Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Takes Down Fake Account Network Used To Spread Hate In UK (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cease-and-desist dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Facebook has removed a network of more than 100 accounts and pages for "coordinated inauthentic behavior" on its social networks -- the first time it has done so for UK-based operations seeking to influence British citizens. The operation was spread over Facebook and Instagram and used a network of fake accounts to pose as both far-right activists and their opponents. It ran pages and groups whose names frequently changed in order to drum up more followers and operated fake accounts to engage in hate speech and spread divisive comments on both sides of UK political debate, Facebook says.

The pages, with names like "Anti Far Right Extremists", "Atheists Research Centre", and "Politicalized", attracted about 175,000 followers on Facebook, and a further 4,500 on Instagram, according to the company's head of cybersecurity policy, Nathaniel Gleicher. The pages shared content from mainstream news sources, such as the BBC and the New York Times, but also shared original content, even including administrators actively engaging in debate with users. "We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people," Gleicher said. "We're taking down these pages and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted. In each of these cases, the people behind this activity coordinated with one another and used fake accounts to misrepresent themselves, and that was the basis for our action.

29 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "we don't want our services to be used to manipulate people"

    Facebook prefers to keep that power to themselves.

      "We're taking down these pages and accounts based on their behavior, not the content they posted."

    90% of the article is focused on the message of 'spreading hate', even though Facebook apparently doesn't care about the content they posted. This still doesn't explain the countless other political voices that DO get blocked and censored despite not breaking any technical rules.

    PS: Yes, Liberals. We all know already that Facebook is a private company that has the legal right to do what they want. Of course that right only applies to companies that Liberals like, and not cake designers. It's funny how you can make any NPC Socialist suddenly LOVE their giant trillion dollar corrupt corporations, just so long as they're censoring people Liberals don't like.

    1. Re:Key wording by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article actually says that the fake accounts were promoting both pro-hate and anti-hate views, so I'm not sure where the diatribe against liberals comes from.

      But yeah, the right wing does seem to host a small but unfortunately disproportionately disruptive toxic element at the moment, which most organizations want nothing to do with. Oh and being conservative (or liberal) is not a protected class, while most people outside of a small band of religious nuts would agree that sexual orientation is not a reasonable reason to discriminate, especially given the historical discrimination against gays and lesbians.

      Regardless, this is about fake accounts. Nothing wrong with banning fake accounts.

    2. Re:Key wording by mapkinase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about fake accounts. It''s about accounts of certain political persuasion. There are plenty pro-violence antifa accounts that nobody touches, from organizations like BLM.

      Look at the video of MAGA children from province visiting Washington. In the beginning you see the black activists openly declaring their racist views for years in the vicinity of the white house.

      Nothing happens to the account of these.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Key wording by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Troll

      You are not talking about liberals, you are talking about leftists. Liberals believe in free speech. They might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Leftists, on the other hand, will happily censor and we see this every day on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.

      Quick question, how many offices, government and corporate, are held by these toxic rightists? How many people do they censor every day? Now compare this to the toxic left, which has real power. One need only look at the Covington kids to see how things turn out. The leftist view was "our reaction was factually wrong but morally right."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Key wording by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Regardless, this is about fake accounts. Nothing wrong with banning fake accounts.

      Its worse than that. The banned accounts weren't simply spewing hate, after all being a hateful little twat is FREEZE PEACH.

      Their big problem is that they created tamer pages to begin with then when they'd reached enough users they changed the name and ramped up the hateful content. Ultimately that was the reason they were banned.

      I.E. If you created a page called "British Military Humour" (despite never having even been within 5 miles of a British military installation, making you what we call a "Walt") and started off with a few risky but relatively harmless memes... When you've got enough followers you change it to "British people for the death of all Arabs and Jews" and started flooding it with InfoWars-esque conspiracy theories, then you cross the line and get your account deleted. That is pretty much what happened here.

      I do not mean to imply, good sir, that you are a bigot or a Walt. It's just an example.

      Hate groups in the UK use this kind of bait and switch because we're generally not bigots. So hate groups find it hard to recruit and need to try to lure people in by pretending they aren't hate groups, then closing the trap when it's too late.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Key wording by gotan · · Score: 2

      So they classify/rate political views/standpoints on a "pro-hate" "anti-hate" scale?

      And who decides how to define "hate", and decides what falls into which category?

      "Hate speech" is just a label, depending on who uses it it means different things and is applied with different intentions. There are laws defining what speech should be restricted, and often it's a difficult task for legal experts to determine how they apply to a specific case. Also this legislation was crafted very carefully to restrict free speech as little as possible. Instead Facebook applies some woolly "hate-spech" category based on statistics, intransparent algorithms and decisions of underpaid workers that probably have to decide several instances a minute, and how they are trained and what qualifies them only facebook knows.

