adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

Hamas took over hostages' social media accounts. It could be an alarming window into the future of war. – Slate

Published

11 months ago

 on


On Oct. 7, friends and relatives of Gali Shlezinger Idan, an Israeli who lives in a kibbutz near the border with Gaza, started getting messages to check her Facebook page. When they did, according to reporting from the New York Times’ Sheera Frenkel and Talya Minsberg, they found something horrifying: a livestream showing Idan and her family held hostage by Hamas gunmen. There is the sound of gunshots, and mortars. At one point in the 43-minute livestream, Idan tells her children something along the lines of “Stay down—I can’t lose another child today.”

Idan’s oldest daughter was killed and her husband was taken hostage. The gunmen eventually left Idan and the two children in the video—but not before their loved ones witnessed much of the ordeal on social media.

As hard as it is to hear stories like this one, they are also instructive: They tell us about a new way of waging war. For as long as humans have fought each other, they’ve told stories about it—now those stories have 21st-century tools.

On Friday’s episode of What Next: TBD, I spoke with Frenkel, who covers tech for the Times, about Hamas’ social media strategy. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Lizzie O’Leary: When you heard about these livestreams, what did you think?

Sheera Frenkel: On Oct. 7 there had been a number of Israelis who spoke to radio and TV and described seeing livestreams. I immediately kind of was like, “Livestreams? Is that possible?” When I saw it for myself, it’s shocking—Hamas gunmen were able to livestream themselves holding a family hostage for 43 minutes; in another case, they livestreamed themselves holding a family for over an hour.

How did the gunmen get access to the social media accounts?

They entered the home; they asked for their cellphones and their IDs. That was the first thing they asked for. In this case, they took Gali’s cellphone, unlocked it, opened up Facebook, and began the livestream.

Last week, I interviewed members of Hamas that had run social media for the organization in the past. Hamas has a political wing where they develop films and political campaigns for their members. So they actually have a fairly established comms team, and they described it as a very premeditated strategy meant to appeal to their supporters and show what they had done. Hamas has Facebook accounts; they could have opened up their own Facebook accounts and begun to livestream a video if they wanted to. But the decision to take the cellphone of someone they were holding hostage and use their Facebook account to livestream it was very specific and deliberate. It happened in at least four cases that we could document.

How long did it take for the tech companies to realize this was happening and to disable these accounts?

In most cases, the accounts were disabled in 24 to 36 hours. Quite a while, as far the families were concerned. In one case, a young woman was taken hostage from a music festival near the Gaza border, and her Facebook account remained active for three to four days after she was taken. The family continued to get messages on it from people that they presume were holding their daughter hostage.

You were a Middle East reporter for 10 years, you’ve lived in Gaza, and you’ve covered previous wars in the region. Have you ever seen anything like this before?

No. This is very much a new tactic, and we called up and spoke to people who were experts in extremist groups like Hamas. I remember ISIS pioneering the use of social media to spread their viewpoint across the world. I covered it. I was in Iraq, and I was in Syria, and their ability to use the attention economy of social media to get people to watch really horrible things—beheading videos, hostage videos—that was, at the time, unprecedented. But they had not thought of this strategy or been able to implement this strategy of hijacking the social media feeds of people you’re holding hostage. That’s something I’ve never seen before, and I think it was particularly effective in this case because so many civilians were involved.

As you mentioned, you talked to Hamas about their social media strategy, and I’m really interested in the way they have put thought into using different platforms and how those platforms then spread messages out. Can you walk me through that?

The strategy they’ve come up with is they start on Telegram, which is a messaging app—and, I think it’s fair to say, has almost no content moderation. Hamas has quite a few Telegram channels in Arabic and in English, and in other languages as well, where they just seed videos and photos and slogans and messages. They’ll post a new video or photo, and then they’ll say, “Please spread this on Twitter and TikTok. … And here’s translations to other languages. If you’re French speaking, please post it with this language. If you’re Spanish speaking, post it …” It’s very cohesive and well-thought-out.

Largely, they tell people to share on Twitter. They’ve openly commented that Twitter is very easy to post things to right now. We have to remember that when Elon Musk took control of the platform a year ago now, he fired most of the established trust and safety team, many of whom actually had experience in, specifically in Hamas, but also just in extremist organizations. When that expertise left the building, they lost a lot of their skill set in removing these accounts quickly. So Hamas tells them to go to Twitter, and they also tell them to go to TikTok and YouTube, and they even give instructions on how you can speed up the video or slow down the video or clip the video so that if those companies take down one version of it, maybe another version can live online.

Hamas is supposed to be banned on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok. Has that worked?

I think that the Meta-owned companies have been very quick to take Hamas accounts down. They struggle with it, though. Hamas also operates schools; they are a political organization that informs people when power and electricity is going to be on or off. So there are Hamas pages that Facebook has really struggled with. Like, “Wait, well, if this is a page that’s letting people know when the first day of school is or when water and power will be resumed to their neighborhoods, is that something that we should be taking down?” But by and large, when something is posting graphic videos or veers into the territory of posting propaganda that’s supportive of Hamas’ military wing, they are very quick to take it down. Twitter less so. I’m still struggling to figure out TikTok because I’ve seen some videos removed within minutes, I would say, and then others that have lived there for hours, and I can’t see rhyme or reason for why some are being removed and some aren’t. I think TikTok is a little bit more whack-a-mole at the moment.

We’ve come full circle, in a way. I’m thinking back to those ISIS videos in 2014, when content moderation was not robust. Things went up on YouTube that were horrifying. But then social media companies seemed to put a decent amount of effort and time and staffing into content moderation that helped stop some of this. At the same time, in 2019, in Christchurch, New Zealand, a far-right extremist killed 51 people in a mosque and livestreamed it on Facebook. What can the social media companies do with this, other than, as you said, play whack-a-mole?

Play whack-a-mole, hire ever-increasing teams to be responsive and to freeze this kind of activity when it happens. I mentioned that Facebook has been relatively quick to take this stuff down. They’ve also, since COVID, lost people from their security team and their trust and safety team, and so their teams are also smaller than they used to be.

For Twitter, Elon Musk decimated their trust and safety team. So that’s an extreme example. But all the companies have been reducing their head count and making these teams smaller. And that makes it slower—but even if they had more people, that’s never going to be 100 percent effective.

As you know, it’s incredibly hard to report from Gaza. Some of the social media that has come out has given people a voice, and yet that can be so easily weaponized to inflict harm. How do companies reckon with that—being a tool of information and connection, but also harm and destruction?

It’s one of the hardest things happening in Gaza right now. There are a lot of people who live in Gaza who depend on social media to try and find out where they’re going to get water or fuel, or where food is coming in. The U.N. provides food to over 1 million people who live in the Gaza Strip, and social media is one way that they tell one another, “Oh, the U.N. food operation center is happening here today.” Especially in a time of war, where there’s widespread bombing happening across the Gaza Strip, people are letting one another know where it’s safe to be through social media.

You have this deep background covering the Middle East and conflict, and also covering tech companies. How do you think the role of technology and social media has evolved in this region in the past decade?

In so many ways, what’s happening in Israel and Gaza and the West Bank is a battle of narratives. It’s been fought since the 1940s, potentially even before, of whose version of the story is the right one. Is it the version that serves the state of Israel? Is it the version that serves the Palestinian people? As the years have gone on, as the decades have gone on, each side has become really deeply entrenched in their own narrative of things. Technology, for the most part, has served that. These tech companies, specifically the social media companies, have created really deep echo chambers.

Future Tense
is a partnership of
Slate,
New America, and
Arizona State University
that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 23, 2024

By

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

3 weeks ago

 on

August 20, 2024

By

Tech News in Canada

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending