>The Israeli network included 510 Facebook accounts, 11 pages, one group, and 32 Instagram accounts. Meta said that it took the network down early in its audience-building efforts, before it was able to generate activity among authentic communities. The network had fewer than 500 followers on Facebook, fewer than 100 group members, and about 2,000 Instagram followers
I don't use facebook, but is this really significant compared to the enormous number of bots that I assume exist? Certainly banning 500 bots on youtube or twitter would not be noticable.
This is the problem with reporting these numbers. Virality works like a pyramid, the effect is felt throughout the whole pyramid, but only takes the top of it to set it into action.
10,000 facebook accounts with 100 followers who then have 1000 followers is very different than 500 facebook accounts with 100,000 followers who then have 10M followers.
It doesn't take many, social media is a far greater force multiplier than people realize. Just 12 people were behind most COVID-19 hoaxes spread online, and about 10 "superspreader" accounts are responsible for about 70% of "low credibility" tweets[0,1].
I don't think it's the number of bots as much as who they belonged to that's being reported on. Russian activity on facebook prior to the 2016 presidential election was similarly modest.
Like the stash of midget donkey necro porn, at some point there are going to be botnets which exist in order to be caught, thus drawing attention away from the better hidden botnets — compare Obi Wan distracting Vader while R2 escapes...
(did the Allies ever leak a story that Normandy would be the target of the D-day landings, but so crudely done that it was "obviously" a plant?)
Facebook is absolutely filled with garbage. About 1% of the people I ever connected with are still active, and half of them are obnoxious users. (and the other half are delightful, why yes I do indeed want to see the vintage cookie press that made cookies from the ancestral home country that my mothers cousin found at an estate sale)
The rest of facebook for me are a couple of closed groups that are a decent community and then just tons and tons of garbage. Uncomfortable sexualization in several categories that one has to work to get FB to stop showing you, rage bait petty fake stories reposted from "Ask Abby" or /r/aita, and AI generated bait of all types like fake (movie posters | news items | celeb nonsense).
I'm pretty sure there just isn't any content left getting posted on facebook.
I have a super minimal Facebook account, just for those times when the only group or company access is via FB.
My feeling is that Facebook itself is generating a lot of the content, probably also the users and groups - at least for some benign topics.
What I see on my wall is endless posts for topics I _might_ be interested in, or tangentially might. Since many of them are architectural, and the visuals are usually obviously AI generated. And yet, they appear to show a lot of engagement: tens of thousands of comments, likes, etc. From the comments on these obviously fake posts, I must assume that most of the commentors are bots or fake accounts.
It might give the appearance (to advertisers) that Facebook is relevant.
There seems to be a lot of these bots on twitter. I hate starting to read a post only to realize it's a bot trying to push scams/ whatever I've just wasted my time on. At times like these I almost wish for some kind of digital ID to have a verification of interacting with a human. Don't know if that's possible in a robust and truly privacy preserving way
>> some kind of digital ID to have a verification of interacting with a human.
So a reverse captcha? Maybe we could append the results of a captcha to a post. Here is my theory about democracy, and here is proof that I can correctly spot bicycles.
The article states that an Iranian network targeting Israelis was also shut down. It also states that the Iranian network "had a broader influence than the Israeli network".
Why did the site decide to go with the title only mentioning Israeli network, given that the Iranian network was bigger... hmmm.
It couldn't possibly be because it's an American site writing for an American audience, so a network targeting Americans is more newsworthy (to them) than a network targeting Israelis, right?
>Meta has removed a network of hundreds of Facebook and Instagram accounts that operated from Israel and launched an influence campaign targeting users in the U.S. and Canada
I do not use Facebook, and I think this is a good thing. But what about Hamas ? I am sure Hamas also has their own bot network(s) targeting people in the US, or was that already done but there was no press about that ?
Exactly what I was going to say. Like, I have no idea, but this is an incredibly asymmetrical conflict and neither possibility (Hamas' social media misinformation campaign is comparable to Israel's, or it isn't) would surprise me.
If you think Israel has more supporters on social media than Hamas, you definitely don't use twitter and probably don't use facebook. And you definitely don't use Tiktok, which is overwhelmingly anti-Israel.
As another commenter said, the social media "battlefield" Israel is massively asymmetrical in Hamas's favour. This isn't to say Hamas is using botnets or anything like that, my view is that the anti-Israel sentiment is mostly "organic" (though it is clearly helped along by propaganda from Hamas and other anti-western groups).
As a Jew in North America I'd appreciate if Israel would not use botnets and astroturfing, because antisemitism is a big problem here in Canada, and stuff like this gives ammunition to antisemites who want to say "all claims of antisemitism are fake."
Winning an argument via lies or deception is a Pyrrhic victory; it's more important to "keep the truth on your side" and maintain your credibility and honesty.
I don’t think the reason why Hamas has more support is rooted in systemic antisemitism. The only people mad at Israel for being Jewish are people like me who have the background but don’t like to associate with Zionism or ethnostates in general…
> If you think Israel has more supporters on social media than Hamas, you definitely don't use twitter and probably don't use facebook. And you definitely don't use Tiktok, which is overwhelmingly anti-Israel.
Can you show me where you think I said that? In the context of this thread, it's clear that I'm talking about social media misinformation campaigns run by Hamas.
To state the obvious: the fact that there is a lot of anti-Israel sentiment on social media is almost certainly to Hamas' benefit, but that doesn't mean they paid for it to be there.
You said the conflict is "asymmetric." You don't clarify what you mean by this but it seems like a safe assumption that you're referring to Israel's superior military power. I was pointing out that when it comes to social media propaganda from Israel's supporters and detractors, the field is tilted sharply against Israel. As for whether something is "run by Hamas," that seems like a vary narrow distinction.
The Hamas brass live comfortably in Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. They are backed by Iran, which is a huge regional power aligned with Russia, another major propaganda power who has an interest in sowing discord in the USA & the west more broadly and this topic is a very effective wedge. (In the USA it splits both republicans and democrats internally.) Ditto China who has tiktok, where they suppress topics that create discord in their society (the three Ts, in addition to other censorship they do domestically on tiktok and beyond) but have no problem with misinformation and propaganda spreading like wildfire in the West. All of these players have media and propaganda outfits above and below board that have an incentive to support Hamas. So as for the "social media propaganda war" I'd say Israel is the one outgunned.
"that doesn't mean they paid for it" I wish you had read to the second paragraph of my comment, you'd see we agree. To wit: "This isn't to say Hamas is using botnets or anything like that, my view is that the anti-Israel sentiment is mostly 'organic'"
> I wish you had read to the second paragraph of my comment, you'd see we agree.
I wish you'd read my first comment before responding to a grossly distorted version of it that was clearly a result of projection on your part. I guess I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "organic", though, because your first two paragraphs imply that the popular anti-Israel sentiment in the West is largely driven by intentional propaganda and misinformation operations, which is the opposite of what I'd call organic.
IMO, unless news media outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are bankrolled by actors such as Iran, Russia, and China, the simple facts of the war and resulting humanitarian crisis in Gaza—as credibly reported by such outlets—are more than enough to tilt popular opinion against Israel. That is what I mean by "organic".
You've been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle, and that's also a line at which we ban accounts. That needs to change if you want to keep posting here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
They are not "defending their homeland" they are perpetuating an endless holy war. Israel offered the Palestinians a country twice. Including Jerusalem. Was turned down. Hamas is in it to take the entire country, they are holding civilian hostages so the war won't end.
I don't use facebook, but is this really significant compared to the enormous number of bots that I assume exist? Certainly banning 500 bots on youtube or twitter would not be noticable.