*****
https://ducksoap.wordpress.com/2024/01/09/bbc-verify-counter-terrorism-and-social-media/
BBC Verify, counter-terrorism and social media
January 9, 2024 ducksoap
Marianna Spring, public face of BBC Verify, used her position to promote political propaganda of Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU). In Young Britons exposed to online radicalisation following Hamas attack, published 6th January 2024, she admitted her report was a PR campaign for the unit. She acted as its spokesperson. The title of the BBC article exposed extreme political bias: Users’ social media comments being “investigated” by CTIRU were allegedly reaction to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and but the title said “following Hamas attack [on 7th October 2023].”
–
As Spring is aware, conservative and pro-Israeli organisations routinely make false reports to police and other investigative bodies as a ruse to censor political opposition. It is common for political activists to be harassed by police, often under the guise of the Prevent scheme, and online censorship, including suspension of accounts, is a frequent occurrence following mendacious complaints by professional complainants.
–
The third paragraph of her appalling article (a single sentence in common with BBC practice of insulting the capabilities of its readers) is worth noting in full: “The team [CTIRU] says it has received more than 2,700 referrals from the public – shared via an online form – since Hamas attacked Israel, and Israel launched waves of air strikes on the Gaza Strip in return.”
–
Were all “referrals” from “the public?” How many were from professional political organisations?
How many of the “referrals” were bogus?
The phrase “waves of air strikes” failed to mention that all strikes were targetted deliberately at civilians in their homes, in schools and in hospitals, and failed to mention that tens of thousands of civilians have been slaughtered including over ten thousand children with tens of thousands more injured, and failed to mention water, food, fuel and medical supplies have been prevented from entering Gaza, and failed to mention people were told by Israeli military to gather in certain areas and then those areas were targetted, and failed to mention deliberate targetting and executions of journalists and their families, and failed to mention destruction of cemeteries and removal of bodies, and failed to mention military attacks, theft of Palestinian homes and theft of money from Palestinian money exchanges in West Bank, and failed to mention abduction of thousands of people some of whom were killed and all tortured.
“In return” sought to justify Israel’s genocide of people in Gaza.
–
The purpose of the article, or, more precisely, the purpose of the CTIRU propaganda that Spring was merely transcribing as an obedient servant, was to encourage more political censorship of social media content. “Matt Jukes, head of Counter Terror Policing, fears that while his team is tasked with tackling the most extreme content, there is a failure by social media companies to deal with the ‘overall climate’ of hate.” Jukes did not mean the armies of paid bots who attack every pro-Palestinian commentator.
–
“Officers told me they are being referred mainly antisemitic content being posted and shared by young Britons who have not been on their radar before.” “Referred” by whom? Are there any examples? (There were none given.) Antisemitism is a criminal matter not a “counter terror” matter. “Officers told me” but “the BBC is not naming the officers because of the nature of their work.”
–
The main theme of CTIRU’S promo piece, compiled by Spring, was development of a scare regarding use of social media to acquire, disseminate and share information and political analysis. In keeping with traditional authoritarian censorious strategy CTIRU depicted social media users writing “posts [that] are often reckless, reactive and emotional – made by youngsters very comfortable using these social media sites,” a comment by “one officer [unnamed]” according to Spring. “They [CTIRF] believe unsuspecting people are becoming ‘swept up‘ in sharing ‘naked antisemitism’.” The purpose of this tactic is to devalue the analytical prowess of social media users while also preparing a false excuse to demand more censorship of social media.
–
Spring admitted that social media platforms do not necessarily always enact the censorship demanded by police: “The officers [unnamed] say its been trickier with more borderline posts, where its unclear whether they’re in breach of the social media sites’ guidelines. ‘A lot of what we’re dealing with sits right on the threshold,’ one officer [unnamed] says.” He [unnamed] continued: “You’ve got this space where there might be content and commentary and material that is very unpalatable. At which point does that tip into a criminal space? It’s this team who are having to make these judgments.”
–
The last sentence quoted by Spring above is a false description of the law.
–
With the help of some comments by Jukes, Spring engaged in a haughty dismissal of the intelligence, powers of critical thinking and analytical skillset of “younger people.” As an older person I can appreciate the usefulness of cross-border social media interactions to educate, to express solidarity and to organise. “Younger people” can acquire knowledge and engage in dialogue so easily and do so outside of the censorious and biased theatre of mainstream newspapers, radio and TV. “Younger people” do not need nor want a BBC department led by someone with connections to intelligence services telling them what may or what may not be verifiable.
–
Jukes Spring
Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Matthew Jukes (left) and BBC Verify’s Marianna Spring
–
Jukes performed the usual twist of truth by calling solidarity an “echo chamber.” Like-minded people agreeing, reinforcing their knowledge and then, possibly, organising together – that is anathema to his type and his PR team at BBC Verify.
–
Spring, unsurprisingly, expressed support for the anti-democratic Online Safety Act, a recent product of Tory government’s attack on freedoms. “Responsibility for dealing with hateful posts lies with the social media companies. It also lies, to some extent, with policy makers looking to regulate the sites. New legislation like the Online Safety Act does force the social media companies to take responsibility for illegal content.”
–
Her final comment (below) was a declaration of fear. Political status quo fears public knowledge. It fears public access to knowledge that is not filtered through politicians’ statements or through conservative media outlets. The gap between accurate reporting on events, causes and consequences in Gaza and the disgustingly warped presentation in UK media outlets (including BBC news) is huge. Without access to social media – youtube, tiktok, facebook, instagram, X, etc. – the public’s knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Gaza would be reduced massively.
–
Spring’s fear: “These polarised and toxic conversations – which don’t cross any legal threshold – risk having a serious impact on public discourse. Not just in relation to this war as it rages on, but on the many elections happening across the world this year.” Politicians’ statements and media coverage of this year’s elections, including in UK and USA, will be packed with lies and misdirection. It is significant that conservative politicians use various contricks online (for example, by marketing firm Topham Guerin) to try to persuade (mostly younger) people to support them. That isn’t what Spring and CTIRU are fearful of; they fear facts.
–
BBC Verify offers nothing new or additional regarding factual accuracy. It routinely uses state bodies to confirm veracity. It is untrustworthy.
*****
Original BBC article by spook-adjacent Marianna Spring: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67884785
Note how all the examples of supposed 'hate' point towards the pro-Palestine social media users. Expressions of support for Hamas are verboten, thanks to the convenient designation by the UK govt of them as a terrorist organisation. However, the only indication of any kind of malevolence going in the other direction is a sole mention of 'material in from far-right groups, which has tended to be very pro-Israel'. Somehow all the statements made out in the open by Israeli officials (not just nobodies on twitter) advocating for literal genocide in Gaza (and not just calling for it - enabling it to happen in real time) have passed them by, and nobody has been repeating, endorsing or elaborating on these statements on any social media platform they've been looking at.
Biased servants of empire to the core,
I
Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously
http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Responses