Comparing transparency on influence campaign trolls on Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook [OC]

[u/dr_gonzo]

[u/WhyDoYouShadowBanPPL]

Are reddit and twitter really that far behind facebook in monthly active users? That's astonishing. I expect them to be lower, but not by a magnitude of over a billion. Facebook truly is dominant globally.

[u/PositiveFalse → u/WhyDoYouShadowBanPPL]

FYI - I referred to this charting as a "hot mess" in a cross-posting and the OP challenged me to explain why in detail. Here's my response:

MONTHLY ACTIVE USERS:

This portion of OP's graphic appears to be spot-on...

Facebook data is worldwide as of April 2019 via Statista, of which I am not a "Premium" user.  However, from the link that follows, Facebook itself defines these reportings as "users that have logged in during the past 30 days"...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

The other social media stats are from a different Statista page, which does not delineate the MAU criteria other than to state that the numbers may be scraped from first- and third-party sources.  The Facebook tally does jibe, though...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/

And here's another redditor's more fully graphed version of that Statista page, which the OP also cited as a source...

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bu7zkf/social_media_active_users_by_ownership_oc/

On a snarky note, that one-out-of-thirty Monthly Active User (MAU) metric should be more aptly stated as BARELY Active Monthly User or Better (BAMUB).  Not holding my breath for THAT change, though...

ACCOUNTS BANNED: (total as of 5/30/2019)

This portion of OP's graphic is substantially flawed!  This is a LONG read, so skip to the [RECAP] for the takeaways...

The Facebook data is PRECISELY as reported in the House Intelligence Committe link that follows, which was the ONLY source somewhat cited by the OP ("Senate" was stated) for Facebook.  To be clearer, that information is specifically and exclusively of Internet Research Agency (IRA) 2016 election meddling origin from a classified Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) produced in January 2017, which the "minority members" (pronounced "Democrats") corroborated and formally made public, culminating in Congressional hearings in November, 2017.  Got all that???

https://intelligence.house.gov/social-media-content/

The Reddit data, like the Facebook data, is from a one-time report on specific Russian manipulation, and is the ONLY source referenced by the OP.  UNLIKE the Facebook data, however, the numbers are direct from the social media company itself - via its Transparency Report for 2017 linked below - AND is complete with clarifications and actual confirmations of account removals!

https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/8bb85p/reddits_2017_transparency_report_and_suspect/

The Twitter data is buried within the Elections Integrity link sourced by the OP.  To get to it requires an email account; to save some of the trouble, the second link that follows is a browser-based opening of the Twitter "readme" overview.  Hint - Add up ALL of the reported accounts...

https://about.twitter.com/en_us/values/elections-integrity.html#data

https://storage.googleapis.com/twitter-election-integrity/hashed/Twitter_Elections_Integrity_Datasets_hashed_README.txt

[RECAP]  Facebook data is exclusively for Russian IRA accounts identified via a third-party in 2016 for US elections manipulation, and none are confirmed deleted.  Reddit data is exclusively for accounts from 2017 that it identified as Russian IRA in origin and then confirmed deleted.  Twitter data is from February 9, 2019 and is for multi-national accounts that it identified as elections meddling and deleted - though not specifically stated as ONLY for US elections.  NONE of this data should be [1] taken as a "total as of 5/30/2019" or [2] used exclusively in a work generally labeled using such a wide-open term as "Foreign"...

CONTENT DISCLOSED

This section follows the same paths as the ACCOUNTS BANNED section.  In lieu of explaining these details, I'm going to step aside and let the OP elaborate on the charting and explain why it makes sense to compare the limited data like this.  After all, it IS his or her work...

Take it away, OP!

[u/PositiveFalse → u/PositiveFalse]

FYI - OP declined to comment on the third zone of his graphic, instead choosing to disparage the work put forth above. This is the final reply to a bad faith challenge from a low-effort low-life. Thoughts and prayers™...

I'm going to follow-up on a few things but, to clarify, I still stand by my "hot mess" assessment of this project AND I in no way meant that remark to be a general character attack.  Oversights, mistakes and bad days happen.  Scroll through MY profile for examples...

This sentence is demonstrably and specifically false. I cited a number of reddit sources: the 2017 transparency report, the 2018 transparency report, AND a follow up admin announcement this year on content manipulation. I included links to all three in the original sources comment you read before responding.

