Opinion | The First Post-Twitter Global Conflict

posted in: News | 0

I first began using Twitter, now X, after the 2010 earthquake in Port-au-Prince, when I could not find my family. I was in Washington, D.C. Within days of the earthquake, hundreds of volunteers, using a crisis-mapping platform called Ushahidi (Swahili for “witness”), began logging calls for help via cellphone texts and Twitter, putting them on a map and sending that information to search and rescue teams. I only found my family because Facebook and Twitter worked even when their phones and email did not.

Not long after came the Arab Spring, when Twitter was a source of crucial, sometimes lifesaving information and a powerful coordinating tool for demonstrators. For journalists and analysts, it was matchless for watching events unfold in real time. I was in Istanbul during the 2013 Gezi Park demonstrations, which began as a protest against the destruction of a park and turned into a massive uprising against the Turkish government. Like everyone, I used Twitter to figure out which streets were safe. No news agency could replicate this function for citizens on the ground. But I used it, too, to tell the world what was happening in Turkey.

That was the beginning of an era. Twitter was obviously imperfect, but it quickly became the central platform for gathering information and networking in politics and international affairs, especially in crises where traditional media coverage was thin.

The war in Gaza marks the end of that era. X CEO Elon Musk has so profoundly undermined the functions that made Twitter useful in an international crisis that it is now counterproductive to turn to it if you hope to understand what’s happening on the ground when news breaks around the world. Over the course of 10 years, X has evolved from indispensable to useless.

It’s fitting that along with his other changes, Musk changed the name of the company. Literally and figuratively, we’re witnessing the first post-Twitter major world conflict.

Disinformation and misinformation proliferated on the platform prior to Musk’s takeover. But the difference in degree is so significant now as to amount to a difference in kind. Almost every significant change Musk has made has reduced its value as a source of reliable information from and for people affected by a disaster, and every change, similarly, has increased its utility to malicious propagandists and scammers.

When Musk arrived, he dissolved Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, the advisory group of some 100 independent civil, human rights and other organizations that helped the company to combat misinformation, and fired its full-time Trust and Safety employees, including all but one member of the AI ethics team that monitored algorithmic amplification.

He blew up the old verification system. A blue check once signified that the account belonged to someone whose identity had been confirmed and who fell under one of the following categories: government; companies, brands and organizations; news organizations and journalists; entertainment; sports and gaming; activists and organizers; content creators; and influential individuals.

The prevalence on Twitter of verified journalists, academics, researchers and government sources made it possible, in a crisis, to quickly find reliable people who were on the ground and who could probably be trusted to report what they were seeing in reasonably good faith. Now, the blue checkmark signifies only that the owner has paid for it. When you buy a blue check, your posts go to the top of the search results and replies, irrespective of others’ desire to see them.

X now pays users based on the number of views they receive, creating a massive incentive to post sensationalistic and inflammatory lies. On-the-ground witnesses — and worse, people who need help — can’t reach their audiences unless they have a costly blue check mark and a willingness to compete with the most outrageous promoted content.

Musk has stripped headlines and summaries off article previews. Images are no longer accompanied by context, making it that much easier to misunderstand them and that much less likely that users will read the article. Meanwhile, Musk promotes — directly, via his own tweets and algorithmically — conspiracy theorists, Russian war propagandists, hostile-state media, foreign and domestic extremists and engagement farmers who exploit pain and tragedy to gain followers.

Musk has created the conditions for a flood of misinformation and fake accounts — a problem that has proven particularly acute during the current war in Gaza. AI-generated images are passed off as real: In a photo shared millions of times, for example, a man is seen carrying his children out of the ruins of a bombed building. The post says, “An image is worth a thousand words.” The Palestine flag suggests the image is from Gaza. A BBC fact-checker has confirmed the image is completely fake, generated by AI.

A massive number of accounts posting images that purport to be from Gaza are in fact posting images from unrelated conflicts. These tweets have racked up millions of views and shares.

