Twitter Jumps Ship, Admits It Suppressed Clinton Scandal

To complete the paragraph that SSG (Join to see) posted from page 11

"...Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions. We learned that a small number of Tweets from several large accounts were principally responsible for the propagation of this trend. In fact, two of the ten most-viewed Tweets with #DNCLeak were posted by @Wikileaks, an account with millions of followers."

So, in fact, Twitter's detection algorithm suppressed less than 1% of tweets with the hashtag.

A complete read of the paragraph shows that the contention of the original Conservative Tribune article is not factual. Rather a few sentences plucked from 21 pages of testimony and quoted out of context.

Even having the complete paragraph is inadequate because it leaves out the context of the full document. Testimony about how Twitter sought to identify promoted content from bad actors, narrowed down to the subject that the General Counsel was called to testify about, Russia based election meddling.

I can only conclude that K. Campbell either has very poor reading comprehension or that he willfully wrote a deceptive article.

CMSgt (Join to see) - You beat me to it. Good show.

CPT John Sheridan - I would hope that you are not an Analyst by trade.

Really, you are telling someone to go back and read the entire document and place it in context? From your statement it is very apparent that you either did not read the document OR that you did not understand it.

You are doing exactly what you accused SSG (Join to see) of doing and by extension CMSgt (Join to see), LT Brad McInnis and several others of doing.

With that in mind I would highly suggest that you go back to the beginning of the document and start over and pay close attention to section II A on page three (3).
Plus you are totally ignoring something that is in the section that you copied and point to and that is the initial statement/sentence; "In an effort to better understand the impact of Russian-linked accounts on broader conversations on Twitter, we examined those accounts’ volume of engagements with election related content." So in essence, the section is in regards to RUSSIAN-LINKED ACCOUNTS, not all accounts.

SSG Robert Webster - I read it and took notes before I posted. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, except the author of the article. In fact, I gave SSG Stinson a like because he took the time and effort to go into the document and find what he was looking for. Perhaps my language was imprecise, but I did not an do not disagree with your final sentence. It says what I was trying, perhaps ineptly, to convey. That the numbers were not in reference to the full set of all Tweets, but rather a limited subset.

My issue is with the author of the article. It looks to me that he or she constructively built an argument using selective pieces of text and that argument wasn't supported by the linked document itself.