Did Twitter Censor the Obama Drone Story?

Aaron Jones October 19, 2015 No Comments

The following is an important report on censorship by Twitter on the Drone Papers story. We are publishing this with permission from “Paul D” on Twitter. Be sure to follow him and read the original post here.

Adventures in Twitter Censorship

It started simply enough, I woke up this morning to an unusually high number of notifications mentioning several posts I had made. Usually this means that an account with a large following retweeted something I said. I was curious to find out who.

I determined that Jacob Appelbaum (@ioerror) had retweeted a news article I was involved with. But a second post I made also suddenly had a large number of retweets. I saw a notification that he had favorited it, but no indication that he retweeted. Favorites usually don’t have a snowball effect. I thought it might be the case that he perhaps had undid the retweet.

And that would be the end of it, but for a memory of a similar incident the day before. A keyword search on “drone papers” returned a quote-tweet of the same post. But when I checked the user’s profile, it had vanished. Hmm, perhaps he deleted it. But his tweet was still appearing in search results, and when I clicked on the link to the tweet itself, not the user’s profile, it was still there. Then I checked his profile with the tor browser. And sure enough, there it was. “That was odd,” I thought, but dismissed it as Twitter weirdness. And when it showed up in my regular browser, the next day, it was forgotten.

With this memory, I decided to check with tor browser. And there it was all along, in Appelbaum’s twitter feed. I thought this was worthy of a post, which prompted another retweet from Appelbaum, and several helpful responses, among them were posts from two other users (one of whom has worked with the Snowden Archive and been published in Der Spiegel) confirming that they too were experiencing the same issue. The tweet had disappeared from view from US, in Appelbaum’s feed. From these posts, and my own work, it appears the issue was not limited to only one ISP (it affected both CenturyLink and Verizon), to one browser (Firefox, Chrome, IE and Opera were tried), one operating system (it affected both Windows and Android), or one login (at least 3 different users affected, I was also unaffected whilst logged in, but still using tor). It was also not a case of tor vs non-tor (US tor exits affected, as were my regular home IP addresses). Apparent location of the user’s IP address seemed to be the main factor. Germans could see it the post, Americans couldn’t.

And there was something else, the post contained fragments of a top secret document relating to drones, that were not published anywhere else. It happens that the “drone papers” were printed double-sided and then scanned, and the verso image shows through. In most cases, that image was published anyway more plainly. But in one case, it shows fragments of an unpublished page. The takeaway is that The Intercept hasn’t yet published the entire cache. Which I said: “It would be unwise to assume that we’ve heard the last from #dronepapers. There is a hint they have more to say.” I thought Top Secret documents would be high on the list of things that might be deliberately censored… Read the full document here. It became apparent that Twitter itself was the cause. Moreover, that it was likely not a bug, but a deliberate feature of the system, one that has been documented.

The social media company also says, “we have begun to test a product feature to help us identify suspected abusive Tweets and limit their reach. This feature takes into account a wide range of signals and context that frequently correlates with abuse including the age of the account itself, and the similarity of a Tweet to other content that our safety team has in the past independently determined to be abusive. It will not affect your ability to see content that you’ve explicitly sought out, such as Tweets from accounts you follow, but instead is designed to help us limit the potential harm of abusive content. This feature does not take into account whether the content posted or followed by a user is controversial or unpopular”.

If this tool is in use, it has several interesting capabilities. To suppress posts from individual feeds, for certain viewers, depending on where they are, and for a specific time. Most views and retweets usually occur within 24 hours. If a post can be hidden for a time, its reach will be severely limited. And if the original post is a retweet, the person controlling the feed is unlikely to notice (especially if it shows up in his own view). If notifications that someone has retweeted are suppressed, the poster himself is less Writing on the reverse side shows through. likely to notice. On the odd chance someone notices, and goes back the next day to check, the post will be right where it was supposed to be, and that person says “oh well, guess it was nothing,” and moves on. But worse than that, even if a person is dead sure, the effects soon become non-reproducible, which reduces the chances that the person can prove it. Censorship that doesn’t look like censorship. It deliberately reduces the spread of information that might otherwise go viral. Vicious. “You can say what you like but no one will hear you. And also, you’ll think no one cared, so you’ll give up trying.” Subtle, deniable, and quite ruthless. Who controls this software? Does Twitter itself set all the rules? Do governments set policies for Twitter to administer? Or can they drive it directly? Is it all automatic, censorship by algorithm? Some mutant hybrid? (The tool’s existence is not in question, as Twitter has acknowledged it, the only question is whether it was being used here, and if so, what it implies for the capabilities and policies governing the tool.) This time, I was lucky enough to notice, to have a post that credibly would be censored, and have my claims investigated and confirmed by others within the window. It is also a case where the censorship is not legitimate. Twitter definitely has some explaining to do. **** I asked Paul if he had learned more since writing about his initial findings:

Source: http://members.efn.org/~paulmd/OwnWork/AdventuresinCensorship.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *