016 federal election and last year's same-sex marriage survey.
However, tonight I wish to outline to the Senate how the Australian Labor Party
is benefiting from another influence campaign also being conducted via the
Twitter sphere. This campaign employs a calculated and malicious strategy of
spreading misinformation and political spam via a large web of mainly anonymous
but also automated Twitter accounts. These accounts post similar-to-identical
pro-Labor, pro-union, anti-coalition content. They primarily engage by
retweeting posts from like-minded accounts, creating an echo chamber of
reinforcing noise. Twitter is full of anonymous accounts that often exist only
to push partisan and frequently toxic debate by interests groups, including
fake news. Twitter permits automated retweets and it is easy to make a Twitter
bot that will automatically 'favourite' and/or retweet tweets that contain
particular words or hashtags.
Many of the accounts to which I refer have
tweeted or retweeted hundreds of thousands of times and continue to do so
hundreds of times a day, cranking out pro-Labor, anti-coalition messaging on an
industrial scale. Often they admit a union connection or Labor viewpoint,
together with an eclectic mix of other interests which collectively cover the
entire gamut of left-wing concerns. Some accounts run lies and smears against
the coalition or needle coalition candidates and parliamentarians while
promoting Labor initiatives or running interference for Labor. They are
frequently a vehicle for unfounded and defamatory allegations, low-grade
research or catalogues of alleged coalition misdeeds which wouldn't be
publishable by or rate any interest from the mainstream media. Some recycle
media stories which boost Labor or are unflattering to the coalition. For
example, @virgotweet,
[easily
identifiable Queensland retiree] which mainly retweets 80 times a day,
recycles old news about alleged coalition scandals and presents it as if new.
They typically follow or are followed by a mix of Labor figures and also engage
with Twitter feeds of other leftwing organisations. The aim is to discredit the
coalition, to promote allies and to distort public opinion by massively
amplifying messages which feed into like-minded networks and engage both
anonymous and real Twitter users.
These
accounts often show signs of direct user engagement via unique tweets and
topical comments, which is indicative of their close maintenance and operation.
A key account called @Talaolp
tweets rather than retweets an unremitting torrent of Labor propaganda. It
claims it is:
… sharing information about the Liberal Governments, State and
Federal, their deception, lies and misinformation to the Australian Public.
Based in Western Australia, @Talaolp has tweeted 230,000 times in the last five
years. That's about 125 times a day. Some of its anti-coalition material is
scurrilous and intended simply to smear. It typically posts to three other accounts:
'Sir Clyde of Nob'
@Nobby15 [‘Sir
Clyde of Hansard, West Australian retiree], 'Big Al' @banas51 and 'Mari R' @randlight.
Sir Clyde of Nob, supposedly a retired IT
specialist also based in Western Australia, has tweeted 790,000 times over the
last nine years, an average of 240 times a day. It mostly retweets, but every
seventh to eighth engagement, on average, is a personal tweet or comment on a
post, showing frequent personal intervention. It retweets TALAOLP extensively
and boasts about its Twitter reach, in a recent week receiving over 1,600 mentions,
1,500 likes, almost 400 retweets and 230 replies. Big Al, who describes himself
as a 'lefty' and a 'hard worker', has retweeted over 200,000 times in the last
four years, an average of 135 a day, namely retweeting a broad fare of
left-wing commentary. Mari R, who says she wants Bill for PM, has retweeted
almost 450,000 times over the last seven years, an average of 175 times a day.
Another such account is MSM
Watchdog, supposedly dedicated to 'Exposing unconscionable attacks on
the poor'. This account has tweeted 447,000 times over the last five years, an
average of 240 a day, predominantly retweets of predictable anti-coalition and
pro-Labor material. But MSM Watchdog was stung into life by my recent speech on
Sleeping Giants Oz, claiming that the Liberal Party hates social media because
'they are hopeless at it.' If being good at it means flooding the twittersphere
with propaganda up to 100,000 times a year, I'll take that as a compliment. MSM
Watchdog retweets far more frequently than Sir Clyde of Nob. Some days it only
retweets hundreds of times; other days there are also some personal tweets and
comments. Both accounts appear to be operated closely by individual users but
are almost totally reliant on retweets as a method of amplification. Who has
either the inclination or the resources to, in the main, retweet 240 times a
day, year upon year? I suggest that the description of many accounts as being
operated by unionists offers a clue.
Another account, 'Old and Cranky' [Queenslander who loves football] ,
which describes its owner as a 'true believer still looking for the light on
the hill'—good luck!—has tweeted 329,000 times in the last four years, an
average of 225 a day, of antigovernment messaging. Its last 3,200 engagements
are all retweets. Similarly, 'Gold
Coast Nurse' , which describes its owner as a proud union
delegate and member, tweeted 88 times a day in the last five years and has also
not tweeted an original thought in its last 3,200 tweets.
What I have described
tonight is the Twitter equivalent of a Labor union telephone tree, a Twitter
tree, though perhaps a better analogy would be a jungle, and the law of the
jungle applies when it comes to its content. An organised union operation backed
by Labor volunteers is the most likely source of this influence campaign, but
the anonymity of accounts means we can't be sure exactly who they are. These
accounts were active during the 2016 election. They're in full swing and,
unless checked, will be active during the next election. Twitter's submission
to JSCEM claims:
We focus on developing machine learning tools that identify
and act on networks of spammy or automated accounts automatically by tracking
account behaviour. This lets us tackle attempts to manipulate conversations on
Twitter at scale, across languages, and different time zones.
I submit that
Twitter is on a steep learning curve and still has a long way to go, and I
would suggest it review the activities of the accounts to which I have referred
as well as many other high-volume accounts like 'Wowbagger' and 'Fair Dinkum Troublemaker' [Queensland
retiree].
As we approach the next election, we need to be aware that political
interest groups as well as potential state actors are trying to amplify their
messaging and distort debate, including by disseminating fake news using social
media platforms. In relation to state actors, I again note that a US
intelligence report assessed that:
Moscow will apply lessons learned from its
Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election
processes.
Clearly, there is much to be on guard about as we approach the next
election. I will be forwarding this speech to JSCEM as I believe it adds
qualitative material. [my yellow highlighting]
One Twitter response....
