#2 is false: <4% of retweets on WikiLeaks' content came from Russian bots, but ~48-73% of the *engagements* with those accounts were botted. An "engagement" is essentially any interaction w/ a tweet. Hard to know what the strategy was without the details. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Edgett%20Appendix%20to%20Responses.pdf … https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/957374850980597761 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @webdevMason
The strategy seemed pretty obvious? Bot accounts would signal boost anti-interventionist & conspiracyish content, nudging pro-Trump twitter accounts towards focusing on those angles.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TristanSevers
I’m more interested in the more concrete strategy for accomplishing that, which is obscured here - “engagements” are Twitter’s most opaque metric
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @webdevMason @TristanSevers
I’m annoyed with the (probably unintentional) misreading of Twitter’s doc, but also generally disappointed with how little data Twitter has decided to provide. Not surprised, but still disappointed
12:44 PM - 28 Jan 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.