According to Cyabra, an Israeli analysis firm, pro-Hamas forces have launched a coordinated influence operations campaign involving tens of thousands of fake profiles. As a result, one in five social media accounts participating in the conversation about the war in Gaza are fake. One in four pro-Hamas profiles are fake. It’s not clear who is creating and using these fake profiles to spread disinformation, but it could be anyone from Russian internet trolls to antisemites to far-right hucksters who are eager to make a buck.

Accounts that were once clearly labeled as state-affiliated, such as that of Iran’s Press TV, are no longer distinguished from others. In September, an EU report found that the “reach and influence” of Kremlin-backed accounts on social media, and on X in particular, had increased in 2023.

In another study, the EU found that disinformation was more easily found on X than on any other social media platform. It also received more engagement than it did on any other platform.

That report found that X had the highest ratio of what the authors called “disinformation actors” to real posts. “The average engagement with mis/disinformation content found on X is 1.977 times as high as the average engagement with non-mis/disinformation,” the authors wrote. In other words, X users are twice as likely to engage with lies as the truth.

Snuff videos have proliferated on the platform, too. A pro-Kremlin account shared a video of a beheading in Ukraine in April. Endless videos of atrocities purportedly committed by Hamas or by Israel clatter across my feed: It is all but impossible to use X now without seeing a video that shows, or purports to show, the murder of a human being.

Meanwhile, good sources of information are leaving the platform. Many of the most useful voices are now gone. Reporters have fled, largely moving to Bluesky. But Bluesky can’t replace X yet; its network is too small. You can use it to talk to other journalists, not so much to find sources or promote your work to your readers.

To judge by the responses to the fake tweets, most people have no idea they’re fake. Musk certainly doesn’t. Recently, he recommended (in a since-deleted tweet) that his followers follow two well-known disinformation accounts — one of them, for example, provides such helpful analysis as, “The overwhelming majority of people in the media and banks are zi0nists.” When Musk suggests something like this, it is not just his 162 million followers who see it. You can mute him, but unless you do, everything Musk says is now forced into the timeline of every user of the platform, whether or not they follow him.

Some will reply, correctly, that the mainstream media hasn’t covered itself in glory during this conflict either. Many news organizations have made serious mistakes in the past weeks. But the difference between sloppy or biased news coverage and millions of deliberate lies — none retracted — is significant. If you read the former, you’ll still be on this planet. If you read the latter, you’ll be in an alternate universe.

As for Israelis or Palestinians hoping to use the platform to exchange lifesaving information? Forget it. For eight bucks, anyone can impersonate the official account of the IDF. (Impersonation is still officially against X’s rules, but the lack of a real verification system makes it easier to do for longer.) How could Israelis trust warnings and updates from their government or from each other on X when Hamas or Iranian operatives can so readily pretend to be anyone they please? How would Palestinian rescuers use X to locate people who need help when every image they see directs them to Syria?

This state of affairs is massively deleterious to American national security. Members of Congress are as vulnerable to hostile disinformation as anyone else. One morning, I watched a number of Russian accounts, including that of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, begin simultaneously to push out the line that Israel had been attacked with weapons the U.S. sent to Ukraine, which Israelis immediately denied. By afternoon, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was asserting this as fact. 

Organized, state-sponsored information operations aim to generate support in the U.S. for policies that are not in our interest and dampen support for policies that are. “Feel the difference,” wrote Medvedev on X recently on a post that showed two photos: on the left, a vast sea of protesters against Israel — a U.S. ally — and, on the right, a pitiful handful of protesters against Russia’s actions in Ukraine. That Russian information operations on social media have inflamed the global orgy of antisemitism we’ve seen since Hamas’ attack goes without saying.

X has long been a critical source of information for journalists, and the news cycle now demands reporting at X speed. For most users, the website was a diversion. For journalists, it was essential. We built our audiences and our careers on Twitter. We invested years of our labor and creativity — for free. We built it, and we made it valuable.

