What’s going on with Twitter? Elon Musk, bots, lies, nation-states and spies
Elon Musk buys Twitter?
It all started when business tycoon Elon Musk made a $43 billion offer to buy Twitter on April 14, 2022. He had already paid $2.64 billion for 9.1% of the company's stock, making him the company's largest stakeholder. Musk was then extended an invitation by Twitter to join its board of directors, which he initially accepted, but then rejected.
On April 25, the board of directors of Twitter unanimously agreed to take the company private after accepting Musk's $44 billion takeover offer. Musk said he intended to expand the platform's functionality, make its algorithms open source, stop spambot accounts, and advance free expression.
The proposed takeover had received a mixed response. While garnering criticism over worries of increased misinformation and harassment on the site, it was also praised for Musk's planned reforms and his vision for the company.
But then he withdrew, with bots and the lack of openness surrounding them being the main cause. On July 8, Musk declared his desire to end the contract, claiming that Twitter had broken it by refusing to take action against spambot accounts.
On July 12, the business filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Musk. The trial is scheduled to start on October 17 of this year.
The latest: Twitter shareholders recently approved the initial $44 billion offer with Musk on September 13, 2022, essentially forcing him to buy the company through legal means. The choice was taken during a brief conference call that the company's San Francisco headquarters held with investors.
What I cared about: BOTS!
Twitter bots are computer programs that are connected to one or more Twitter accounts and can automate specific actions on the social media site. Bots can be used for shaping public perspective - and they have been used by different nation states and corporations.
Twitter has developed over the past ten years into a powerful platform for disseminating both commercial and political messages, as well as a digital extension of the public realm. A Twitter user's follower count is frequently regarded as an apparent indicator of their popularity or influence. Likes, retweets, and comments from followers on Twitter can magnify these messages to reach a wider audience. These factors have led to the emergence of Twitter engagements and follows as a type of social currency.
Given Twitter's open API, which encourages the development of bots, followers and engagements on the platform are far easier to fake than the majority of real-world currencies.
Twitter bots are able to scan the Twitter API for tweets containing a predetermined set of specified phrases or hashtags under the direction of a person known as a botmaster and give commands to linked accounts to like, retweet, or comment on such messages. Additionally, Twitter bots have the ability to follow and DM other people.
For instance, I might send 10,000 bots to show “love” for something in regards to Roe v. Wade (abortion, basically), or vice-versa. When a real user goes to Twitter, he might believe that the public opinion surrounding Roe v. Wade is favorable. The same can be done with politicians, corporations, policies etc…
The DFRL produced a report in September 2017 that described how Twitter bots were being used to promote hashtags associated with protests by National Football League players (NFL).
The bots promoted hashtags on both sides of the debate while being directed by unidentified botmasters. Twitter bots were allegedly also utilized by Russian operatives to accomplish this during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Basically, a full-blow bot war.
Twitter bots can make various topics—including fabricated stories—trend by liking, retweeting, and commenting on messages as well as following individuals, increasing their visibility on the platform.
It puts the bots question in the mainstream media, along with other issues
Pieter Zatko, a Twitter whistleblower and former Chief of Security, just recently appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington just before the shareholder decision to testify about purported security issues.
He said the company was "misleading the public" about how secure the platform is while addressing US senators.
He said Twitter was "a decade behind" security standards. Twitter contends that the allegations are false and that Mr. Zatko was removed from his position after Twitter shareholders approved a $44 billion Musk acquisition.
Whistleblower comes out with spy allegations
China and India had operatives working for Twitter, according to Mr. Zatko who stated that "at least one agent" from China's intelligence service was employed by the company, and that Twitter knowingly permitted India to add agents to its staff, potentially giving those countries access to private information about users.
Zatko began his sworn testimony by saying, "I am here today because Twitter leadership is misrepresenting the public, lawmakers, regulators, and even its own board of directors."
"They can't safeguard it because they don't know what data they have, where it is stored, or where it comes from," Zatko added. If there are no locks, it makes no difference who possesses the keys. He stated that Twitter's leaders ignored their own engineers, in part, because “their executive incentives led them to prioritize profit over security.”
“They don’t know what data they have, where it lives and where it came from and so, unsurprisingly, they can’t protect it,” Zatko stated.
Spies and bribes:
It was also discovered that Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, had exploited his position at Twitter to acquire personal information identifying Saudi royal critics who had been using anonymous Twitter handles. He subsequently gave the material to Bader al-Asaker, a close friend of Prince Mohammed.
Asaker is alleged to have given him a $20,000 watch in exchange and transferred more than $300,000 to a Lebanese account opened in the name of Abouammo's father.
Human rights organizations claim that a Saudi woman now faces 34 years in prison for expressing her opinions on social media, calling her case the latest alarming indication of the kingdom's war on dissent.
Mr. Abouammo
Salma al-Shehab, a 34-year-old mother of two who was pursuing a doctorate at the University of Leeds School of Medicine in the United Kingdom, was a frequent Twitter user. She retweeted campaigners and wrote her own tweets regarding human rights issues.
According to the European Saudi Organization for Human Rights, a Berlin-based organization critical of the Saudi regime, the accusations against her included sedition and disseminating false and damaging rumors on Twitter.
According to ESOHR's head of advocacy Nada Zamel, "they charged her for 34 years over 280 characters."
Conclusion: Governments and powerful entities know that social media shapes public opinion.
Why use bots? Why jail those that criticize you on social media? Because public opinion can make or break you.
The answer? A transparent and decentralized social media company. The problem isn’t the bots, it’s the lack of transparency behind them. The problem isn’t Twitter being bribed, it’s the fact that they hold all the power - over 300M users, in a San Francisco office.
The tech should be open-sourced, to see what’s going on with bots and the response to fight them. The algorithms should be made public, the security flaws as well. And the staff should not have the power to reveal user’s identities.
Let's see how the situation unfolds...