Corporate Trolls? A Covert, Pro-Huawei Influence Campaign on Social Media (indianexpress.com) 46
"Huawei, the crown jewel of China's technology industry, has suffered from a sustained American campaign to keep its equipment from being used in new 5G networks around the world," reports the New York Times. Now they've identified "a covert pro-Huawei influence campaign in Belgium about 5G networks." [Alternate URL here]
It began when trade lawyer Edwin Vermulst was paid to write an article criticizing a Belgian policy that would block Huawei from lucrative contracts: First, at least 14 Twitter accounts posing as telecommunications experts, writers and academics shared articles by Mr. Vermulst and many others attacking draft Belgium legislation that would limit "high risk" vendors like Huawei from building the country's 5G system, according to Graphika, a research firm that studies misinformation and fake social media accounts. The pro-Huawei accounts used computer-generated profile pictures, a telltale sign of inauthentic activity. Next, Huawei officials retweeted the fake accounts, giving the articles even wider reach to policymakers, journalists and business leaders. Kevin Liu, Huawei's president for public affairs and communications in Western Europe, who has a verified Twitter account with 1.1 million followers, shared 60 posts from the fake accounts over three weeks in December, according to Graphika. Huawei's official account in Europe, with more than five million followers, did so 47 times...
Twitter said it had removed the fake accounts after Graphika alerted it to the campaign on Dec. 30... Many of their followers appeared to be bots...
The effort suggests a new twist in social media manipulation, said Ben Nimmo, a Graphika investigator who helped identify the pro-Huawei campaign. Tactics once used mainly for government objectives — like Russia's interference in the 2016 American presidential election — are being adapted to achieve corporate goals. "It's business rather than politics," Mr. Nimmo said. "It's not one country targeting another country. It looks like an operation to promote a major multinational's interests — and to do it against a European state."
Though the social media campaign had little impact on Belgian policymakers, one telecom consultancy noted Huawei's fear that similar legislation "could spread to other parts of the world." (The article points out Belgium is the headquarters of both NATO and the European Union.)
But Phil Howard, the director of the Oxford Internet Institute, see a future where disinformation will become increasingly commercialized. "The flow of money is increasingly there," he tells the Times. "Large-scale social media influence operations are now part of the communications tool kit for any large global corporation."
It began when trade lawyer Edwin Vermulst was paid to write an article criticizing a Belgian policy that would block Huawei from lucrative contracts: First, at least 14 Twitter accounts posing as telecommunications experts, writers and academics shared articles by Mr. Vermulst and many others attacking draft Belgium legislation that would limit "high risk" vendors like Huawei from building the country's 5G system, according to Graphika, a research firm that studies misinformation and fake social media accounts. The pro-Huawei accounts used computer-generated profile pictures, a telltale sign of inauthentic activity. Next, Huawei officials retweeted the fake accounts, giving the articles even wider reach to policymakers, journalists and business leaders. Kevin Liu, Huawei's president for public affairs and communications in Western Europe, who has a verified Twitter account with 1.1 million followers, shared 60 posts from the fake accounts over three weeks in December, according to Graphika. Huawei's official account in Europe, with more than five million followers, did so 47 times...
Twitter said it had removed the fake accounts after Graphika alerted it to the campaign on Dec. 30... Many of their followers appeared to be bots...
The effort suggests a new twist in social media manipulation, said Ben Nimmo, a Graphika investigator who helped identify the pro-Huawei campaign. Tactics once used mainly for government objectives — like Russia's interference in the 2016 American presidential election — are being adapted to achieve corporate goals. "It's business rather than politics," Mr. Nimmo said. "It's not one country targeting another country. It looks like an operation to promote a major multinational's interests — and to do it against a European state."
Though the social media campaign had little impact on Belgian policymakers, one telecom consultancy noted Huawei's fear that similar legislation "could spread to other parts of the world." (The article points out Belgium is the headquarters of both NATO and the European Union.)
But Phil Howard, the director of the Oxford Internet Institute, see a future where disinformation will become increasingly commercialized. "The flow of money is increasingly there," he tells the Times. "Large-scale social media influence operations are now part of the communications tool kit for any large global corporation."
But.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their constituents/electorate are.
Re: But.. (Score:2)
This is circular logic.
Like "We code for IE because that's what everyone's using!" and "We use IE because that's everyone is coding for!".
In other words: Grow a damn spine! All of "you"!
Re: (Score:2)
Shill (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the appropriate term here was "shill", not "troll", if they're paid to promote a particular viewpoint. An online "troll" has a well-established meaning online. I don't see that headline elsewhere, so apparently, EditorDavid is confused about the meaning of "troll", which seems a bit baffling for anyone on Slashdot. Is he confused because we mark shills as "-1 troll"? Odd.
And since when is this new? Granted, here on Slashdot I've seen people a little too quick to cry "shill" every time they see an opposing viewpoint, but does anyone doubt that these covert PR campaigns have been taking place online for a very long time?
Re: (Score:3)
In current parlance, an internet "troll" is a derogatory epithet for someone who says something that you don't like. An example of this is when people to 'online harassment by internet trolls' - clearly, people posting "GFY" on Twitter are not trolls by the decades-old definition of old internet users.
So these days, when you see 'troll', know that all it actually means is that the person using the name wants to target to shut up.
Re: Shill (Score:3)
It is. Shill, PR, propaganday etc, are all correct terms.
The Jargon File is the official geek autjority on such terms, and clearly states what the word means.
But the people who used to print out the Internet, use AOL, and now use Apple products as a drop-in substitute, apparently run the media. And they are in the process of ruining "troll", just like they ruined "hacker".
"propaganday" (Score:2)
You can thank Steve Jobs for that typo.
