Comments on: Why won't Wikileaks trend on Twitter? http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Mon, 20 May 2013 14:50:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: erikswedberg http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-959005 erikswedberg Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-959005 from @k, http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/is-twitter-censoring-wikileaks from @k, http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismenning/is-twitter-censoring-wikileaks

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958506 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958506 Yes this post suggests that someone like Liberman called Twitter and decreed that trending WikiLeaks is treason. The intimidation directed at Amazon and Paypal by government employees last week were unconstitutional actions against free-speech. If you call this conspiracy then I guess that's what it is. Yes this post suggests that someone like Liberman called Twitter and decreed that trending WikiLeaks is treason. The intimidation directed at Amazon and Paypal by government employees last week were unconstitutional actions against free-speech. If you call this conspiracy then I guess that’s what it is.

]]> By: nate_freewheel http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-959028 nate_freewheel Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-959028 +1 +1

]]> By: mdh http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958523 mdh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958523 I believe it is because the investment bankers who fund a money-loser like Twitter have made a few things very clear to those who run Twitter. And PayPal. and Amazon. and oh yeah, SWISS BANKS, know throughout for seizing the assets of those accused of crimes in thrid countries with minimal evidence. The US could not get Swiss banks to seize the assets of convicted murderous dictators this fast, so ask yourself what's really going on here. Ask. Keep asking. I believe it is because the investment bankers who fund a money-loser like Twitter have made a few things very clear to those who run Twitter. And PayPal. and Amazon.

and oh yeah, SWISS BANKS, know throughout for seizing the assets of those accused of crimes in thrid countries with minimal evidence.

The US could not get Swiss banks to seize the assets of convicted murderous dictators this fast, so ask yourself what’s really going on here.

Ask. Keep asking.

]]> By: bangpound http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958274 bangpound Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958274 Or could it be Jack Dorsey is still collaborating with the U.S. State Department? From <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n23/james-harkin/cyber-con">LRB</a>: <blockquote>On a balmy evening in April 2009 Barham Salih, then deputy prime minister of Iraq, sat in the garden of his Baghdad villa while a young internet entrepreneur called Jack Dorsey tried to persuade him that he needed to be on Twitter. Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, was in Baghdad at the invitation of the State Department.</blockquote> Or could it be Jack Dorsey is still collaborating with the U.S. State Department? From LRB:

On a balmy evening in April 2009 Barham Salih, then deputy prime minister of Iraq, sat in the garden of his Baghdad villa while a young internet entrepreneur called Jack Dorsey tried to persuade him that he needed to be on Twitter. Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, was in Baghdad at the invitation of the State Department.

]]> By: CraigDanger http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958276 CraigDanger Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958276 I'm turning off the conspiracy-theory centers of my brain for a second. If it is an algorithm that "expires" trends, isn't that what keeps that list relatively "Bieber-Free?" And if so, isn't that a good thing? Not like people are unaware of WikiLeaks. I’m turning off the conspiracy-theory centers of my brain for a second. If it is an algorithm that “expires” trends, isn’t that what keeps that list relatively “Bieber-Free?” And if so, isn’t that a good thing? Not like people are unaware of WikiLeaks.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958279 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958279 I think part of it may be the clustering of Wikileaks and Cablegate tweets in relatively dense pockets... Still, to me, it seems to indicate something is wrong with the algorithm. I think part of it may be the clustering of Wikileaks and Cablegate tweets in relatively dense pockets… Still, to me, it seems to indicate something is wrong with the algorithm.

