[harikb]

The article is blaming Twitter for being callous with its trending algorithms being abused with some coordination between larger number of folks. I think this is very much Mozilla’s business, just as much as any campaign in the West.

The researchers are based in Kenya, writing about Kenyans. They just happen to be employed by Mozilla. Sorry I don’t get why that is a problem?

[dexen]

>callous with trending algorithms >abuse with some coordination

I take umbrage with those characterizations.

The practices described (pre-arranged release of information, voicing mutual support in coordinated manner, agreed-upon language and form) have for decades been the hallmark of professional marketing and journalism. Back when print and broadcast media were the top game, those methods were used by the small groups of legitimate journalists and marketers.

Twitter correctly recognizes coordinated release of information as signal of particularly important and valuable content. People organically coordinate release of information for it to get its full due impact and attention. People also organically ask their friends and business contacts to chip in with an upvote or reblog (or whatever is the equivalent on Twitter). Calling Twitter's or users' behaviors "callous" or "inauthentic" when it's the regular people - that is way off the mark.

My uncharitable read of it is - this whole venture reeks of gatekeeping for the old-guard legitimate journalism.

[_djo_]

Your characterisation assumes that all those involved are real people, when there is blatant evidence of bot activity. Not only that, but in both Kenya and South Africa various official and media investigations have uncovered paid disinformation by political actors that is quite clearly not legitimate, authentic, or 'grassroots' in any way.

At best it's astroturfing, but in most cases it's gone beyond that.