To be specific: Touch screen keyboards. (By default, the "y" is right below the "," on Android.)
Re:Shill (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you sort of wonder if the term Troll isn't being adopted exactly because it doesn't link into history. The even better term than "shill" - which normally means a real person using their real influence for money - is likely Astroturfer [wikipedia.org] - the use of fake personas for company benefit, often driving real people who don't realise they are being fooled. That would link directly to Microsoft's campaigns against Linux, the US Fossil Fuel industry's campaigns against renewable energy and even things like the Tea Party which pretended to be grassroots movements but were actually funded by US Oligarchs with the aim of defrauding the American people [theguardian.com].
With the exception of the Tea Party, though, most of those are not government linked and so not as dangerous as Huawei. Microsoft has got into some trouble for its tactics and could be subject to judicial review if they restarted that. Huawei is closely linked with the Chinese state, almost as much as ZTE, and so other countries allowing these campaigns on their territory is a much bigger risk than allowing Microsoft campaigns. If this is true then it is a real example of why Huawei should be banned in most countries.
Re: (Score:2)
And since when is this new?
Nothing new. We do it. They do it. The Russians do it. It is a "day in the strife". All sides promote false narratives, disinformation and fakes. Usually it is paid for journalists though, Twitter "experts" is a rather new one. I am surprised Huawei needs them as they payroll directly or indirectly (as consultants or highly dependent small country operator reps) ruling majorities in IETF, ITU, ETSI and 3GPP. With this level of "we are the standard" they do not really need to finance twitter shills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An online "troll" has a well-established meaning online.
No, it most certainly does not. Even here on Slashdot people mod comments as "Troll" when they are not at all troll, and then actually defend the decision. Trolling only applies to people trying to make other people mad, not just being wrong, but most people don't seem to know that. They call anything they don't like online trolling. Then you tell them that trolling has a specific meaning, and... they call you a troll.
Query twenty random internet users as to what "troll" means and you'll get twenty differen
Re: Shill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You and OP need to get a room.
Frankly I don't see how you manage to function in society, but that's none of my business.
What did you expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Half the USA's population have been turned into corporate "trolls" thanks to Presiclown Trump.
Of course the Chinese would be launching a counter-attack.
Just like this very article exists to grow a counter-counter attack.
And so on.
Because apparetly, both their dicks are teensy-tiny and they can't, for the life of them, just fuckin be nice to each other.
_ _ _
Oh, and "troll" is specifically defined as somebody who posts things for the sole purpose of derailing the discussion by triggering people to flood it wi
Marketing (Score:1)
They seem to be trying to sell their product by means of a marketing/influence campaign. In my country, I see the same in my local media about Huawei Mate phone or AppGallery.
On what basis does NYT consider this problematic or illicit?
Oh noes...China using interwebz for disinformation (Score:2)
Say it isn't so. They have legions of people on the payroll to do exactly that. The fact that it's now occurring outside of their borders is a new twist, but they've been doing this domestically for many years.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"A new twist in social media manipulation" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ahh. They caught Caffinated Bacon (Score:2)
Oh noes (Score:2)
"A Covert, Pro-Huawei Influence Campaign on Social Media"
Oh my, say it isn't so *cough*
This is not corporate objectives (Score:3)
This is Huawei. They are advancing CCP government objectives. They are trying to establish footholds in Western telecommunication systems.
Re: (Score:1)
Is there enough evidence to punish them, or is it hard to trace the source of the fake accounts?
Re: (Score:2)
This is Huawei. They are advancing CCP government objectives. They are trying to establish footholds in Western telecommunication systems.
This is a Capitalist company trying to make as much money as possible.
Seems they've invented Corporate PR / lobbying, and a way to use social media to influence peoples opinions. Very, very, smart. Oh wait, seems there is prior art. Every other company has already been doing this for a very long time.
Those damn Chinese again, always copying the West, never innovating.
MIT Media Lab founder had Huawei as a ghostwriter (Score:4, Interesting)
https://freebeacon.com/nationa... [freebeacon.com]
As one American university after another suspended research ties with Huawei for its alleged ties to Chinese espionage, MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte offered a full-throttle defense of the company.
"Don't ban Huawei," read [fastcompany.com] a May 2019 column published under Negroponte's name. "The U.S. should collaborate with leading technology companies and their research labs, rather than banning them."
Negroponte, however, did not write the column, at least according to Huawei employee Winter Wright, who noted [linkedin.com] on his LinkedIn profile [freebeacon.com] that he ghostwrote the article on behalf of the MIT scholar, whose research center has received millions of dollars in research funding from the Chinese tech company.
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. (Score:2)
Negroponte, however, did not write the column, at least according to Huawei employee Winter Wright, who noted on his LinkedIn profile that he ghostwrote the article on behalf of the MIT scholar, whose research center has received millions of dollars in research funding from the Chinese tech company.
Oh my!
Next you'll be telling me lobbyists write all our laws, and Congress just rubber stamps them without even reading them.
suspect that even /. have their share of trolls (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with half a brain and non-evil should be putting aside ALL the political bullshit and focus on ending the current crisis.
We've all been immersed and saturated up to our necks with political shit the last 4+ years and it's also time for that crap to stop.
What, are you kidding me!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Communications infrastructure is becoming a nation (Score:2)
After hearing enough briefings, itâ(TM)s pretty clear to me that communications infrastructure, (which in the past was implicitly controlled by American companies), never had to make statements about who made the equipment.
Now that foreign companies from China are advanced enough to provide cutting edge infrastructure to Americans, the Federal Government seems to be in the awkward position of having to make statements about who is able to provide the equipment that essentially carries all American dat