]]> By: mecredis http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958280 mecredis Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958280 Sounds like Twitter is pulling a Google and showing only relative spikes in volume. This is what they used to subdue Bieber fever: http://mashable.com/2010/05/14/twitter-improves-trending-topic-algorithm-bye-bye-bieber <blockquote>“The new algorithm identifies topics that are immediately popular, rather than topics that have been popular for a while or on a daily basis, to help people discover the ‘most breaking’ breaking news from across the world. (We had previously built in this ‘emergent’ algorithm for all local trends, described below.) We think that trending topics which capture the hottest emerging trends and topics of discussion on Twitter are the most interesting.”</blockquote> Sounds like Twitter is pulling a Google and showing only relative spikes in volume. This is what they used to subdue Bieber fever:

http://mashable.com/2010/05/14/twitter-improves-trending-topic-algorithm-bye-bye-bieber

“The new algorithm identifies topics that are immediately popular, rather than topics that have been popular for a while or on a daily basis, to help people discover the ‘most breaking’ breaking news from across the world. (We had previously built in this ‘emergent’ algorithm for all local trends, described below.) We think that trending topics which capture the hottest emerging trends and topics of discussion on Twitter are the most interesting.”

]]> By: acb http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958539 acb Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958539 All this a few days after <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/01/twitter-student-protesters-accounts">Twitter denied suppressing UK tuition fee protest tags and disabling protest-related accounts</a> too. All this a few days after Twitter denied suppressing UK tuition fee protest tags and disabling protest-related accounts too.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958285 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958285 The reason the #wikileaks tag didn't trend on Twitter was very simple. Wikileaks themselves asked people to use the tag #cablegate for tweets about the leak. So that tag was widely used, and appeared in the list of trending topics. If anyone conspired to stop #wikileaks trending, it was Wikileaks. The reason the #wikileaks tag didn’t trend on Twitter was very simple. Wikileaks themselves asked people to use the tag #cablegate for tweets about the leak. So that tag was widely used, and appeared in the list of trending topics.

If anyone conspired to stop #wikileaks trending, it was Wikileaks.

]]> By: tw15 http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958289 tw15 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958289 I understand that usernames don't trend. As @wikileaks is the name used by Wikileaks, it doesn't get on the list. This is why wikileaks recommends cablegate as the hashtag Infamy.infamy..they've all got it in for me. I understand that usernames don’t trend. As @wikileaks is the name used by Wikileaks, it doesn’t get on the list. This is why wikileaks recommends cablegate as the hashtag

Infamy.infamy..they’ve all got it in for me.

]]> By: Oskar http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958291 Oskar Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958291 So you're saying that you could immediately knock a trending topic off the list by registering it as a user-name? That doesn't sound right. Too easy to manipulate. Plus, I checked a few of the trending topics, and there were indeed registered accounts by those names (granted, very, very small accounts with few or no followers). So you’re saying that you could immediately knock a trending topic off the list by registering it as a user-name? That doesn’t sound right. Too easy to manipulate. Plus, I checked a few of the trending topics, and there were indeed registered accounts by those names (granted, very, very small accounts with few or no followers).

]]> By: fc http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958298 fc Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958298 I think the "usernames don't trend" has been misunderstood, it's just username mentions that don't trend, i.e. if people write @wikileaks it won't be counted. But it would do Twitter very good to release their list of blocked words, I guess "#fb" and "RT" are on it? I think the “usernames don’t trend” has been misunderstood, it’s just username mentions that don’t trend, i.e. if people write @wikileaks it won’t be counted.

But it would do Twitter very good to release their list of blocked words, I guess “#fb” and “RT” are on it?

]]> By: pridkett http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958300 pridkett Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958300 It was trending under the hashtag #cablegate a week or so ago. It's not anymore because either 1) fewer people are talking about it relative to other noise that the twitterati care more about or 2) the Bieber effect when Twitter changed their trending algorithm to show only abnormal spikes -- which would mean it's a hot topic with a high level of discussion, but no spikes to indicate anything above what is "normal" for the topic. It's not censorship. Yes, if anyone has a reason to fear a government conspiracy it probably is Wikileaks, but do you *REALLY* think there is some secret cabal in a back room saying "I know what will really get these infopirates! We'll keep them from trending on Twitter!" It was trending under the hashtag #cablegate a week or so ago. It’s not anymore because either 1) fewer people are talking about it relative to other noise that the twitterati care more about or 2) the Bieber effect when Twitter changed their trending algorithm to show only abnormal spikes — which would mean it’s a hot topic with a high level of discussion, but no spikes to indicate anything above what is “normal” for the topic.

