They found that suspensions did have an impact on replies and retweets and overall dissemination. https://t.co/G12JUYtuzK
1. (THREAD) So, it seems like the deplatforming debate is once again kicking off, so I thought I would introduce some of the earlier work that was done in this area back when ISIS was buck wild on social media. What have we learned over the last six years might be useful today:
They found that suspensions did have an impact on replies and retweets and overall dissemination. https://t.co/G12JUYtuzK
You can read my thoughts on the Islamic State’s online community here: https://t.co/1qSfLBNkyf
Elizabeth pearson has also discussed this issue here: https://t.co/Yloq6pHVQJ
1. NEW by me, @ShirazMaher, and @charliewinter for @crest_research.
— Amarnath Amarasingam (@AmarAmarasingam) January 8, 2021
Anyone paying to ISIS channels on Telegram in 2019 noticed something strange in late November: they started to disappear en masse. We decided to take a closer look at the data. https://t.co/ZG13ppBJxO pic.twitter.com/WaOj5YVGNn
More from Internet
Well, this should be a depressing read -- notably because the UK and the US are both terrible when it comes to data protection, but the UK appears to be getting a pass. So much for 'adequacy'.
A few initial thoughts on the Draft Decision on UK Adequacy: https://t.co/ncAqc93UFm
The decision goes into great detail about the state of the UK surveillance system, and notably, "bulk acquisition" of data, and I think I get their argument. /1
For one, while the UK allows similar "bulk powers," it differs from the US regime both in terms of proportionality, oversight, and even notice. Some of this came about after the Privacy International case in 2019 (Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal [2019]) /2
Whereas, other bits were already baked in by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Act is a thing (This concept doesn't exist in the US; rather we hand-wave about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then selectively apply it) /3
For example, UK bulk surveillance (I'm keeping this broad, but the draft policy breaksk it down), substantially limits collection to three agencies: MI5, MI6, and GHCQ). By contrast, it's a bit of a free-for-all in the US, where varying policies /4
At least we have a draft of the adequacy decision. I haven't read it yet, mostly because I'm afraid I'll be disappointed that it doesn't address the UK's penchant for surveillance. https://t.co/puJiVET2SJ
— Don Edwards (@DMEdwards) February 20, 2021
A few initial thoughts on the Draft Decision on UK Adequacy: https://t.co/ncAqc93UFm
The decision goes into great detail about the state of the UK surveillance system, and notably, "bulk acquisition" of data, and I think I get their argument. /1
For one, while the UK allows similar "bulk powers," it differs from the US regime both in terms of proportionality, oversight, and even notice. Some of this came about after the Privacy International case in 2019 (Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal [2019]) /2
Whereas, other bits were already baked in by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Act is a thing (This concept doesn't exist in the US; rather we hand-wave about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then selectively apply it) /3
For example, UK bulk surveillance (I'm keeping this broad, but the draft policy breaksk it down), substantially limits collection to three agencies: MI5, MI6, and GHCQ). By contrast, it's a bit of a free-for-all in the US, where varying policies /4