Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,224
    Reaction score
    2,486
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork

    Screenshot_20230128_173110_Substack Reader.jpg


    Former FBI counterintelligence agent and “disinformation” expert Clint Watts, the spokesman for Hamilton

    Ambitious media frauds Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair crippled the reputations of the New Republic and New York Times, respectively, by slipping years of invented news stories into their pages. Thanks to the Twitter Files, we can welcome a new member to their infamous club: Hamilton 68.

    If one goes by volume alone, this oft-cited neoliberal think-tank that spawned hundreds of fraudulent headlines and TV news segments may go down as the single greatest case of media fabulism in American history. Virtually every major news organization in America is implicated, including NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Mother Jones alone did at least 14 stories pegged to the group’s “research.” Even fact-checking sites like Politifact and Snopes cited Hamilton 68 as a source.

    Hamilton 68 was and is a computerized “dashboard” designed to be used by reporters and academics to measure “Russian disinformation.” It was the brainchild of former FBI agent (and current MSNBC “disinformation expert”) Clint Watts, and backed by the German Marshall Fund and the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan think-tank. The latter’s advisory panel includes former acting CIA chief Michael Morell, former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, former Hillary for America chair John Podesta, and onetime Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.



    The Twitter Files expose Hamilton 68 as a sham:

    The secret ingredient in Hamilton 68’s analytic method was a list of 644 accounts supposedly linked “to Russian influence activities online.” It was hidden from the public, but Twitter was in a unique position to recreate Hamilton’s sample by analyzing its Application Program Interface (API) requests, which is how they first “reverse-engineered” Hamilton’s list in late 2017. The company was concerned enough about the proliferation of news stories linked to Hamilton 68 that it also ordered a forensic analysis. Note the second page below lists many of the different types of shadow-banning techniques that existed at Twitter even in 2017, buttressing the “Twitter’s Secret Blacklist” thread by Bari Weiss last month. Here you see categories ranging from “Trends Blacklist” to “Search Blacklist” to “NSFW High Precision.” Twitter was checking to see how many of Hamilton’s accounts were spammy, phony, or bot-like. Note that out of 644 accounts, just 36 were registered in Russia, and many of those were associated with RT.

    Examining further, Twitter execs were shocked. The accounts Hamilton 68 claimed were linked to “Russian influence activities online” were not only overwhelmingly English-language (86%), but mostly “legitimate people,” largely in the U.S., Canada, and Britain. Grasping right away that Twitter might be implicated in a moral outrage, they wrote that these account-holders “need to know they’ve been unilaterally labeled Russian stooges without evidence or recourse.”

    Other comments in internal company emails:

    “These accounts are neither strongly Russian nor strongly bots.”

    “No evidence to support the statement that the dashboard is a finger on the pulse of Russian information ops.”

    “Hardly evidence of a massive influence campaign.”

    Declared Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth: “I think we need to just call this out on the bullshirt it is.”

    The two founders of Hamilton 68, the blue-and-red team of former counselor to Marco Rubio Jamie Fly and Hillary for America Foreign Policy Advisor Laura Rosenberger, told Politico they couldn’t reveal the names This was not faulty science. It was a scam. Instead of tracking how “Russia” influenced American attitudes, Hamilton 68 simply collected a handful of mostly real, mostly American accounts, and described their organic conversations as Russian scheming. As Roth put it, “Virtually any conclusion drawn from [the dashboard] will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.”

     
    The absolute state of that. It's embarrassing. "These accounts linked to Russian influence activities online, why, many of them don't openly say they're Russian and some of them aren't Russian! And they're not all bots! And... get this... they're posting in English! *clutches pearls, faints*"

    Never mind that's all entirely consistent with how it was described right from the outset, as including not only "tweets from official Russian propaganda outlets in English" but also "bots and trolls that synchronize to promote Russian messaging themes", which includes not only "accounts ... directly controlled by Russia" but also "users who on their own initiative reliably repeat and amplify Russian themes".

    But apparently the premise here is that the only way tracking Russian influence activities online can be legitimate is if the accounts being tracked are all Russian bots that say they're in Russia and post in Russian.

    Good forking grief.
     
    The absolute state of that. It's embarrassing. "These accounts linked to Russian influence activities online, why, many of them don't openly say they're Russian and some of them aren't Russian! And they're not all bots! And... get this... they're posting in English! *clutches pearls, faints*"

    Never mind that's all entirely consistent with how it was described right from the outset, as including not only "tweets from official Russian propaganda outlets in English" but also "bots and trolls that synchronize to promote Russian messaging themes", which includes not only "accounts ... directly controlled by Russia" but also "users who on their own initiative reliably repeat and amplify Russian themes".

    But apparently the premise here is that the only way tracking Russian influence activities online can be legitimate is if the accounts being tracked are all Russian bots that say they're in Russia and post in Russian.