It’s not censorship. Yes, if anyone has a reason to fear a government conspiracy it probably is Wikileaks, but do you *REALLY* think there is some secret cabal in a back room saying “I know what will really get these infopirates! We’ll keep them from trending on Twitter!”

]]> By: andygates http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958302 andygates Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958302 The other week, there was some paranoia about censorship when the #demo2010 hashtag -- used in the UK by the very well-attended and very heavily-tweeted student protests -- stopped appearing on the trending list. The protestors shifted to a different tag (#dayx) which trended nicely for the duration. I'm not sure whether the "only spikes trend" thing would apply. It seems to at first, but I'd have expected #dayx to disappear from the list and it was around for a good chunk of time. Hey Twitter! You read BB, so get on here and set this straight before we assume you're just a mouthpiece of the Man! The other week, there was some paranoia about censorship when the #demo2010 hashtag — used in the UK by the very well-attended and very heavily-tweeted student protests — stopped appearing on the trending list.

The protestors shifted to a different tag (#dayx) which trended nicely for the duration.

I’m not sure whether the “only spikes trend” thing would apply. It seems to at first, but I’d have expected #dayx to disappear from the list and it was around for a good chunk of time.

Hey Twitter! You read BB, so get on here and set this straight before we assume you’re just a mouthpiece of the Man!

]]> By: Flying_Monkey http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958305 Flying_Monkey Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958305 @pridkett, you don't have to believe in 'conspiracy theory' to realise that information management is one of the core jobs of state intelligence agencies. That's one of the reasons why the Wikileaks leaks are so challenged to states (and not just the US) in the first place. We've already seen how the US state is using its influence over all the communications outlets that it is able to influence to conduct damage minimization (and to bring Wikileaks down in the longer term). Considering how important Twitter is in terms of determining what is 'news' and in political organisation more broadly, it would actually more more surprising if the states that had the ability and the will to affect it didn't care and made no effort to influence Twitter. @pridkett, you don’t have to believe in ‘conspiracy theory’ to realise that information management is one of the core jobs of state intelligence agencies. That’s one of the reasons why the Wikileaks leaks are so challenged to states (and not just the US) in the first place. We’ve already seen how the US state is using its influence over all the communications outlets that it is able to influence to conduct damage minimization (and to bring Wikileaks down in the longer term). Considering how important Twitter is in terms of determining what is ‘news’ and in political organisation more broadly, it would actually more more surprising if the states that had the ability and the will to affect it didn’t care and made no effort to influence Twitter.

]]> By: Flying_Monkey http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958307 Flying_Monkey Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958307 aargh... 'challenging' not 'challenged' - why can't we have an edit function here? aargh… ‘challenging’ not ‘challenged’ – why can’t we have an edit function here?

]]> By: Rayonic http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958311 Rayonic Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958311 I've never heard the term "Cablegate" until this thread. Maybe it's just not popular enough to trend up? Personally, I hate all new -gate names unless they're funny or ironic. Like if there was a (large) scandal about the passing of legislation, we could call that "Billgate" and I'd be happy. I’ve never heard the term “Cablegate” until this thread. Maybe it’s just not popular enough to trend up?

Personally, I hate all new -gate names unless they’re funny or ironic. Like if there was a (large) scandal about the passing of legislation, we could call that “Billgate” and I’d be happy.

]]> By: benher http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958567 benher Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958567 Ignore those cables! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Look! over there - It's Lady Gaga pooping!!! Ignore those cables! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Look! over there – It’s Lady Gaga pooping!!!