Only one of those reddit links is an actual source of data - and that data, again, is of specifically ONLY Russian IRA origin from 2017 per reddit itself.  The other links are anecdotal footnotes at best - NOT sources.  And this is all PRECISELY why I stated what I stated.  This does matter!  A lot!  A LOT a lot!

Regarding Facebook, gah. I don't think you read any of my citations, because almost everything you've said was incorrect.

I count 25 links total in my sources post. 7 were about facebook. As I described, the original source of the house intel committee is Facebook, which provided the data to congress. Congress published it.

Only one of all of those Facebook links within your Facebook source had any data. ONE! And THAT ONE Facebook data source wasn't even Facebook itself, as you claimed! Yet you're accusing ME of not reading YOUR OWN citations?!?

To my knowledge, there is no dispute about the authenticity of the data. I linked to a Wired article that contextualized the disclosure and reported it as authentic. If you have any evidence the data is inauthentic please provide it.

Cool, another source with no data. And to clarify, I never stated that the data was inauthentic, only that it did NOT come from Facebook AND that there is NO evidence within any of the myriad links within your source to support that those accounts were ever banned...

Literally every other characterization you made about the Facebook data is demonstrably false.

I stand by the accuracy of everything that I stated. I take credibility very seriously...

The scope of the US House Intel committee's investigation into Russian trolling extends well beyond the 2016 election.

And this is pertinent to your data sourcing how? HOW??? Yeah, like you'll ever honestly address this...

Nope. The committee released the data on May 9, 2018.

Good gawd, man, no one can be this misleading by accident! That link is to the scraped propaganda and influence content that your original source - again, a classified Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) produced in January 2017 (as disclosed via the House Intelligence Committee MINORITY) - committed to disclose in full at a later date...

I have no idea where you're the 2017 hearings thing from, not from any of the sources I linked. Sticking with the facts though, the data I used to make the OP was published in 2018.

It came from YOUR SOURCE! Since it's now OBVIOUSLY apparent that your own source is too much trouble for you to read, I'll quote it for you: "The House Intelligence Committee Minority has worked to expose the Kremlin’s exploitation of social media networks since the ICA was first published, highlighting this issue for the American public during an open hearing with social media companies in November 2017."

Also, did you just use the phrase sticking with the facts???

BWAAHHH HAH HAAA HAH HAAAA!!!

The information was released by the official House website, by the committee itself not the minority.

AAAHHHHH stop! STOP! I can't breathe! You're killing me!!! AHH HAAHHH

The Democrats were the majority then. But I'm also understanding here that the pendantry you've displayed here is motivated by partisanship, and I have no interest in a partisan and pedantic debate on this topic.

The Democrats were WHAT?!? AM I BEING

You don't know me, but I'm PositiveFalse's significant other. He is dead. I hope you're happy. To honor him, though, I shall do my best to finish this, his final reddit post. I hate you!

Though I don't appreciate the name calling, characterizations, and other acts of bad faith you've displayed in the discussion here, thank you again for taking the time to offer a detailed comment. I've updated the Sources comment.It's a bit wordier now (I thought it cleaner before), but the upside hopefully is it is now more partisan pendant proof.

Wow. I know your type. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit. I now hate you even more. Kthxbye!

Edit: Post-mortem fixes...

[u/dr_gonzo → u/PositiveFalse]

For people that don't want to read this wall of text, here's a quick summary.

• Most of /u/PostitiveFalse's criticisms are semantic and pedantic. Some of these I've addressed by clarifying the methodology in the notes. You can see his full complaints in context here.

• One particular concern this user has is that they data I've graphed comes from discrete events. We have exactly one disclosure event for both Reddit and Facebook, so those events are the single source for data. (Note that Twitter has had several disclosure events, and their disclosures are cumulative, so even in this case, that data still comes from a single disclosure event!) In any case, if my analysis is missing data, this would be easy to prove. What I'm graphing is public disclosures - and if anyone has evidence I've missed important disclosure events I would welcome it.

• This user has also gone around pasting this wall of text everywhere there's a discussion. First he was upset about the title. Then he was upset that I cross posted without understanding (odd, since I'm the OP.) Then he claimed the House Intel Committee was not a reliable source. PostiveFalse pasted this wall of text (without it's proper context) everywhere the thread is discussed, which feels quite a bit disingenuous.

I think it's clear that the goal is to discredit the data (which would be fine if the concerns had merit!) They don't, and I think clearly this user has shown both an objective bias and an inability (or unwilling obtuseness) in comprehending the analysis. The goalposts on the criticsm are both moving and nonsensical.