    Good forking grief.
    What I find consistent with these posts..from greenwald Tucker etc with Russian propaganda is the utter shamelessness. At every point, they are shown to be wrong, untruthful, twisting facts, or just plain lies. Yet they don't fear that they don't have credibility. You and I would care that what we say is grounded in reason and facts, especially amongst friends and colleagues. They only care that their useful idiots eat up whatever they are pushing.
     
    The absolute state of that. It's embarrassing. "These accounts linked to Russian influence activities online, why, many of them don't openly say they're Russian and some of them aren't Russian! And they're not all bots! And... get this... they're posting in English! *clutches pearls, faints*"

    Never mind that's all entirely consistent with how it was described right from the outset, as including not only "tweets from official Russian propaganda outlets in English" but also "bots and trolls that synchronize to promote Russian messaging themes", which includes not only "accounts ... directly controlled by Russia" but also "users who on their own initiative reliably repeat and amplify Russian themes".

    But apparently the premise here is that the only way tracking Russian influence activities online can be legitimate is if the accounts being tracked are all Russian bots that say they're in Russia and post in Russian.

    Good forking grief.
    Hamilton 68 claimed they had a special algorithm that identified who these accounts were that were bots or influenced by Russia. It turns out that there was no algorithm and they just picked some random account that weren't Russian, weren't linked to Russia, weren't bots, and weren't pushing Russian propaganda. Even the Twitter executives who did just about anything the Democrats wanted said Hamilton 68 was BS.






     
    What I find consistent with these posts..from greenwald Tucker etc with Russian propaganda is the utter shamelessness. At every point, they are shown to be wrong, untruthful, twisting facts, or just plain lies. Yet they don't fear that they don't have credibility. You and I would care that what we say is grounded in reason and facts, especially amongst friends and colleagues. They only care that their useful idiots eat up whatever they are pushing.
    What do you think about Hamilton 68 being BS? Many articles from the corporate media based their articles on Hamilton 68. Do you think those media organizations should issue retractions? Do you have any comments on what was revealed in this thread or the other Twitter Files or will you keep focusing on your tired and broken Russia propaganda narrative?
     
    Hamilton 68 claimed they had a special algorithm that identified who these accounts were that were bots or influenced by Russia. It turns out that there was no algorithm and they just picked some random account that weren't Russian, weren't linked to Russia, weren't bots, and weren't pushing Russian propaganda. Even the Twitter executives who did just about anything the Democrats wanted said Hamilton 68 was BS.







    You just quoted a link which shows all of that to be fundamentally wrong. Why would you think that would ever achieve anything?

    Like, what do you think is going to happen here? Someone's going to go, "Oh, I thought he was talking garbage and falling for glaringly idiotic nonsense he got off social media... but now he's just repeated it and spammed even more tweets while addressing literally none of the criticism, I'm convinced!"?

    It increasingly seems like you're only posting for, and, probably literally, only fooling, yourself.
     
    You just quoted a link which shows all of that to be fundamentally wrong. Why would you think that would ever achieve anything?

    Like, what do you think is going to happen here? Someone's going to go, "Oh, I thought he was talking garbage and falling for glaringly idiotic nonsense he got off social media... but now he's just repeated it and spammed even more tweets while addressing literally none of the criticism, I'm convinced!"?

    It increasingly seems like you're only posting for, and, probably literally, only fooling, yourself.
    I posted the links that showed that Hamilton 68 was a scam and BS. It's pretty simple
     
    Hamilton 68: Brief Addendum
    Comparing their response Friday to the site's original mission statement

    Hamilton 68 responded to a #TwitterFiles thread Friday with a series of claims, including that their site was always intended to be understood as “nuanced,” that they always maintained that “witting or unwitting” accounts could be on their list, and that “some accounts we track are automated bots, some are trolls, and some are real users.”

    They could also have inserted the disclaimer added to the new Hamilton 2.0 page, which as a helpful reader noted this morning, includes in red font a blaring warning to all that it would INCORRECT to label anyone or anything that appears on their dashboard “as being connected to state-backed propaganda”:

    Screenshot_20230129_181601_Substack Reader.jpg


    Thank heaven for the Wayback Machine. Here’s what was written on the original Hamilton page:

    These accounts were selected for their relationship to Russian-sponsored influence and disinformation campaigns, and not because of any domestic political content.

    We have monitored these datasets for months in order to verify their relevance to Russian disinformation programs targeting the United States

    .…this will provide a resource for journalists to appropriately identify Russian-sponsored information campaigns.

    High on that original page, the Hamilton founders explained they monitored two types of accounts:

    There are two components to the dashboard featured here.

    The first section, “Overt Promotion of Content,” highlights trending content from Twitter accounts for media outlets known to be controlled by the Russian government.

    The second section, “Content Tweeted by Bots and Trolls,” highlights themes being pushed by Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence campaigns.