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958314 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958314 Usernames can't be trending topics. Nothing nefarious. Usernames can’t be trending topics. Nothing nefarious.

]]> By: tw15 http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958317 tw15 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958317 Billgate is reserve for Microsoft scandals ;) Billgate is reserve for Microsoft scandals ;)

]]> By: tw15 http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958318 tw15 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958318 aargh... 'reserved' not 'reserve' - why can't we have an edit function here? aargh… ‘reserved’ not ‘reserve’ – why can’t we have an edit function here?

]]> By: jacobian http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958324 jacobian Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958324 You should probably bother to read the article first, as the evidence in the article is quite compelling and deals specifically with this issue. Similar examples of highly popular but sustained info stick for long periods as in the example of the oil spill. Obviously it's impossible to know for sure unless they provide us with the algorithm, but given the information in this article, it's very suggestive. The fact that wikileaks is miles above anything else ever means that if it isn't a conspiracy the algorithm is broken. You should probably bother to read the article first, as the evidence in the article is quite compelling and deals specifically with this issue. Similar examples of highly popular but sustained info stick for long periods as in the example of the oil spill. Obviously it’s impossible to know for sure unless they provide us with the algorithm, but given the information in this article, it’s very suggestive.

The fact that wikileaks is miles above anything else ever means that if it isn’t a conspiracy the algorithm is broken.

]]> By: Mike the Grouch http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958326 Mike the Grouch Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958326 #Twitter #is #stupid. #Now #maybe #if @Google #was #censoring #search #results #in #the @USA i cud c a rzn to gv a sht. #Twitter #is #stupid. #Now #maybe #if @Google #was #censoring #search #results #in #the @USA i cud c a rzn to gv a sht.

]]> By: andygates http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-961416 andygates Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-961416 So, by extension, the reason nobody notices except the supporters of a particular trend is that, really, none of the Biebernauts and Gaga Monsters care enough to call "conspiracy!" -- at least, not compared to the Serious Business folks. So, by extension, the reason nobody notices except the supporters of a particular trend is that, really, none of the Biebernauts and Gaga Monsters care enough to call “conspiracy!” — at least, not compared to the Serious Business folks.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958355 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958355 Yes that is what is being suggested. Did Liberman call Twitter and decree that allowing Wikileaks to trend is treason? Were you on a media fast last week? ;> Yes that is what is being suggested. Did Liberman call Twitter and decree that allowing Wikileaks to trend is treason? Were you on a media fast last week? ;>

]]> By: alllie http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958376 alllie Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958376 I don't understand the popularity of twitter. Why not just irc? I don’t understand the popularity of twitter. Why not just irc?

]]> By: jacobian http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-959407 jacobian Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-959407 You have completely failed to read the article as well IsolatedGestalt. The data is compared to profiles which trended for much longer with data that was more monotonically decreasing. It's pretty lazy to pretend like I haven't understood the issue when you haven't even looked at the data or the article. You have completely failed to read the article as well IsolatedGestalt. The data is compared to profiles which trended for much longer with data that was more monotonically decreasing. It’s pretty lazy to pretend like I haven’t understood the issue when you haven’t even looked at the data or the article.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958384 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958384 Cablegate? Why? Did the leak happen at the Cablegate hotel? Fuck this "story+gate=good" laziness. Cablegate? Why? Did the leak happen at the Cablegate hotel? Fuck this “story+gate=good” laziness.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958391 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-958391 Here's some analysis from the OpenNet Initiative on the similar issue presented earlier this year by both #iranelection and #flotilla: http://opennet.net/blog/2010/06/iranelection-censored-evaluating-twitters-trending-topics Here’s some analysis from the OpenNet Initiative on the similar issue presented earlier this year by both #iranelection and #flotilla:

http://opennet.net/blog/2010/06/iranelection-censored-evaluating-twitters-trending-topics

]]>