False Pro-China Accounts Invade Twitter in the UK

I have wondered whether the 50c army will go global, and what would become of forums like this one if it happens.

Twitter is just awful for so many reasons. I honestly think, of all the social media, the world would be most improved if Twitter disappeared.

Without commenting on China specifically, a few facts:

- The cheapest, safest way to "invade" the US (or any Western democracy) isn't through an army, but through manipulation of news, social media, and elections

- Indeed, if I'm Iran and I want Iraq attacked, it's much cheaper to manipulate the US into doing the dirty work than to attack myself.

- Much of the same is true of corporations -- a million spend lobbying can "buy" hundreds of millions in corrupt (but usually legal) profits.

- The checks-and-balances put in 250 years ago aren't adequate to defend democracy.

As a footnote: The second-cheapest way is through asymmetric attacks, such as cyberattacks, and increasingly, bioattacks. I don't want a debate about COVID19 origins, vaccines, or what-not (please don't), but the fact of the matter is that engineering a virus like COVID19 is within the grasp of most nation-states. That vulnerability went from theoretical to very, very visible. Genetic engineering will only get better. It's not implausible that soon we'll be able to engineer viruses which lead to long-term disability, decrease the IQ of a nation, or are at least somewhat selective by ethnicity (of course, once released, all bets are off). It's definitely possible to have vaccine-in-hand when releasing a bioweapon.

The study in question had its own criteria. However in my experience, I'm not sure if it is important to distinguish between someone who "brought his own rations" or is a bonafide member of the 50 cent army.

Toxic nationalism, shifting premises, constant deflection and whattaboutism are all present. Typically the troll in question will claim to be a native speaker of a language they have a poor understanding of. Taken all together, the presentation exceeds credulity. If nothing else the end result paints the narrative in a light of inept desperation.

The issue isn't necessarily with the content of the message, but the ineptitude of the deception. There's a special delight similar to obliging a telephone scammer who has a poor command of language and an absurd pitch.

1) The point is bogus. The upvote trajectory is typical for a HN frontpage submission. If you think there's an upvote ring, the appropriate behavior is to message moderators. The expected value of throwing around a random accusation without proof is zero.

2) I don't know where they took the 189 from, but the other numbers match what the report says. It could be that the article is garbage, but that is a very minor point. It's referencing research from a reputable institution, if you want to criticize the research or methodology, do so upstream.