      Combine that with the knowledge that facebook is "located in Silicon Valley, which is an extremely left-leaning place." to put it in Zuckerbergs own words, and that "hate-speech" is often used to ostracize specific political views (e.g. on immigration), and it should be obvious, that this hate-speech categorization can be abused for political censorship and suspicions of this being the case are not unfounded.

      Even if it isn't abused for political censorship now it opens the door wide to do so, and invites future abuse.

      --
      "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  2. How Many More to Go by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Facebook deletes 100 accounts, only 999,999,900 to go or thereabouts. I'll bet there is an internal rating system for this, approved fake accounts and unapproved fake accounts, you pay, you can have all the fake accounts you want, you don't pay and they might eventually kick you off.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway? At least in the EU, Facebook has got no formal right to ask you, citizen, for your papers when you create an account, which makes pretty much all their accounts from EU "fake".

      There are no transparent, open and reasonable criteria from Facebook on what various transgressions constitute "policy violation", they are all arbitrary and whimsical and depend heavily on third party reporting.

      There were people I know who valued the service and (the sorry fucks) built a life or a business around it have been fucked beyond measure by hateful and false reporting, which lead to disabled and closed accounts.

      Playing the facebook game is like playing with that nuclear war computer - there is no way to win.

      The only way to win is to shun the Zucker.

      And I am uncomfortable to say it out loud, but hosts file works well enough for that, no even need for apks to edit it.

      Use it :)

    2. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does Facebook get blamed

      Dunno, really. Could it be because they are a bunch of sleazy fucktards, who collect information that the Stazi would not without telling the users what exactly they have on them? Or because they hire experts to help them play the human psychology so that using FB becomes addictive? Or because they habitually lie about what they do with the collected information? Could it be because they keep shadow profiles for people who are not interested in their services? Perhaps because they pay the likes of Samsung to get their spyware preinstalled on phones in unremovable ways?

      Who knows... It is hard to imagine why people don't like them.

    3. Re:How Many More to Go by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway?

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      There are no transparent, open and reasonable criteria from Facebook on what various transgressions constitute "policy violation", they are all arbitrary and whimsical and depend heavily on third party reporting.

      Indeed, and Facebook makes very minimal effort to even follow up reports from third parties.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2

      Ironically, the very privacy EU citizens demanded will also be the very tool used to specifically identify them.

      Not at all. When I submit a GDPR request to the authorities for violations of my privacy by a website that the website has refused to rectify, I may have to identify myself to the authorities to show that I am a side in that particular case. But I need to file a GDPR request like this only if that particular website is not in compliance, and it isn't the company that will receive my personal information.

    5. Re:How Many More to Go by The1stImmortal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is a "fake" accunt anyway?

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      Or a PR/marketing firm in New York or London or LA. Hell, most web marketing firms do this. Not to mention personal PR, business marketing agencies, ad companies propping up their own stats for clients, and of course political marketing people. It's basically par for the course. Common practice. I'd not be surprised if there were more such accounts than real humans on FB. Twitter certainly seems that way.

    6. Re:How Many More to Go by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One run by the Internet Research Agency out of St. Petersberg during office hours, acting in unison with the other 99 accounts being run from the same room.

      Ah, we're back at the "Russian trolls" excuse. I recall a few months ago Twitter banned a bunch of Bulgarian accounts for the sole reason that they wrote in Cyrillic alphabet, were from the capital city of Bulgaria and were active roughly during the daytime over there, thereby fulfilling all your criteria.

      The irony was most of those blocked were the exact opposite of a troll farm - they were genuine accounts and of people who were mostly pro-western and quite liberal at that.

      It is impossible to ascertain any of the things you propose with any certainty just by the online activity of an account, especially in the absence of clear policies.

  3. Re:Athiest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Atheism is anti-muslim. In an Islamic state such as the UK, that is not allowed.

  4. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by bestweasel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is bizarre because atheism is mainstream and popular in the UK and evangelicals and religion in general have little influence. If this is Putin's mob trying to stir up enmity again, then they might have been wasting their time.