The degeneration of the quality of information on X means that journalists who are still on the platform waste far more time looking for the signal in the noise. They waste more time running down rumors. They are at greater risk of sharing fake information. They are doubtless absorbing narratives and framings from X shaped by disinformation, even if they’re not sharing falsehoods. It’s far from clear how the media will adapt to a post-Twitter world.

At least in the short term, the market won’t be able to solve this problem because Twitter’s value to consumers was owed to its market dominance. Everyone used it. A number of competitors are now trying to fill the void, but because the microblogging market is now fractured, no company can play the central role Twitter played.

That might be why some governments are stepping in to fix these problems instead. On Oct. 13, the EU launched a probe of X over the spread of disinformation and violent content related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, the first step in an investigation to determine whether the platform is violating the EU’s new Digital Services Act.

Congress should do the same. The situation is intolerable to a democracy. Musk is harming American security by gift-wrapping X and handing it over to terrorists and hostile governments who are running information operations against democratic ones. In the long term, it’s finalizing the divorce between the public and reality.

But Congress seems incapable. It was hard enough for the House to elect a speaker. X has been left to govern itself, and it has no interest in preserving the uniquely important role Twitter played by allowing real people, around the world, instantly to find and communicate with one another during a crisis.

It’s fashionable to be cynical about X, but at its height, it was an astonishing human achievement. It cannot be rebuilt and it’s hard to see how it could be built again. One man destroyed it. It is one of history’s great acts of vandalism.

We still badly need reliable, real-time information about global conflicts on a platform with the reach that Twitter once had. But X won’t ever again be that platform.

Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka sells Streeterville condo for $575,000

posted in: News | 0

Hall of Fame former Chicago Bears player and head coach Mike Ditka and his wife, Diana, on Nov. 7 sold their longtime two-bedroom, 1,904-square-foot condominium on the 39th floor of a Streeterville high-rise for $575,000.

Known as “Iron Mike,” Ditka, 84, was a six-time All-Pro tight end for the Bears, and later, he also was the team’s head coach from 1982 until 1992, during which he led the Bears to their only Super Bowl victory ever, in 1986. Ditka maintained a presence in the Chicago area even after his time as the Bears’ head coach came to an end, as he kept a 5,121-square-foot house in Bannockburn until selling it in 1997.

Also in 1997, Ditka lent his name to a Magnificent Mile steakhouse — the first of several that eventually would open — in which he was an investor. After Ditka’s second and final head coaching stint, with the New Orleans Saints, concluded in early 2000, he and his wife paid $700,000 several months later for their Streeterville condo.

Located in the Olympia Centre building, the corner-unit condo has two bathrooms, a grand foyer, hardwood floors, a kitchen with stainless steel appliances and granite countertops and a primary bedroom suite with two walk-in closets and plenty of built-ins. The unit also has access to the building’s common rooftop deck on the 64th floor.

Ditka and his wife got a “good price” for the condo, listing agent Emily Sachs Wong of @properties told Elite Street. And the couple received “multiple offers” for the unit, she added.

Wong previously told Elite Street that the couple listed the condo because they no longer live in the city. Indeed, records show that they continue to own and live in a 4,294-square-foot house in Naples, Fla. that they built in 2002.

The Ditkas first listed the condo on Oct. 13 for $599,900, and it went under contract to sell just 10 days later.

The condo had a $14,613 property tax bill in the 2022 tax year.

Public records do not yet identify the buyers.

Goldsborough is a freelance reporter.

Against the tide: India bars protests that support the Palestinians

posted in: Politics | 0

SRINAGAR, India — From Western capitals to Muslim states, protest rallies over the Israel-Hamas war have made headlines. But one place known for its vocal pro-Palestinian stance has been conspicuously quiet: Indian-controlled Kashmir.

Indian authorities have barred any solidarity protest in Muslim-majority Kashmir and asked Muslim preachers not to mention the conflict in their sermons, residents and religious leaders told The Associated Press.

The restrictions are part of India’s efforts to curb any form of protest that could turn into demands for ending New Delhi’s rule in the disputed region. They also reflect a shift in India’s foreign policy under populist Prime Minister Narendra Modi away from its long-held support for the Palestinians, analysts say.

India has long walked a tightrope between the warring sides, with historically close ties to both. While India strongly condemned the Oct. 7 attack by the militant group Hamas and expressed solidarity with Israel, it urged that international humanitarian law be upheld in Gaza amid rising civilian deaths.

But in Kashmir, being quiet is painful for many.

“From the Muslim perspective, Palestine is very dear to us, and we essentially have to raise our voice against the oppression there. But we are forced to be silent,” said Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a key resistance leader and a Muslim cleric. He said he has been put under house arrest each Friday since the start of the war and that Friday prayers have been disallowed at the region’s biggest mosque in Srinagar, the main city in Kashmir.

Anti-India sentiment runs deep in the Himalayan region which is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed by both in its entirety. In 2019, New Delhi removed the region’s semiautonomy, drastically curbing any form of dissent, civil liberties and media freedoms.

Kashmiris have long shown strong solidarity with the Palestinians and often staged large anti-Israel protests during previous fighting in Gaza. Those protests often turned into street clashes, with demands for an end of India’s rule and dozens of casualties.

Modi, a staunch Hindu nationalist, was one of the first global leaders to swiftly express solidarity with Israel and call the Hamas attack “terrorism.” However, on Oct. 12, India’s foreign ministry issued a statement reiterating New Delhi’s position in support of establishing a “sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine, living within secure and recognized borders, side by side at peace with Israel.”

Two weeks later, India abstained during the United Nations General Assembly vote that called for a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza, a departure from its usual voting record. New Delhi said the vote did not condemn the Oct. 7 assault by Hamas.

“This is unusual,” said Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute.

India “views Israel’s assault on Gaza as a counterterrorism operation meant to eliminate Hamas and not directly target Palestinian civilians, exactly the way Israel views the conflict,” Kugelman said. He added that from New Delhi’s perspective, “such operations don’t pause for humanitarian truces.”

India’s foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, sought to justify India’s abstention.

“It is not just a government view. If you ask any average Indian, terrorism is an issue which is very close to people’s heart, because very few countries and societies have suffered terrorism as much as we have,” he told a media event in New Delhi on Saturday.

Even though Modi’s government has sent humanitarian assistance for Gaza’s besieged residents, many observers viewed its ideological alignment with Israel as potentially rewarding at a time when the ruling party in New Delhi is preparing for multiple state elections this month and crucial national polls next year.

The government’s shift aligns with widespread support for Israel among India’s Hindu nationalists who form a core vote bank for Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party. It also resonates with the coverage by Indian TV channels of the war from Israel. The reportage has been seen as largely in line with commentary used by Hindu nationalists on social media to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment that in the past helped the ascendance of Modi’s party.

Praveen Donthi, senior analyst with the International Crisis Group, said the war could have a domestic impact in India, unlike other global conflicts, due to its large Muslim population. India is home to some 200 million Muslims who make up the predominantly Hindu country’s largest minority group.

“India’s foreign policy and domestic politics come together in this issue,” Donthi said. “New Delhi’s pro-Israel shift gives a new reason to the country’s right-wing ecosystem that routinely targets Muslims.”

India’s foreign policy has historically supported the Palestinian cause.

In 1947, India voted against the United Nations resolution to create the state of Israel. It was the first non-Arab country to recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the representative of the Palestinians in the 1970s, and it gave the group full diplomatic status in the 1980s.

After the PLO began a dialogue with Israel, India finally established full diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992.

Those ties widened into a security relationship after 1999, when India fought a limited war with Pakistan over Kashmir and Israel helped New Delhi with arms and ammunition. The relationship has grown steadily over the years, with Israel becoming India’s second largest arms supplier after Russia.

