But look a bit closer, it appears intentionally bad.
1. This beautiful and thought provoking piece of 21st century art was shared widely in anti-EU Facebook groups, Twitter replies to journalists and elsewhere online, in 2016.
Is it an untrackable, untraceable, Cambridge Analytica-style, fake?
But look a bit closer, it appears intentionally bad.
Literate enough to spell “Sovereignty” correctly.
Cambridge Analytica boasted on hidden camera that they created “untraceable, untrackable” social media themes, memes and propaganda that spread.
“We put the information into the bloodstream of the internet and watch it grow.
Give it a little push.
This stuff infiltrates the online community and expands.
With no branding.
So it’s unattributable, untrackable"
It’s impossible to find out unless you work at Facebook or Google.
But there are some strange clues.
TinEye reverse image search shows that it was first saved by their web crawler in 2016.
A few days before the EU referendum in the UK.
With the username “niteoflight”.
Note the strange spelling and grammar; ‘re_election'
(A table of Johnny's most shared accounts on Twitter)
Unusually for a pro-Brexit British man named Johnny, he often used “Beeter”.
An obscure Japanese Twitter app, to Tweet.
But probably just a random weird guy, from the UK?
Who can’t really speak English.
Who likes Russian government TV more than any other news outlet.
Who uses a defunct, obscure Japanese language Twitter app, to post to Twitter.
But searching back further, the earliest example of this meme that we could find was not on Google, Twitter or Facebook.
The first evidence of it anywhere online, is from a guy called “Martin Corner”. Who posted the meme on Russian Facebook (VK), on the 3rd of June 2016.
The people who liked the 40 YEARS EU RULE post on VK purport to be English neo-Nazis and fascists, if their posts on VK are to be believed.
He loves Hitler and IKEA candles.
But hates the EU.
Who’d have thought.
Seeded it online via various “independent” groups and activists, who spread it so that it multiplied across social media without being tracked back to the creators.
More from Brexit
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