  5. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by meglon · · Score: 2

    The operation was spread over Facebook and Instagram and used a network of fake accounts to pose as both far-right activists and their opponents

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  6. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Atheists acknowledge the reality that there is not, and never has been, any evidence for any "god/goddess/gods" throughout the entire history of humanity, and refuse to live in a delusion/fantasy where a "god/goddess/gods" is considered "real" despite that complete lack of evidence.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  7. Re:Better Headline Facebook Censors Speech by meglon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The groups were designed to look like sides.... both right and left.... being at odds with each other. The people behind the groups... which is what is important... were neither, they were simply trying to sow discord by controlling groups purporting to be from both sides.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  8. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Atheism is not a political position but one of sanity. So, by definition, not a political position...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really? Thanks for defining what I believe. I honestly didn't know I do believe that.

    Atheism means exactly one thing, and one thing only: Not believing in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, that means that you are not required to "believe" in the Big Bang Theory to be an atheist (or watch the show for that matter). And it doesn't keep you from thinking the universe was created by aliens from planet Zrbit outside our universe.

    In other words, just because you're atheist doesn't mean you're rational. You just have a chance to be rational.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. I notice something else though by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Skeptics are now more often cast as "far right".
    Call out Christian BS 15 years ago? Cool dude.
    Call out Muslim BS now? FAR RIGHT RACIST BIGOT.
    Don't believe three-letter government agencies 15 years ago? Smart independent thinking dude.
    Don't believe three-letter government agencies now? FAR RIGHT RUSSIAN BOT.
    Resisting the constant shifting of definitions 15 years ago? Haha George Carlin is pretty badass.
    Resisting the constant shifting of definitions now? YOU ARE BAD AND AN ASS AND FAR RIGHT.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  12. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Exactly. And given that the "European Research Group" is staunchly anti-European, it is probably just as likely that the "Atheists Research Centre" is an organisation for religious nutjobs.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  13. Re:"fake account network" by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    (Oh yea, and the detectable botting really shoots holes in the advertising revenue stream, so I'm sure that is a big motivation for Facebook too.)

  14. Not unless you're a nutcase irrational theist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nope, not believing in a god is as rational as not believing in Santa Clause or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Teapot Orbiting between Jupiter and Mars.

    If you believe in a god and claim it is "rational" because "well we don't know it ISN'T real!", then you have to really believe in all the other gods too, and the FSM, monsters under the bed, etc.

    Note that if you claim that god is real, then you are lying, since Shiva is god, according to the believers of Shiva. If you don't accept that Shiva is real, then you should not believe YOUR god is real either. Both have 100% identically valid "evidences", so if you believe in one god, you HAVE to believe in them all.

    Or accept YOUR belief in YOUR god is irrational.

    Why is it so hard for you theist idiots to accept your belief is irrational? We can't refute your belief, but we CAN refute your logic for your believe BECAUSE you claim your belief is rational. Stop claiming it is rational and suddenly we don't have a leg to stand on to change your belief.

    Of course you have no basis to convert anyone, so you can't bother others over your belief, but which is more important to you: your god or annoying the shit out of other people?

  15. The word "satire" is used here in Brazil... by fbobraga · · Score: 2

    ... to "justify" the creation of media social profiles that spread misinformation: for the mainteiners, it's only "a joke" (tell that to my grandma [and several other people], that believes it...)

  16. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not believing something is basically the default position for any rational being. When you're trying to find out what is and what is not, there are essentially two points where you can start. Either by requiring positive proof, i.e. assuming nothing is until its existence is proven, or by requiring negative proof, i.e. assuming everything is until clearly shown to be not. Now, the latter is not only fairly impossible to do, it's also pretty inconvenient. Especially for those who want to believe. Because if we assume everything is until falsified, we'll have to assume that all gods exist, and it's on you now to show that yours is the only "true" one.

    Religions are usually defined as mutually exclusive, i.e. you believe in one you cannot believe in another, or at the very least, that the god(s) of one religion get really angry if you believe in other god(s). Which in turn also make it the most sensible position to not believe in any until shown which one is the correct one because it's the least effort position, since worshiping all of them is not only impossible due to time constraints, some creeds have quite conflicting tenets, for example it's really hard to align the ideals of Sikhism with the demands that Xipe Totec puts on his followers.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:Better Headline Facebook Censors Speech by PPH · · Score: 2

    they were simply trying to sow discord by controlling groups purporting to be from both sides.

    No, they were not.

    Yes, they were.

    No, they were not.

    Yes, they were.

    No, they were not.

    Yes, they were.

    .
    .
    .

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re:Anyone notice the far right getting cozy by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    Technically, everyone is an atheist -- as there are two definitions for atheism: a person who does not believe in the existence of

    1. a god, or
    2. any gods.

    Bold emphasis added.

    By the first definition a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Zeus is an atheist. :-)

    Atheism has nothing to do with Rationalism. A lack of belief, and therefore a lack of knowledge, doesn't imply, or diminish, rationality.