After Modi won his first term in 2014, he became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel in 2017. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, travelled to New Delhi the following year and called the relationship between New Delhi and Tel Aviv a “marriage made in heaven.”

Weeks after Netanyahu’s visit, Modi visited the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah, a first by an Indian prime minister, and held talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. “India hopes that Palestine soon becomes a sovereign and independent country in a peaceful atmosphere,” Modi said.

Modi’s critics, however, now draw comparisons between his government and Israel’s, saying it has adopted certain measures, like demolishing homes and properties, as a form of “collective punishment” against minority Muslims.

Even beyond Kashmir, Indian authorities have largely stopped protests expressing solidarity with Palestinians since the war began, claiming the need to maintain communal harmony and law and order.

Some people have been briefly detained by police for taking part in pro-Palestinian protests even in states ruled by opposition parties. The only state where massive pro-Palestinian protests have taken place is southern Kerala, which is ruled by a leftist government.

But in Kashmir, enforced silence is seen not only as violating freedom of expression but also as impinging on religious duty.

Aga Syed Mohammad Hadi, a Kashmiri religious leader, was not able to lead the past three Friday prayers because he was under house arrest on those days. He said he had wanted to stage a protest rally against “the naked aggression of Israel.” Authorities did not comment on such house arrests.

“Police initially allowed us to condemn Israel’s atrocities inside the mosques. But last Friday they said even speaking (about Palestinians) inside the mosques is not allowed,” Hadi said. “They said we can only pray for Palestine — that too in Arabic, not in local Kashmiri language.”

Democrats romp, Youngkin flops: 4 takeaways from Tuesday’s election

posted in: News | 0

Joe Biden has had a very bad few days. His party just had a banner year.

In Tuesday night’s off-year elections, the incumbent Democratic governor in Kentucky — a state President Joe Biden lost by 26 points — handily won reelection. Democrats not only rebuffed Virginia Glenn Youngkin’s bid for total control of the state legislature by keeping the state Senate — and flipped the state House, too. And the party held a state Supreme Court seat in the nation’s largest Electoral College battleground of Pennsylvania.

None of these wins guarantees success for the party in 2024. Biden is losing to former President Donald Trump in a host of recent polls, and Democrats are underdogs to hold their Senate majority.

But for now, the results on Tuesday — taken together with a string of special elections throughout the year that showed Democratic candidates outperforming Biden’s vote shares in districts across the country — serve as a powerful counterpoint to the party’s doom-and-gloom over the president’s poll numbers.

Democrats’ victories won’t make those polls go away, but they should prompt a rethinking of the current political moment, with a year to go until the next general election.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday night:

Democrats’ 2023 successes, defined

Going into Tuesday night, Democrats were already having a strong 2023. Compared to Biden’s 2020 victory, Democratic candidates in special elections this year had been running about 8 percentage points better, on average.

There were a couple marquee victories, too, like flipping control of Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court and stopping conservatives from trying to make it more difficult to pass the abortion-rights amendment in Ohio.

Tuesday added to the winning streak: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear won reelection. Democrats held the Virginia state Senate and flipped the state House. The party was the driving force behind a ballot measure to enshrine the right to an abortion in the Ohio state constitution. And Democrats added to their Wisconsin victory by winning a similar race in Pennsylvania.

They also won by muscle-flexing margins. Beshear beat state Attorney General Daniel Cameron by 5 percentage points; his first victory four years ago was by less than half a point. The Ohio abortion amendment passed by 12 points. Daniel McCaffery, the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania, won by 8.

Republicans can point to a few victories this year. They easily flipped the open governorship in Louisiana last month, and Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves won reelection on Tuesday. But their successes were few and far between a year after also underachieving in the 2022 midterms.

Democrats might want to pump the brakes before assuming their 2023 successes will continue into 2024, though. With Trump his party’s likely nominee again, the GOP will be counting on the former president’s coalition to show up like it did in 2020.

Voters with lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment tend not to vote in elections like the special and off-year races in which Democrats have been so successful this year. And these voters have been shifting toward Trump and the GOP in recent years.

The potency of abortion

The Ohio result marked the latest in a series of major victories at the ballot box for reproductive rights advocates in the year since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The victory for the “Yes on 1” side in Ohio was largely expected after an August referendum where the state’s voters rejected a measure that would have made the abortion amendment more difficult to pass.

But how the victory transpired was notable.

A POLITICO analysis of 80 counties that reported complete results shortly before midnight found that the Yes side exceeded Biden’s 2020 margins by an average of more than 10 percentage points in counties the Democratic president lost. The Yes side overperformed Biden’s 2020 results in blue counties too, but the margin of improvement was actually smaller.

The unofficial results also suggest that the counties with the highest turnout in Tuesday’s election were actually jurisdictions that had favored Trump in 2020. The victory for Yes on Issue 1 was not driven by remarkable Democratic turnout — but by a significant share of voters in Republican-leaning counties casting their ballots for abortion rights.

That may not translate perfectly to electoral success for Democratic candidates for office. But it does provide a blueprint for abortion-rights supporters to circumvent Republican legislatures in red and purple states through referenda. The lesson: rely on the slice of voters who won’t vote for a Democrat for office — but who would vote for a ballot measure on abortion.

Democrats also campaigned heavily on abortion in Virginia — and even in Kentucky, where Beshear portrayed the lack of exceptions in the state’s abortion ban as too extreme.

Youngkin falls flat as the GOP’s white knight

Youngkin bet it all on the Virginia legislative races. And it looks like he is coming home empty-handed.

The wins are a rebuke to Youngkin’s efforts to consolidate power in the state by removing a Democratic roadblock to his agenda, on everything from taxes to abortion. Youngkin, unusually, launched a strategy to have Republicans run on abortion in these elections. Youngkin pushed candidates to coalesce around a 15 week ban in the state, trying to cast Democrats as extremists on the issue and Republicans as the party with the reasonable position.

Voters rejected that.

Youngkin’s loss will likely stretch beyond the commonwealth. Some Republican donors have been publicly pining for the Virginia governor to jump into the presidential race as a last-minute challenger to Trump.

That was always logistically infeasible. But, the argument went, Youngkin could build up political momentum — and the support of key donors — with a show of strength in Virginia that would catapult him to the top of the primary field.

Youngkin pointedly never ruled out a presidential run, only saying he was focused on these legislative races when asked. But Tuesday’s results will likely put an end to that talk.

How it plays out for 2024

Biden’s defenders were jubilant over Tuesday’s results, claiming they were a more accurate reflection of the president’s political standing than a battery of polls showing him losing to Trump — including one that CNN released during its election-results show on Tuesday night.

“Voters vote, polls don’t,” read a Biden-Harris fundraising email issued after a good chunk of the results were in.

Those pleas are probably downplaying the political trouble Biden faces at this point. But the president undeniably got a nice boost from the night.

The president and his aides were quick to point to Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia as evidence that there is enthusiasm for Democratic causes and candidates. They left the night even more confident abortion is a winning campaign issue. Perhaps more important, they believe they bought themselves a reprieve from naysayers who fear that they’re facing doom when Biden squares off against Trump.

As for Trump, the former president was notably quiet during the evening. He had expended little of his political capital in the lead up to the vote. But his support for state Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s governor bid in Kentucky did leave him open to attacks from his primary opponents. Chris Christie and aides to the Ron DeSantis allied super PAC Never Back Down took turns arguing that the results once more showed that Trump is a drag on the candidates he backs, not a boost for them.

But it was New York City, not Kentucky, that may have delivered the most symbolic rebuke of Trump Tuesday. Yusef Salaam, a member of the exonerated Central Park Five, won a city council seat. Trump had called for the death penalty for those five, who were wrongly accused of raping a jogger. He has refused to apologize for it.

“Karma is real,” Salaam said of his win.

Sam Stein contributed to this report.