    The Hamilton list tracked overt Russian media on the one hand, and “bots and trolls” on the other. Note the difference between that language and the language Friday: “Some accounts we track are automated bots, some are trolls, and some are real users.” That Hamilton Friday was also trying to distance itself from headlines about “bots” is particularly grotesque, given that it was so overt in identifying the composition of its list this way at the start.

    I encourage everyone to read language from the original site, then look at Friday’s ironically named “Fact sheet,” and compare for yourselves.

    Finally I want to note a passage from the Friday “fact sheet” I somehow overlooked:

    Individual accounts were algorithmically selected based on analytic techniques developed by J.M. Berger that were used to identify the most influential accounts within those networks. The Hamilton 68 team did not individually review or verify all accounts because the focus of the dashboard was to analyze behavior in aggregate networks, not specific accounts.

    Translating: individual accounts were chosen through a method developed by J.M. Berger, a writer and think-tanker whose usual specialty is extremism (he’s written about ISIS and domestic white nationalism in the U.S.). Still, it wasn’t even Berger’s fault that ordinary Americans ended up in the list, since said people were chosen “algorithmically.” The Hamilton 68 team also “did not individually review or verify” all the names, because their “focus” was “aggregate networks,” not “specific accounts.

    ”So, nobody looked at the list.

    The list that was “the fruit of more than three years of observation and monitoring.”’

    Sounds solid.

    Yes? No?

     
    You just quoted a link which shows all of that to be fundamentally wrong. Why would you think that would ever achieve anything?

    Like, what do you think is going to happen here? Someone's going to go, "Oh, I thought he was talking garbage and falling for glaringly idiotic nonsense he got off social media... but now he's just repeated it and spammed even more tweets while addressing literally none of the criticism, I'm convinced!"?

    It increasingly seems like you're only posting for, and, probably literally, only fooling, yourself.
    It should embarrass him, but it doesn’t. Meanwhile, not one single mention of the internal Twitter email showing that Musk personally suspended a journalist he didn’t like, and then lied and said he didn’t.
     

    Read that thread from Matthew Sheffield regarding how mainstream journalists do their job vs the likes of Taibbi and Greenwald. Whereas there may be some bias in MSM reporting (the topic they choose for example), the mainstream media largely operate in good faith and apply journalistic standards. On the contrary, like Taibbi, he is cherry picking. Musk is selectively releasing information to Taibbi to spin a certain narrative. As MT has already given an example.

    And if you think there is team play in the MSM, read the headlines from a few days ago when the economic data was released. Many had "biden averted a recession" when it can easily be "biden lead a successful economy that is emerging from a worldwide pandemic". And have you seen any stories of the inflation lately????
     
    Last edited:
    What I find consistent with these posts..from greenwald Tucker etc with Russian propaganda is the utter shamelessness. At every point, they are shown to be wrong, untruthful, twisting facts, or just plain lies. Yet they don't fear that they don't have credibility. You and I would care that what we say is grounded in reason and facts, especially amongst friends and colleagues. They only care that their useful idiots eat up whatever they are pushing.
    Grifters gonna grift I suppose.

    What gets me is just how bad at it they are, and how some people lap it up regardless. Like, the stuff they're putting out is easily seen through by the briefest use of Google or even, often, just by thinking about it for a few seconds. Case in point:

    Thank heaven for the Wayback Machine. Here’s what was written on the original Hamilton page:
    Anyone who actually looked at that link would see that it's entirely explicit, and I'll quote from that page, about monitoring "three types of accounts" which includes "Accounts run by people around the world who amplify pro-Russian themes either knowingly or unknowingly, after being influenced by the efforts described above." Which is, obviously, entirely consistent with the statements that "they always maintained that “witting or unwitting” accounts could be on their list", and that "some accounts we track are automated bots, some are trolls, and some are real users." Because that's literally what it says there.

    And yet, what you have here is the absolutely idiotic display of linking to that and then just claiming that it says that they monitored "two types of accounts" and that it didn't mention that the accounts they monitored included people who unknowingly amplified pro-Russian themes.

    Even though it's right there. On the link. That they linked to. For anyone capable of reading and understanding the difference between "two" and "three" to see.

    You have to think the grift is just dependent on systematic willful ignorance at this point.
     
    Right winger like @SaintForLife love to rewrite history. They spend and inordinate amount of trying to make everybody believe what that want history to be, not what it actually was. Whether it's the civil war, African American history, Russian misinformation and collusion etc. This crusade of theirs is never ending.
     
    Last edited:
    Right winger like @SaintForLife love to rewrite history. They spend and inordinate amount of trying to make everybody believe that want history to be, not what it actually was. Whether it's the civil war, African American history, Russian misinformation and collusion etc. This crusade of theirs is never ending.
    I'm rewriting history by posting tweets that show Twitter employees saying Hamilton 68 was BS?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom