Facebook accuses people tied to French military of running troll accounts
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
Two separate networks of Russian pages, both allegedly linked to a Russian troll group, were also removed. Those pages had about 6 million followers, Facebook said.
It’s not immediately clear from the article whether those Russian troll groups were the specific ones active alongside and with the French one in CAR, Niger etc, but some perspective is in order nonetheless.
It seems a personal initiative more than an state backed one. But Facebook will run with the false equivalency.
Facebook is trying to fight back regulations with missinformation and smear campaigns. This are signs of a company that thinks that is above the law.
>smear campaigns
France was also running a smear campaign in a foreign country. Just like Russia. Just like the US. Just like tons of countries. I don't think anyone should be doing it but you've got governments and quasi-governments (corporations) engaging in this behavior of steering public opinion. Neither of them are righteous.
I don't think this is the case at all. These regulations aren't exactly law that has been around for a while. It's actively being created and lobbied for right now. Obviously Facebook is going to respond to it.
This version of cyberwar is rubbish.
But yes, it's good that Facebook is also willing to call out Western governments for their covert influence operations, even if that accelerates the hammer being brought down on it. There is no good reason for French military units to be interfering in former colonies in North Africa; let it go.
The French intervention was after both the UN security council (though France is part of it) and, more importantly, Malian authorities asked France for help [0]. "Let it go" in this context means refusing to help someone asking for help when they are on the verge of being overrun by Islamists.
[0] https://www.france24.com/en/20130111-mali-asks-france-milita...
Also, the article talks about anti-Russian messaging? Not anti-Islamist?
There are some huge problems with French interventions, but saying there is never a good reason is a bit hyperbolic. For instance, in the case of Mali, assistance was specifically requested by the government as they were losing control of the country. France intervened only once the ECOWAS mission failed and the rebels were prompted to attack.
Don't former colonial nations have some measure of responsibility over some of the outcomes in former colonial regions? Certainly staving off the worst case scenarios such as Islamic Fundamentalist groups seems somewhat prudent.
The UK would do similar things if the Kenyan government asked for help.
Steve Jobs was once asked by a reporter if President Obama should intervene in Syria. He said "Do something, you're fucked. Do nothing, you're fucked"
While I absolutely agree, I think it's a bit hypocritical to target only France. The US and the UK do the same thing but somehow aren't banned by Facebook.
The UK even announced a few days ago that they were using a psyops unit to counter vaccination conspiracy theories. The same unit that was previously targeting the Islamic State.
I don't know exactly how they operate but I'm pretty sure they run a large network of social media bots to influence people online.
Disclosure : I'm French so that might color my reaction a bit :)
>Facebook said the alleged French accounts "posted primarily in French and Arabic about news and current events including France's policies in Francophone Africa, the security situation in various African countries, claims of potential Russian interference in the election in the Central African Republic (CAR), supportive commentary about French military, and criticism of Russia's involvement in CAR."
>Elections are due to take place in CAR later this month. One post in French read, "The Russian imperialists are a gangrene on Mali! Watch out for the tsarist lobotomy!"
>The alleged Russian accounts, in turn, criticized the French.
Here it seems like it might have been a mix of an earnest attempt to counter Russian disinformation and perhaps some spreading of their own propaganda to influence an election.
Then again EU privacy initiatives are from German / Danish politicians
It is not like the thing that replaces FB in case of a ban will be any better.
This is just one example that made headlines, there are thousands of similar examples. Facebook also influences the distribution of posts based on political indicators. For example, there is evidence that the dissemination of posts about Assange's extradition trials were blocked. There is also plenty of evidence of algorithmic discrimination, and examples of ads functionality and targeting that shouldn't even exist. For example, you could target ads to 13 year old girls in a specific town that have specific interests. I'd say that's a bit creepy. Last but not least, Facebook provides a fake customer service that seems to be intentionally designed to waste time, and there have been recent discussions of claims of fraudulent payment transactions - people were apparently charged for non-existent services on their ads accounts.
Not that I'm a fan of Facebook's data collection, but claiming it's a CIA operation is a substantial claim that would require substantial evidence beyond that date being shared, which very easily could be a coincidence. (Also, if it were really planned as a secret successor, why would they publicly do it on the same date?)
I'm pretty skeptical Zuckerberg was in contact with the CIA when he started Facebook in his dorm room if that's the only piece of evidence.